The Clean Eating Myth
Options
Replies
-
Just for fun and giggles..
I would even be willing to change the example.
Person A is a male 35 years old 200 pounds
Person B is a feamale 30 years old and say 160 pounds
they both eat a 500 calorie deficit and strength train four days a week.
Person A = clean eating
Person B = IIFYM
who loses more weight..
I still go with C - both of them lose about the same ...
lol thats being wicked lol
me trying to make something clear here and explain and explain now you are going to make it even more difficult for some...
wanders off to her work files ( still lots to do) and wait till the fun starts all over again rofl
0 -
zomg this debate n e v e r e n d s
reasons clean eating might work
- may help some with adherence. rule-based eating is easier for some than others (different reasons for that - "no junk in the house" is easy to follow)
- is usually more satiating for fewer calories
- may unintentionally address undiagnosed or subclinical metabolic issues
reasons clean eating might not work
- overly rigid. rule-based eating is terrible for some (different reasons for that - feeling deprived, etc.)
- not particularly sociable way of eating; eating food with others is important
- people with no metabolic issues to speak of may not need it or see a difference
- may counter familiar preferences (may be boring, etc)0 -
Just for fun and giggles..
I would even be willing to change the example.
Person A is a male 35 years old 200 pounds
Person B is a feamale 30 years old and say 160 pounds
they both eat a 500 calorie deficit and strength train four days a week.
Person A = clean eating
Person B = IIFYM
who loses more weight..
I still go with C - both of them lose about the same ...
I suppose if you're specifying the deficit is exactly the same then of course they lose the same.
0 -
TheOwlhouseDesigns wrote: »Just for fun and giggles..
I would even be willing to change the example.
Person A is a male 35 years old 200 pounds
Person B is a feamale 30 years old and say 160 pounds
they both eat a 500 calorie deficit and strength train four days a week.
Person A = clean eating
Person B = IIFYM
who loses more weight..
I still go with C - both of them lose about the same ...
lol thats being wicked lol
me trying to make something clear here and explain and explain now you are going to make it even more difficult for some...
wanders off to her work files ( still lots to do) and wait till the fun starts all over again rofl
my bad ..did not mean to throw a monkey wrench into the thread...0 -
girlviernes wrote: »Just for fun and giggles..
I would even be willing to change the example.
Person A is a male 35 years old 200 pounds
Person B is a feamale 30 years old and say 160 pounds
they both eat a 500 calorie deficit and strength train four days a week.
Person A = clean eating
Person B = IIFYM
who loses more weight..
I still go with C - both of them lose about the same ...
I suppose if you're specifying the deficit is exactly the same then of course they lose the same.
but what about the hormones in females?
0 -
zomg this debate n e v e r e n d s
reasons clean eating might work
- may help some with adherence. rule-based eating is easier for some than others (different reasons for that - "no junk in the house" is easy to follow)
- is usually more satiating for fewer calories
- may unintentionally address undiagnosed or subclinical metabolic issues
reasons clean eating might not work
- overly rigid. rule-based eating is terrible for some (different reasons for that - feeling deprived, etc.)
- not particularly sociable way of eating; eating food with others is important
- people with no metabolic issues to speak of may not need it or see a difference
- may counter familiar preferences (may be boring, etc)
that really was not even in the ball park of my OP …..0 -
girlviernes wrote: »Just for fun and giggles..
I would even be willing to change the example.
Person A is a male 35 years old 200 pounds
Person B is a feamale 30 years old and say 160 pounds
they both eat a 500 calorie deficit and strength train four days a week.
Person A = clean eating
Person B = IIFYM
who loses more weight..
I still go with C - both of them lose about the same ...
I suppose if you're specifying the deficit is exactly the same then of course they lose the same.
but what about the hormones in females?
that's often legit. it's an approved (recommended!) treatment for PCOS, for example.0 -
TheOwlhouseDesigns wrote: »Just for fun and giggles..
I would even be willing to change the example.
Person A is a male 35 years old 200 pounds
Person B is a feamale 30 years old and say 160 pounds
they both eat a 500 calorie deficit and strength train four days a week.
Person A = clean eating
Person B = IIFYM
who loses more weight..
I still go with C - both of them lose about the same ...
lol thats being wicked lol
me trying to make something clear here and explain and explain now you are going to make it even more difficult for some...
wanders off to her work files ( still lots to do) and wait till the fun starts all over again rofl
my bad ..did not mean to throw a monkey wrench into the thread...
but you did....hope it is clean
0 -
zomg this debate n e v e r e n d s
reasons clean eating might work
- may help some with adherence. rule-based eating is easier for some than others (different reasons for that - "no junk in the house" is easy to follow)
- is usually more satiating for fewer calories
- may unintentionally address undiagnosed or subclinical metabolic issues
reasons clean eating might not work
- overly rigid. rule-based eating is terrible for some (different reasons for that - feeling deprived, etc.)
- not particularly sociable way of eating; eating food with others is important
- people with no metabolic issues to speak of may not need it or see a difference
- may counter familiar preferences (may be boring, etc)
that really was not even in the ball park of my OP …..
sure it is.0 -
zomg this debate n e v e r e n d s
reasons clean eating might work
- may help some with adherence. rule-based eating is easier for some than others (different reasons for that - "no junk in the house" is easy to follow)
- is usually more satiating for fewer calories
- may unintentionally address undiagnosed or subclinical metabolic issues
reasons clean eating might not work
- overly rigid. rule-based eating is terrible for some (different reasons for that - feeling deprived, etc.)
- not particularly sociable way of eating; eating food with others is important
- people with no metabolic issues to speak of may not need it or see a difference
- may counter familiar preferences (may be boring, etc)
that really was not even in the ball park of my OP …..
sure it is.
where did I ask for pros and cons of clean eating????0 -
TheOwlhouseDesigns wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »TheOwlhouseDesigns wrote: »The question was
Two identical people ( notice the keyword identical)
Who do you believe loses more, person (A) who eat clean 1500 calories or the other person (B) who eats 1500 calories and eat not clean.
Just to clarify, I don't think the OP actually stated a calorie intake, rather that both people are eating at a 500 cal deficit (which would factor in any discrepancies in TDEE). Two people eating the same number of calories will only lose the same amount of weight if they also have the same deficit. (Owl, I know you know this
)
yes he did
look here from his first post
" The question goes something like this. If you eat 1500 calories of clean food, and are in a calorie deficit, then you will lose more weight than the person that is eating 1500 calories of say a moderate diet that includes processed food, nutrient dense foods, and some ice cream and/or other treats, and is also in a calorie deficit < It is usually phrased as a question, but sometimes as a statement."
Ah, right you are Owl. I was wanting to emphasise the fact their deficit is the same in the scenario, before someone came along and said 'but one's TDEE may be higher and then so is their deficit'. 0 -
girlviernes wrote: »Just for fun and giggles..
I would even be willing to change the example.
Person A is a male 35 years old 200 pounds
Person B is a feamale 30 years old and say 160 pounds
they both eat a 500 calorie deficit and strength train four days a week.
Person A = clean eating
Person B = IIFYM
who loses more weight..
I still go with C - both of them lose about the same ...
I suppose if you're specifying the deficit is exactly the same then of course they lose the same.
but what about the hormones in females?
Well I think the hormones are acting in some way on the CICO equation, so on the CO for example. So at least how I interpret it, if you are saying there is a 500 kcal deficit that is incorporating any hormonal effects.
0 -
zomg this debate n e v e r e n d s
reasons clean eating might work
- may help some with adherence. rule-based eating is easier for some than others (different reasons for that - "no junk in the house" is easy to follow)
- is usually more satiating for fewer calories
- may unintentionally address undiagnosed or subclinical metabolic issues
reasons clean eating might not work
- overly rigid. rule-based eating is terrible for some (different reasons for that - feeling deprived, etc.)
- not particularly sociable way of eating; eating food with others is important
- people with no metabolic issues to speak of may not need it or see a difference
- may counter familiar preferences (may be boring, etc)
that really was not even in the ball park of my OP …..
sure it is.
where did I ask for pros and cons of clean eating????
a) you don't have to ask me anything in particular for me to respond
b) your thread title is "myths of clean eating". i offered some reasons it might work (or not work)
correction title is not exactly that, same diff0 -
all right night crew…play nice while I go to la la land aka bed…
I look forward to reading this thread while drinking my AM coffee tomorrow….0 -
Hormonal issues would fall in the medical issues category i believe so if both your test subjects have no 'medical issues' then they should lose the same, no?0
-
girlviernes wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Just for fun and giggles..
I would even be willing to change the example.
Person A is a male 35 years old 200 pounds
Person B is a feamale 30 years old and say 160 pounds
they both eat a 500 calorie deficit and strength train four days a week.
Person A = clean eating
Person B = IIFYM
who loses more weight..
I still go with C - both of them lose about the same ...
I suppose if you're specifying the deficit is exactly the same then of course they lose the same.
but what about the hormones in females?
Well I think the hormones are acting in some way on the CICO equation, so on the CO for example. So at least how I interpret it, if you are saying there is a 500 kcal deficit that is incorporating any hormonal effects.
I agree ..
I was being sarcastic 0 -
usernameenvy wrote: »Hormonal issues would fall in the medical issues category i believe so if both your test subjects have no 'medical issues' then they should lose the same, no?
yes. …
Again, I was being a bit of an wise *kitten*..
because you know, woman are so hormonal and all, so I wanted to know about the hormonal impact < that is a joke people…I am just messing around… LOL
0 -
girlviernes wrote: »Just for fun and giggles..
I would even be willing to change the example.
Person A is a male 35 years old 200 pounds
Person B is a feamale 30 years old and say 160 pounds
they both eat a 500 calorie deficit and strength train four days a week.
Person A = clean eating
Person B = IIFYM
who loses more weight..
I still go with C - both of them lose about the same ...
I suppose if you're specifying the deficit is exactly the same then of course they lose the same.
but what about the hormones in females?
Assuming no medical conditions affecting hormones, that's surely taken into account in TDEE is it not? Therefore, if their deficit is the same, their weight loss will be the same.0 -
girlviernes wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Just for fun and giggles..
I would even be willing to change the example.
Person A is a male 35 years old 200 pounds
Person B is a feamale 30 years old and say 160 pounds
they both eat a 500 calorie deficit and strength train four days a week.
Person A = clean eating
Person B = IIFYM
who loses more weight..
I still go with C - both of them lose about the same ...
I suppose if you're specifying the deficit is exactly the same then of course they lose the same.
but what about the hormones in females?
Well I think the hormones are acting in some way on the CICO equation, so on the CO for example. So at least how I interpret it, if you are saying there is a 500 kcal deficit that is incorporating any hormonal effects.
I agree ..
I was being sarcastic
Ah the joys of online sarcasm
0 -
I see ! lol i haven't read enough of your posts to gauge your sense of humor !0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions