Eating what you like vs. clean eating vs. following weight watchers or low carb or other method

15678911»

Replies

  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,372 Member
    I eat what I want within my calories, which means limiting some things obviously so that I don't get hungry too. When I tried to restrict sweets, I ended up binging.

    The only times I eat over is Holidays, special events, and PMS pretty much (and I don't even binge, I just get very hungry and need complex carbs to be satiated).
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    ana3067 wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    ana3067 wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    I would much rather have no ice cream than the one tablespoon of ice cream that actually fits in my goals - so no, I don't eat what I want because quantity is a big part of what I want, for some foods.

    You however may be different - not everybody is the same.

    LOL

    a tablespoon of ice cream is .005% of a serving or something ridiculous like that….

    A tablespoon is 15ml. A traditional scoop of ice cream is (or at least was) 50ml. A typical ice cream is ~2.5 calories/ml, so it's a difference of roughly 40 calories vs 120 calories.

    I don't have 80 extra calories to blow on it, and a tablespoon would just be torturing myself, so....easier to abstain entirely.

    Others are free to chose their own "right" answer, even if it involves detached-from-reality hyperbole....

    :drinker:

    That you say you can't even use 100 calories of your day on ice cream kinda makes me sad.

    Why? I use those 100 calories for something I want more. Yeah, I *love* ice cream - but I have fitness and health goals that are more important to me than a few moments of transitory gastromic pleasure.

    To me this a cause for happiness, not sadness.


    How big is your deficit if 100 calories of non nutrient dense food is going to offput your fitness and health goals?

    But it's not just 100 calories - because it's not just ice cream. Let's say we bring in the ice cream - what about the other treats? Do I say yes to all of them, just because "it's only 100 calories!"...?

    What about the Dorritos? The hot dogs? The Key Lime Pie?

    The line has to be drawn somewhere - that's the meaning of "restriction". And where ever that line is drawn, there will be a whole lot of things you have to say "No" to. Even if you don't totally exclude, you most exclude - and it's still a lot of saying "No".

    There's no way around it.


    Ice cream Monday, Dorritos Tuesday, Hot dogs (these are considered "treats"?) Wednesday, pie on Thursday?

    Just eat one slide of pie instead of the whole pie :/

    A slice of key lime pie is ~500 calories.

    Shall I pull out my tablespoon-sized serving dish again? :wink:

    And? I ate three cookies, some chocolate, and a PB-butterscotch thing today because for whatever reason today I was just really craving sweets. Probably got close to 500 calories of treats. It fits my calories, and my macros and micros will balance out throughout the week as I eat more nutrient-dense foods. If I went over because of a slice of pie then I would either just not care and call it a maintenance day, or I would eat 100 calories fewer every day for the next 5 days to get back to my weekly average.

    You seem to be making things more complicated than they need to be.

    Seriously, I do this frequently. I eat pretty crappy in the overall scheme of things. I just don't understand what the negative aspect of someone not wanting to eat a cookie? It has nothing to do on whether they eat the cookie. It has to do with what their mental relationship with said cookie that determines if they are looking at food negatively and demonizing foods.

    Someone who just doesn't eat the cookie cause it's not worth the calories in their mind still most likely has a good relationship with food.

  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited April 2015
    Hornsby wrote: »
    ana3067 wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    ana3067 wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    I would much rather have no ice cream than the one tablespoon of ice cream that actually fits in my goals - so no, I don't eat what I want because quantity is a big part of what I want, for some foods.

    You however may be different - not everybody is the same.

    LOL

    a tablespoon of ice cream is .005% of a serving or something ridiculous like that….

    A tablespoon is 15ml. A traditional scoop of ice cream is (or at least was) 50ml. A typical ice cream is ~2.5 calories/ml, so it's a difference of roughly 40 calories vs 120 calories.

    I don't have 80 extra calories to blow on it, and a tablespoon would just be torturing myself, so....easier to abstain entirely.

    Others are free to chose their own "right" answer, even if it involves detached-from-reality hyperbole....

    :drinker:

    That you say you can't even use 100 calories of your day on ice cream kinda makes me sad.

    Why? I use those 100 calories for something I want more. Yeah, I *love* ice cream - but I have fitness and health goals that are more important to me than a few moments of transitory gastromic pleasure.

    To me this a cause for happiness, not sadness.


    How big is your deficit if 100 calories of non nutrient dense food is going to offput your fitness and health goals?

    But it's not just 100 calories - because it's not just ice cream. Let's say we bring in the ice cream - what about the other treats? Do I say yes to all of them, just because "it's only 100 calories!"...?

    What about the Dorritos? The hot dogs? The Key Lime Pie?

    The line has to be drawn somewhere - that's the meaning of "restriction". And where ever that line is drawn, there will be a whole lot of things you have to say "No" to. Even if you don't totally exclude, you most exclude - and it's still a lot of saying "No".

    There's no way around it.


    Ice cream Monday, Dorritos Tuesday, Hot dogs (these are considered "treats"?) Wednesday, pie on Thursday?

    Just eat one slide of pie instead of the whole pie :/

    A slice of key lime pie is ~500 calories.

    Shall I pull out my tablespoon-sized serving dish again? :wink:

    And? I ate three cookies, some chocolate, and a PB-butterscotch thing today because for whatever reason today I was just really craving sweets. Probably got close to 500 calories of treats. It fits my calories, and my macros and micros will balance out throughout the week as I eat more nutrient-dense foods. If I went over because of a slice of pie then I would either just not care and call it a maintenance day, or I would eat 100 calories fewer every day for the next 5 days to get back to my weekly average.

    You seem to be making things more complicated than they need to be.

    Seriously, I do this frequently. I eat pretty crappy in the overall scheme of things. I just don't understand what the negative aspect of someone not wanting to eat a cookie? It has nothing to do on whether they eat the cookie. It has to do with what their mental relationship with said cookie that determines if they are looking at food negatively and demonizing foods.

    Someone who just doesn't eat the cookie cause it's not worth the calories in their mind still most likely has a good relationship with food.

    Well I certainly don't demonize cookies or ice cream. My bent is to the savoury - most of the time I'd rather have a greasy rotiserrie chicken than a cookie or ice cream. That the former is more valuable in terms of meeting macros and satiety is a big plus - I consider myself lucky. :drinker:

    If anything, the disordered thinking is with those who view diet choices in such stark terms that they are compelled to demonize someone *voluntarily* making a knowledge- and preference-based *choice* to not eat cookies or ice cream.

    Such preoccupation with - and emotional internalizing of - other people's food choices is...not healthy, IMO.
  • noclady1995
    noclady1995 Posts: 452 Member
    I started eating mostly clean last week and drinking close to a gallon of water a day and have found my weight dropping. I started my fitness/weight loss plan in Feb. and was losing and gaining the same 2 lbs every week, and I was getting beyond frustrated. Here's my problem, I don't think I was logging accurately and I wasn't aware of whether I was even meeting my macros. I even went on a radical 3-day diet. I lost the weight, but it wasn't a sustainable diet. So I started researching the typical diets (not competition diets) of fitness competitors and put together my daily meal plans. I eat the same thing for every meal, every day. I noticed that my body does NOT react well to a lot of sodium. I had ham on Sunday and on Monday noticed I "gained" 2 lbs. Well, after going back on my "diet", that water weight fell back off. This way of eating has worked well for me, and I'll keep eating this way because I really do love it.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Hornsby wrote: »
    ana3067 wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    ana3067 wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    I would much rather have no ice cream than the one tablespoon of ice cream that actually fits in my goals - so no, I don't eat what I want because quantity is a big part of what I want, for some foods.

    You however may be different - not everybody is the same.

    LOL

    a tablespoon of ice cream is .005% of a serving or something ridiculous like that….

    A tablespoon is 15ml. A traditional scoop of ice cream is (or at least was) 50ml. A typical ice cream is ~2.5 calories/ml, so it's a difference of roughly 40 calories vs 120 calories.

    I don't have 80 extra calories to blow on it, and a tablespoon would just be torturing myself, so....easier to abstain entirely.

    Others are free to chose their own "right" answer, even if it involves detached-from-reality hyperbole....

    :drinker:

    That you say you can't even use 100 calories of your day on ice cream kinda makes me sad.

    Why? I use those 100 calories for something I want more. Yeah, I *love* ice cream - but I have fitness and health goals that are more important to me than a few moments of transitory gastromic pleasure.

    To me this a cause for happiness, not sadness.


    How big is your deficit if 100 calories of non nutrient dense food is going to offput your fitness and health goals?

    But it's not just 100 calories - because it's not just ice cream. Let's say we bring in the ice cream - what about the other treats? Do I say yes to all of them, just because "it's only 100 calories!"...?

    What about the Dorritos? The hot dogs? The Key Lime Pie?

    The line has to be drawn somewhere - that's the meaning of "restriction". And where ever that line is drawn, there will be a whole lot of things you have to say "No" to. Even if you don't totally exclude, you most exclude - and it's still a lot of saying "No".

    There's no way around it.


    Ice cream Monday, Dorritos Tuesday, Hot dogs (these are considered "treats"?) Wednesday, pie on Thursday?

    Just eat one slide of pie instead of the whole pie :/

    A slice of key lime pie is ~500 calories.

    Shall I pull out my tablespoon-sized serving dish again? :wink:

    And? I ate three cookies, some chocolate, and a PB-butterscotch thing today because for whatever reason today I was just really craving sweets. Probably got close to 500 calories of treats. It fits my calories, and my macros and micros will balance out throughout the week as I eat more nutrient-dense foods. If I went over because of a slice of pie then I would either just not care and call it a maintenance day, or I would eat 100 calories fewer every day for the next 5 days to get back to my weekly average.

    You seem to be making things more complicated than they need to be.

    Seriously, I do this frequently. I eat pretty crappy in the overall scheme of things. I just don't understand what the negative aspect of someone not wanting to eat a cookie? It has nothing to do on whether they eat the cookie. It has to do with what their mental relationship with said cookie that determines if they are looking at food negatively and demonizing foods.

    Someone who just doesn't eat the cookie cause it's not worth the calories in their mind still most likely has a good relationship with food.

    This. I actually think we are getting into some kind of semantic discussion of what it means to "want" something and not to eat it. I want stuff and don't eat it all the time, but that doesn't mean I think more than a second about it or suffer any lasting regret for choosing for whatever reason not to eat it.
  • Crystalnp1981
    Crystalnp1981 Posts: 6 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    How do you define "processed foods"? I never understand why cutting out smoked salmon or boneless skinless chicken breast or Greek yogurt would further someone's diet aims or be considered inherently more healthy. (I personally will strongly support the view that whole chicken is a lot tastier than the boneless skinless stuff, though.)

    When I say "processed foods" I think of food such as boxed meals, pastas, processed meat like bologna. Foods with additives. I wouldn't necessarily consider boneless skinless chicken breast as processed. Yes it went through a process to remove the skin and bone but typically it does not have additives and preservatives added to it. I try to focus on lean meats and vegetables (fresh or frozen).

  • Tatarataa
    Tatarataa Posts: 178 Member
    What I also do is to try to find things I like that fill me up at a low calories level. This often results in things like salads or vegetables or nonfat yoghurt. But I eat them because I like them and they help me to feel satisfied and not hungry all the time within my caorie limit. And they allow me to eat the "unhelthier" treats I like as well while still staying within my calorie level. So for me, summing up, it helps most to play around with the "composition" of my days or even the week (I am looking more at my weekly or want to try that-only a beginner so far). This can also mean that I eat mostly chunk one day while focussing more on whole low calorie food the next day. I could also imagine me experimenting with different "diet" forms like clean eating or ww for a week or so in between. And to me, this is the wonderful thing about calorie counting: it leaves you room for variation!
  • otheliemoor
    otheliemoor Posts: 50 Member
    My biggest change is that I've stopped grazing. I have 4-5 'meals' a day, and that is what I eat instead of snacking all day. Because it turns out that eating a little all the time adds up the calories.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    How do you define "processed foods"? I never understand why cutting out smoked salmon or boneless skinless chicken breast or Greek yogurt would further someone's diet aims or be considered inherently more healthy. (I personally will strongly support the view that whole chicken is a lot tastier than the boneless skinless stuff, though.)

    When I say "processed foods" I think of food such as boxed meals, pastas, processed meat like bologna. Foods with additives. I wouldn't necessarily consider boneless skinless chicken breast as processed. Yes it went through a process to remove the skin and bone but typically it does not have additives and preservatives added to it. I try to focus on lean meats and vegetables (fresh or frozen).

    So whole wheat pasta = bad because boxed and processed????
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    How do you define "processed foods"? I never understand why cutting out smoked salmon or boneless skinless chicken breast or Greek yogurt would further someone's diet aims or be considered inherently more healthy. (I personally will strongly support the view that whole chicken is a lot tastier than the boneless skinless stuff, though.)

    When I say "processed foods" I think of food such as boxed meals, pastas, processed meat like bologna. Foods with additives. I wouldn't necessarily consider boneless skinless chicken breast as processed. Yes it went through a process to remove the skin and bone but typically it does not have additives and preservatives added to it. I try to focus on lean meats and vegetables (fresh or frozen).

    So whole wheat pasta = bad because boxed and processed????

    beware-carb-monster1.jpg
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited April 2015
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    How do you define "processed foods"? I never understand why cutting out smoked salmon or boneless skinless chicken breast or Greek yogurt would further someone's diet aims or be considered inherently more healthy. (I personally will strongly support the view that whole chicken is a lot tastier than the boneless skinless stuff, though.)

    When I say "processed foods" I think of food such as boxed meals, pastas, processed meat like bologna. Foods with additives. I wouldn't necessarily consider boneless skinless chicken breast as processed. Yes it went through a process to remove the skin and bone but typically it does not have additives and preservatives added to it. I try to focus on lean meats and vegetables (fresh or frozen).

    I wish people would use less confusing terms.

    I think "convenience foods" is a better name for boxed meals, but there's a huge variation between boxed meals. Some around here are made for the "paleo" or "clean eating" types and are basically "additive" free in that sense, and actually pretty tasty looking if I were someone who wanted a premade meal. Others look sad to me (Lean Cuisine), but aren't bad for a diet if you like them (I do not). Others are high calorie. There are any number of other variations.

    I do eat pasta, and really don't see what's wrong with it. I know how to make it (I used to be a wacko about making everything myself), but the dried often works better and I tend to eat whole wheat versions at home, but beyond that what makes a pasta dish healthy or not is what you put in the sauce and my sauces are always full of veggies and protein and reasonably low cal, with just olive oil and maybe a bit of cheese as the fat (or olives, which I love).

    Most pastas are 100% wheat, so I don't know what additives are being discussed there.

    It's weird in that I'm so not a clean eater in my own view, but even when I was getting fat I never ate most of the things that most "clean" eaters seem to think were a big deal to cut out, I guess (like bologna and boxed meals and fast food). So when people say they cut out "processed" foods I think about all the processed foods I find convenient and helpful--like those I mentioned in my question. Thus, the confusion.
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    edited April 2015
    I eat a pasta that's made from beans and water. Very high in protein and fiber. That being said, I just don't understand the random distinction sometimes with "clean". What makes pasta... a very simple 2 ingredient food... whether it's wheat pasta or rice pasta or what have you... unclean?

    It's harvested and milled and well, I've made pasta as well. You mix flour and water and knead the everloving daylights out of it to develop the gluten.

    Unclean? I don't get it.

    The process of making flour makes something unclean? Grinding a grain? Huh? Or in the case of what I eat, grinding a dried bean? It's not a chemical process, it's a physical process.

    I think that the clean eaters go a bit to far in the whole thing. Do they realize that the act of cooking is processing food? It's actually causing a chemical reaction within the food! Shocking!
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    edited April 2015
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    How do you define "processed foods"? I never understand why cutting out smoked salmon or boneless skinless chicken breast or Greek yogurt would further someone's diet aims or be considered inherently more healthy. (I personally will strongly support the view that whole chicken is a lot tastier than the boneless skinless stuff, though.)

    When I say "processed foods" I think of food such as boxed meals, pastas, processed meat like bologna. Foods with additives. I wouldn't necessarily consider boneless skinless chicken breast as processed. Yes it went through a process to remove the skin and bone but typically it does not have additives and preservatives added to it. I try to focus on lean meats and vegetables (fresh or frozen).
    So you're referring, generally, to heavily processed convenience foods (hamburger helper, tv dinners, and the like). Pasta (noodles) don't generally fit that category. I suppose some of the "enriched" noodles could, but not generally. Usually noodles are just semolina/durum wheat.
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    ana3067 wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    ana3067 wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    I would much rather have no ice cream than the one tablespoon of ice cream that actually fits in my goals - so no, I don't eat what I want because quantity is a big part of what I want, for some foods.

    You however may be different - not everybody is the same.

    LOL

    a tablespoon of ice cream is .005% of a serving or something ridiculous like that….

    A tablespoon is 15ml. A traditional scoop of ice cream is (or at least was) 50ml. A typical ice cream is ~2.5 calories/ml, so it's a difference of roughly 40 calories vs 120 calories.

    I don't have 80 extra calories to blow on it, and a tablespoon would just be torturing myself, so....easier to abstain entirely.

    Others are free to chose their own "right" answer, even if it involves detached-from-reality hyperbole....

    :drinker:

    That you say you can't even use 100 calories of your day on ice cream kinda makes me sad.

    Why? I use those 100 calories for something I want more. Yeah, I *love* ice cream - but I have fitness and health goals that are more important to me than a few moments of transitory gastromic pleasure.

    To me this a cause for happiness, not sadness.


    How big is your deficit if 100 calories of non nutrient dense food is going to offput your fitness and health goals?

    But it's not just 100 calories - because it's not just ice cream. Let's say we bring in the ice cream - what about the other treats? Do I say yes to all of them, just because "it's only 100 calories!"...?

    What about the Dorritos? The hot dogs? The Key Lime Pie?

    The line has to be drawn somewhere - that's the meaning of "restriction". And where ever that line is drawn, there will be a whole lot of things you have to say "No" to. Even if you don't totally exclude, you most exclude - and it's still a lot of saying "No".

    There's no way around it.


    Ice cream Monday, Dorritos Tuesday, Hot dogs (these are considered "treats"?) Wednesday, pie on Thursday?

    Just eat one slide of pie instead of the whole pie :/

    A slice of key lime pie is ~500 calories.

    Shall I pull out my tablespoon-sized serving dish again? :wink:

    And? I ate three cookies, some chocolate, and a PB-butterscotch thing today because for whatever reason today I was just really craving sweets. Probably got close to 500 calories of treats. It fits my calories, and my macros and micros will balance out throughout the week as I eat more nutrient-dense foods. If I went over because of a slice of pie then I would either just not care and call it a maintenance day, or I would eat 100 calories fewer every day for the next 5 days to get back to my weekly average.

    You seem to be making things more complicated than they need to be.

    Seriously, I do this frequently. I eat pretty crappy in the overall scheme of things. I just don't understand what the negative aspect of someone not wanting to eat a cookie? It has nothing to do on whether they eat the cookie. It has to do with what their mental relationship with said cookie that determines if they are looking at food negatively and demonizing foods.

    Someone who just doesn't eat the cookie cause it's not worth the calories in their mind still most likely has a good relationship with food.

    This. I actually think we are getting into some kind of semantic discussion of what it means to "want" something and not to eat it. I want stuff and don't eat it all the time, but that doesn't mean I think more than a second about it or suffer any lasting regret for choosing for whatever reason not to eat it.
    Beyond the split second when I make a decision, I don't really think about what I choose not to eat either.

    I'd imagine it's hard to spend a lot of time thinking about what you're not eating.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    I eat a pasta that's made from beans and water. Very high in protein and fiber. That being said, I just don't understand the random distinction sometimes with "clean". What makes pasta... a very simple 2 ingredient food... whether it's wheat pasta or rice pasta or what have you... unclean?

    It's harvested and milled and well, I've made pasta as well. You mix flour and water and knead the everloving daylights out of it to develop the gluten.

    Unclean? I don't get it.

    The process of making flour makes something unclean? Grinding a grain? Huh? Or in the case of what I eat, grinding a dried bean? It's not a chemical process, it's a physical process.

    I think that the clean eaters go a bit to far in the whole thing. Do they realize that the act of cooking is processing food? It's actually causing a chemical reaction within the food! Shocking!

    When one has to label foods as good or bad based on the degree of processing, this is usually what happens...

    It is fun to watch the verbal gymnastics..
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    "Processed foods" means different things to different people. That's where the confusion usually arises. A person uses their judgment to define their own frames of "processed" and may assume everyone else has the same frames, so in their mind "processed foods" is not as ambiguous as it actually is.

    I try to eat less canned foods when possible because I have pre-hypertension and canned foods often have a lot of sodium. I'm not fanatical about it, but those are the frames I like to operate within. There is nothing wrong in having personal frames, and it doesn't even have to make sense. It doesn't have to have clear definitions or rules. That's why it's personal - something that makes a person feel better and more in control.

    For example I have this recent kink about BPA containing things like plastic and cans because I read somewhere that BPA showed a positive correlation with blood pressure. Yeah it was a one-off study, and no amount of reasoning (even my own) will make me less wary of it. The only change I needed to make was to buy soda in glass bottles instead of cans and to carry a glass water bottle, since I don't eat canned foods often anyway. I'm aware it's just a phase, but I will gladly ride it for peace of mind until it dies out.