104 Lbs lost and cured thanks to clean eating!
Options
Replies
-
thecunninglinguist wrote: »im not sure why clean eating gets bashed on here so often. its clearly superior in every way except for taste (and maybe cost/conveinience), and thats preference. to me "clean" or healthy foods taste better
you never see someone who only eats traditional healthy foods and is obese. its possible, but it just doesnt happen
LOL, I see obese people that claim to eat "clean" all the time. Calories in and Calories out my friend.
0 -
Congratulations on your loss.
In the last 11 months I have lost 144lbs, feel so much better than I can remember feeling in the past 16 years, have more energy, etc etc...
Most of that feeling is straight down to the fact that I have a whole less person's worth of weight weighing down my every movement.
But again, congrats in your success.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »thecunninglinguist wrote: »you never see someone who only eats traditional healthy foods and is obese. its possible, but it just doesnt happen
I'm not sure this is true. But it might depend on what you mean by "traditional healthy foods".
Honestly, I can't say I've met a person that became obese on a diet of only whole natural foods. But then, I'm not sure I've ever met someone that eats only whole natural foods. That's pretty hard in today's world.
I don't know what only "whole natural foods" are, which is one of the problems with this discussion.
I suspect that if you live where I do and choose to become a locavore who eats only what you process yourself, that it will be darn hard to become obese. Not because the food is magically non-fattening, but because it will be a LOT of work and certain things will be quite expensive or more trouble than they are worth.0 -
Congrats on the weightloss, OP! That's fantastic.
And now don't mind me while I get my chair and pull up to this roller-coaster of a dumpster fire.
0 -
JessieLMay wrote: »Clean eating isnt a diet that people use to lose weight, they usually eat better foods to aid in their weight loss.
I don't know what you mean by this. The OP suggested that "eating clean" was a way to lose weight. Yes, if your particular issue is eating lots of high calorie fast food and you stop that, sure, it will help, but that's not actually because you switched to eating clean, but because you lowered your calories.
When I got really hard core into eating a "natural" diet, I switched from boneless, skinless chicken breast and skim dairy to whole dairy, pastured pork and beef and whole roasted chicken with potatoes and the like (I ate lots of veggies in both cases, but felt more comfortable using butter or pork fat to cook with in my "natural" phase). I also did other things, like reduce my activity (the most significant factor to my weight gain), and I did not eat ONLY all natural, although I'm not 100% sure how we should define stuff like homemade peach cobbler (obviously the sugar and flour weren't processed by me), although that wasn't a particularly significant part of my diet during my initial gain.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with eating in the way I formerly called "natural." I still do to a certain extent (although I'm more laid back about it and more likely to value foods that help weight loss like 2% milk). I'm saying we shouldn't confuse what's healthy (which includes plenty of processed foods, like the greek yogurt and smoked salmon I mentioned, dried beans, non local and bagged spinach, many leaner meats, etc.), what's less processed, and what's "natural" or "clean" (whatever that means--and no one seems to agree).
Honestly, most of these arguments could be avoided if people wouldn't insist on using stupid and vague terms like "clean" and wouldn't confuse "eating clean" (which I think is supposed to mean organics or avoiding processed food or some such) with eating a nutrition-centered diet.
Not that I expect anyone to address the point. Instead, you will ignore everything I've said and claim I'm anti people eating vegetables or some nonsense, as if I didn't myself.
0 -
let's not pretend that there isn't a health difference between an ounce of smoked salmon and a 10¢ bag of ramen when we're talking processed foods).
The only ones pretending that are those claiming that "processed" foods are inherently bad and "unclean."thecunninglinguist wrote: »i use "clean" and "healthy" interchangeably.
So does that mean that anything "healthy" is considered "clean," even if processed? So if I personally think a Quest bar is healthy I can claim it's "clean"? And if I think tuna steak (not canned tuna, to be clear) has too much of a mercury risk, it's "unclean"? And if I think a high calorie treat made with fruit and honey and almond flour I grind myself is, well, not sufficiently nutrient dense for the calories and thus as unhealthy as you might consider my own strawberry-rhubarb pie, then it becomes "unclean"? Hmm.
Or are you claiming that you actually do consider anything "processed" to be "unhealthy." I think you've got a high bar of proof to show that eating greek yogurt or skinless boneless chicken breast (which I don't even like much, but eh) or egg whites from a carton or smoked salmon or frozen veggies or some canned tomatoes and dried whole grain pasta, for just some examples that I've used, is "unhealthy" or not consistent with eating a nutrient-dense, balanced diet.
(We can discuss whether ice cream is "healthy" later, and whether it reasonably should matter whether you buy it or make your own, although I'm all for the latter.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »thecunninglinguist wrote: »you never see someone who only eats traditional healthy foods and is obese. its possible, but it just doesnt happen
I'm not sure this is true. But it might depend on what you mean by "traditional healthy foods".
Honestly, I can't say I've met a person that became obese on a diet of only whole natural foods. But then, I'm not sure I've ever met someone that eats only whole natural foods. That's pretty hard in today's world.
I don't know what only "whole natural foods" are, which is one of the problems with this discussion.
I suspect that if you live where I do and choose to become a locavore who eats only what you process yourself, that it will be darn hard to become obese. Not because the food is magically non-fattening, but because it will be a LOT of work and certain things will be quite expensive or more trouble than they are worth.
I think one thing that might make it hard to become overweight would be oils. If you limit to only consuming oils you grow/process on your own, that could be very limiting.
But depending on what type of meat and how many nuts/seeds you consume, it wouldn't be hard for people with lower calorie maintenance levels to exceed that level even without store bought oils.
I don't know anyone that lives that way though, so it's all just speculation on my part.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Since both of those foods are processed, that seems unlikely. Also, I'm not sure I've ever seen/heard anyone that eats clean call foods unclean. It's a big world so there probably are some, but I can't remember ever hearing or seeing it.0 -
Congratulations on finding what works for you and the improvement in your health.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Since both of those foods are processed, that seems unlikely. Also, I'm not sure I've ever seen/heard anyone that eats clean call foods unclean. It's a big world so there probably are some, but I can't remember ever hearing or seeing it.
Well, to recap, that was my initial point--that some foods that strike me as healthy (or positive contributions to a healthy diet) are processed, so cutting out processed foods does not seem to me to be focusing on the right things if you are trying to "eat healthy." Many of the processed foods I eat are chosen because I think they contribute to my health. As examples, I identified greek yogurt (plain) and smoked salmon, as those are ones I eat a lot.
Another poster dismissively said that no one claims that ramen and smoked salmon are the same, even though both are processed.
But by saying it's about processed vs. unprocessed foods (which is what I believe the "clean" eating assertion is) people ARE claiming that processed foods are inherently bad, whether smoked salmon (which usually has some sugar from the process too) or ramen (or a Big Mac, if you prefer).
Also, if some foods are "clean," the others are "unclean."
It would be possible to avoid all this if people would stop with the "clean eating" terminology and just be more specific and precise about what they mean. I just get tired of being told that if you don't pretend to exclude processed foods (since obviously no one really does entirely, not anyone here anyway) that you can't care about nutrition or health.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »thecunninglinguist wrote: »you never see someone who only eats traditional healthy foods and is obese. its possible, but it just doesnt happen
I'm not sure this is true. But it might depend on what you mean by "traditional healthy foods".
Honestly, I can't say I've met a person that became obese on a diet of only whole natural foods. But then, I'm not sure I've ever met someone that eats only whole natural foods. That's pretty hard in today's world.
I don't know what only "whole natural foods" are, which is one of the problems with this discussion.
I suspect that if you live where I do and choose to become a locavore who eats only what you process yourself, that it will be darn hard to become obese. Not because the food is magically non-fattening, but because it will be a LOT of work and certain things will be quite expensive or more trouble than they are worth.
I think one thing that might make it hard to become overweight would be oils. If you limit to only consuming oils you grow/process on your own, that could be very limiting.
But depending on what type of meat and how many nuts/seeds you consume, it wouldn't be hard for people with lower calorie maintenance levels to exceed that level even without store bought oils.
I don't know anyone that lives that way though, so it's all just speculation on my part.
Good points.
I'd bet quite a lot that the vast majority of self-proclaimed "clean eaters" on MFP don't cut out oils, though.
When I was in my "all natural" stage I actually did reduce my consumption of olive oil, though (which had been the primary oil I used and is again) in favor of butter and animal fats (cooking potatoes with meat so as to use the fat, collecting bacon fat, etc.). Tasty, but not really low cal or especially healthier. (I am not anti butter or animal fat now, but I use more moderation.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Since both of those foods are processed, that seems unlikely. Also, I'm not sure I've ever seen/heard anyone that eats clean call foods unclean. It's a big world so there probably are some, but I can't remember ever hearing or seeing it.
Well, to recap, that was my initial point--that some foods that strike me as healthy (or positive contributions to a healthy diet) are processed, so cutting out processed foods does not seem to me to be focusing on the right things if you are trying to "eat healthy." Many of the processed foods I eat are chosen because I think they contribute to my health. As examples, I identified greek yogurt (plain) and smoked salmon, as those are ones I eat a lot.
Another poster dismissively said that no one claims that ramen and smoked salmon are the same, even though both are processed.
But by saying it's about processed vs. unprocessed foods (which is what I believe the "clean" eating assertion is) people ARE claiming that processed foods are inherently bad, whether smoked salmon (which usually has some sugar from the process too) or ramen (or a Big Mac, if you prefer).
Also, if some foods are "clean," the others are "unclean."
It would be possible to avoid all this if people would stop with the "clean eating" terminology and just be more specific and precise about what they mean. I just get tired of being told that if you don't pretend to exclude processed foods (since obviously no one really does entirely, not anyone here anyway) that you can't care about nutrition or health.
Only in a black and white world would the bolded line be true. It's like saying everything that is not healthy is unhealthy.0 -
thecunninglinguist wrote: »clean isnt the best word, shouldve just said healthy
So you'd amend to "eating a healthy diet is healthy and can often help with weight loss"?
I'd agree with that, although we might not agree on what precisely constitutes a healthy diet in all cases (as is natural, as there are unsettled and grey areas and different reactions to foods).
And, yes, I'm glad you found something that works for you, OP.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »thecunninglinguist wrote: »you never see someone who only eats traditional healthy foods and is obese. its possible, but it just doesnt happen
I'm not sure this is true. But it might depend on what you mean by "traditional healthy foods".
Honestly, I can't say I've met a person that became obese on a diet of only whole natural foods. But then, I'm not sure I've ever met someone that eats only whole natural foods. That's pretty hard in today's world.
I don't know what only "whole natural foods" are, which is one of the problems with this discussion.
I suspect that if you live where I do and choose to become a locavore who eats only what you process yourself, that it will be darn hard to become obese. Not because the food is magically non-fattening, but because it will be a LOT of work and certain things will be quite expensive or more trouble than they are worth.
I think one thing that might make it hard to become overweight would be oils. If you limit to only consuming oils you grow/process on your own, that could be very limiting.
But depending on what type of meat and how many nuts/seeds you consume, it wouldn't be hard for people with lower calorie maintenance levels to exceed that level even without store bought oils.
I don't know anyone that lives that way though, so it's all just speculation on my part.
Good points.
I'd bet quite a lot that the vast majority of self-proclaimed "clean eaters" on MFP don't cut out oils, though.
When I was in my "all natural" stage I actually did reduce my consumption of olive oil, though (which had been the primary oil I used and is again) in favor of butter and animal fats (cooking potatoes with meat so as to use the fat, collecting bacon fat, etc.). Tasty, but not really low cal or especially healthier. (I am not anti butter or animal fat now, but I use more moderation.)
Yeah, I was thinking rendered fats (lard, tallow, duck fat) or home pressed nut oils because I wouldn't consider bacon clean.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »thecunninglinguist wrote: »you never see someone who only eats traditional healthy foods and is obese. its possible, but it just doesnt happen
I'm not sure this is true. But it might depend on what you mean by "traditional healthy foods".
Honestly, I can't say I've met a person that became obese on a diet of only whole natural foods. But then, I'm not sure I've ever met someone that eats only whole natural foods. That's pretty hard in today's world.
I don't know what only "whole natural foods" are, which is one of the problems with this discussion.
I suspect that if you live where I do and choose to become a locavore who eats only what you process yourself, that it will be darn hard to become obese. Not because the food is magically non-fattening, but because it will be a LOT of work and certain things will be quite expensive or more trouble than they are worth.
I think one thing that might make it hard to become overweight would be oils. If you limit to only consuming oils you grow/process on your own, that could be very limiting.
But depending on what type of meat and how many nuts/seeds you consume, it wouldn't be hard for people with lower calorie maintenance levels to exceed that level even without store bought oils.
I don't know anyone that lives that way though, so it's all just speculation on my part.
Good points.
I'd bet quite a lot that the vast majority of self-proclaimed "clean eaters" on MFP don't cut out oils, though.
When I was in my "all natural" stage I actually did reduce my consumption of olive oil, though (which had been the primary oil I used and is again) in favor of butter and animal fats (cooking potatoes with meat so as to use the fat, collecting bacon fat, etc.). Tasty, but not really low cal or especially healthier. (I am not anti butter or animal fat now, but I use more moderation.)
Yeah, I was thinking rendered fats (lard, tallow, duck fat) or home pressed nut oils because I wouldn't consider bacon clean.
Delicious though. I have a half-mason jar full of rendered bacon fat in my refrigerator. Awesome for roasting/sauteing vegetables, especially spinach. Spinach and bacon fat are soul mates.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Yeah, I was thinking rendered fats (lard, tallow, duck fat) or home pressed nut oils because I wouldn't consider bacon clean.
Probably depends on how it's made, whether you cure it yourself, so on. But that's one of the things on which "clean eaters" seem not to all agree, indeed. ;-)0 -
My favourite in this stuff is always the reference to natural vegetables. Cos, um, nature didn't make most of the veggies on your dinner plate (using most to allow for anyone collecting wild, undomesticated plant foods), humans did. A lot of the undomesticated antecedents of our modern domesticated vegetables aren't even recognisable, and some were poisonous.
That's not to say veggies aren't good for you. And yes, I'm being pedantic with semantics, but bandying around words like 'natural' and 'clean' with no clear definition (or outright changing the definition to suit) irks me. Broccoli does not occur in nature. Corn? Corn we have messed with to the point that it is so indehiscent that if we stopped planting it, it would cease to exist within a few years, because it can't self seed (talking domesticated corn here, obviously its wild antecedent would be just fine - also, took scientists years to figure out where corn even came from, because its ancestor is so vastly different to the delicious yellow cobs we munch down on. Like seriously, baffling mystery for ages).
But well done on your weight loss OP
0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »My favourite in this stuff is always the reference to natural vegetables. Cos, um, nature didn't make most of the veggies on your dinner plate (using most to allow for anyone collecting wild, undomesticated plant foods), humans did. A lot of the undomesticated antecedents of our modern domesticated vegetables aren't even recognisable, and some were poisonous.
That's not to say veggies aren't good for you. And yes, I'm being pedantic with semantics, but bandying around words like 'natural' and 'clean' with no clear definition (or outright changing the definition to suit) irks me. Broccoli does not occur in nature. Corn? Corn we have messed with to the point that it is so indehiscent that if we stopped planting it, it would cease to exist within a few years, because it can't self seed (talking domesticated corn here, obviously its wild antecedent would be just fine - also, took scientists years to figure out where corn even came from, because its ancestor is so vastly different to the delicious yellow cobs we munch down on. Like seriously, baffling mystery for ages).
But well done on your weight loss OP
Broccoli doesn't exist in nature. I'm not sure that is true. Nature is the world outside of man. I think it's debatable whether that means man never ever had a hand in it's existance, or only that it can exist without man now.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions