The Clean Eating Myth
Options
Replies
-
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »
Forget about the 500 calorie deficit for a minute. I said the clean eater could have a higher defict (i.e. greater than 500 calories) than the non clean eater, whilst maintaining his nutritional needs . In other words he can eat fewer calories and still be healthy; the junk eater needs more calories to get his macro/micronutrients in because he is eating stuff that doesn't have a good calorie to nutrient ratio. 'Empty calories', dare I use the term.
Or the clean eater could eat more than the dirty eater based on volume and calories and still retain the fabled 500 calorie deficit. So a 1500 calorie diet of "dirty" foods would be equivalent to let's say 1800 in a clean eater because of the metabolics involved. Either way - you are right - the clean eater wouldn't have to eat 1500 to obtain the nutrients that a dirty eater would obtain at 1500. Nice point.
What are these metabolics you speak of?
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »No person A will lose more weight ***Period*** What everyone fails to take into consideration is that person A who eats a balanced diet and probably has slow releasing complex carbs in their diet will be able to expend more energy than person B eating donuts. While person B will have a burst of energy up front that will be short lived and the workout will end quicker than person A's who is on a steady energy release path.
Please re-read my original post, I specifically said that Person B hits their macros/micros, eats some nutrient dense foods, and fills in rest with treats like ice cream.
That does not change my answer. I have done a clean diet and I have done a somewhat clean diet with some level of crap. I can state without repudiation that I cannot workout with the same intensity and focus when there is crap even in smallish quantities. I am not saying that is bad or good; because I certainly enjoy my crap food; but I do know without doubt; I feel more sluggish and unable to perform at the same level; which mean I burn less calories.
What are you labeling "crap" food?
And your n=1 does not prove anything. I have no issues with energy and workouts and I more than likely eat the foods that you are labeling as "crap"....
Finally, my OP did not ask for your personal experience, I asked for a discussion based on parameters that I laid out.
In my experience people don't realise how 'crap' they actually feel until they're forced (quite often by some health issue) to try another way. And one person's potential for feeling good may be much higher than someone else's.
I'm curious, have you ever actually tried substituting the junk for extra 'real' food?
To use an analogy, my friend smokes two packs a day, has more energy than most people and and says she feels fine. I tell her if she quit smoking she'd be bloody Wonderwoman.
As a 2nd n=1, I just recently substituted a whole bunch of 'junk' for my usual 'real' food for a couple of weeks. Not planned, I just really, really wanted cupcakes. And ice cream. And fried chicken with biscuits.
Result? I killed my workouts. Felt better than I had in ages during lifting - weights I'd been having difficulty with felt easy. I threw in an extra rep at the end of the last sets just because I felt that good. I could have thrown in more but figured I'd better stick to my program.
Running? Ran 13 miles averaging 9:20 min/mi. My previous fastest at distances > 8 mi was 9:40 min/mi. Didn't feel like that run was any more difficult than previous longer runs. Of course, that came with a price - at the end, I realized I'd strained an ankle so I couldn't run for a week.
I believe the performance jump was the result of the increase in % carbs. And, probably, I went over on calories - so much easier to do with those kinds of foods than my usual poached chicken, veg, etc. I believe I could have gotten similar results with 'real' food if I ate more starchy veg. But really, I like potatoes and such, but I don't love them. So it's not going to happen.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
You believe he weighed out 1500 calories of cake each day and ate nothing else, and gained weight over a long period?Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
You are simply taking his word for everything he said but there is no proof to back up his claims.
Yes, I believe he is truthful, just as I believe you are telling the truth and others who have posted here... if we have to suspect everyone of lying, there would be no point to any of these discussions at all. Anyone could fake their diary, photoshop their photos, how do we know?
So why don't we all agree to trust one another.
I have no response to that.
I didn't eat 1500 calories of cake each day. I was creating a position of eating just cake (which someone did - Twinkie diet reference) versus eating a nutritious diet. The Twinkie guy lost the weight - but he also qualified his results by adding that he didn't know what the long-term ramifications of his undertaking did to him - or would do to anyone.
That's the point I've been making in making that statement. You can eat 1500 calories of cake and lose weight - but there's a whole minefield there in doing so - and it's not sustainable long-term. Hence why everyone refuses to do it.
I was weighing it all out and I was submitting diaries to my PTs at the time I was eating a diet that was more full of processed food than not. Many people could testify under oath to this - and many people saw me eat when I was eating poorly (nutrition-wise) that I wasn't eating enough in volume. I was not a closet eater. I wouldn't sit and eat 10 cookies in one sitting with no one watching. I would eat one cookie - and it was a normal sized portion, in a day.
Disappointed to read and see an implication that I am untruthful in my previous remarks when I was not.
if you did not do it then why do you keep telling everyone else to do it?
The twinkie diet guy lost weight AND had improved blood panels, so not sure how he was not healthier post twinkie diet...
The problem with discussions like these is that people want to use ridiculous comparison points like 1500 calories of cake VS 1500 calories of clean food.
He admitted that the long-term ramifications for his diet were very inconclusive - he did so in interviews. Short-term, yes - long-term, not so fast. That assumes he would have to maintain his diet by increasing his caloric intake to a "maintenance" level - which is where I go and suggest that anyone doing so is just putting themselves in a no-win position health-wise - it's not sustainable.
I am making a point by positing the above - no one in their right mind would ever eat 1500 calories of cake and only cake for one year because of the health ramifications of doing so.
That's why I tie good dietary nutrition to CICO. Inevitably, people will flee choices like the one I am made above for a more rounded dietary profile.
I am doing so to make a point. You validate the point that you (or anyone) would ever do that - or has done it. That's the point.
Here we go again with the "nothing but cake" strawman. Hate to break it to you, Ted, but nobody in the IIFYM camp ever recommended that.
Why don't we just add "excluding the middle" to your logical fallacy BINGO card?
Oh the irony! Most people in the "clean eating" camp never advocated eating 100% clean all the time. Yet here you guys go with that strawman!
ummm yes they do, go search the forums and search clean eating...
Well that's crazy. Their orthorexia shouldn't be used to discredit those who feel there is a benefit to eating "clean" 80% of the time.0 -
I have been asked this a few times over the past days, or it has been posed in a general sense in some threads, so I am going to put it out here to discuss in this thread.
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.
So anyway, the ridiculous premise is that if Person A (Lets says a 35 year old 200 pound 5'10 male) eats clean food and is in a calorie deficit; they will lose more than Person B (also a 35 year old 200 pound 5-10 male). For the purpose of this discussion Person A and B have no medical condition; both Person A & B engage in strength training four times a week for an hour a session; both person A & B are in a 500 calorie daily deficit.
Understanding that 100 calories of carrots = 100 calories of donuts from an energy perspective. However, they are not nutritionally the same. What matters is the context of ones diet and that you are hitting micros and macros.
so anyway, who will lose more weigh Person A, or Person B?
My answer is C they will both lose relatively the save weight within about +/- five pounds of one another.
discuss….
It's a loaded question because you didn't define "clean food" and there isn't any real definition. Furthermore your "moderate diet" could be almost anything. For the sake of argument, I'll just assume the person eating "clean" is eating mostly minimally processed foods. And I'll assume the moderate diet includes a lot of highly processed foods.
In that case the person eating "clean" would lose slightly more weight. This is because calories are determined by "Atwater" calculations. Atwater tends to underestimate calories in highly processed foods and overestimate calories in minimally processed foods. The reason is that highly processed and cooked foods are absorbed more readily in your GI tract (nothing to do with "thermal effect").
how are you defining minimally process vs highly processed?
and most clean eaters stipulate the processed foods are "bad" and do not distinguish between one form or another.
Really, you're not familiar with those terms? Here some basic info for you:
http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/teaching-the-food-system/curriculum/_pdf/Food_Processing-Background.pdf
I am familiar with it..but I want to know how you are defining it for the purpose of this discussion.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
You believe he weighed out 1500 calories of cake each day and ate nothing else, and gained weight over a long period?Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
You are simply taking his word for everything he said but there is no proof to back up his claims.
Yes, I believe he is truthful, just as I believe you are telling the truth and others who have posted here... if we have to suspect everyone of lying, there would be no point to any of these discussions at all. Anyone could fake their diary, photoshop their photos, how do we know?
So why don't we all agree to trust one another.
I have no response to that.
I didn't eat 1500 calories of cake each day. I was creating a position of eating just cake (which someone did - Twinkie diet reference) versus eating a nutritious diet. The Twinkie guy lost the weight - but he also qualified his results by adding that he didn't know what the long-term ramifications of his undertaking did to him - or would do to anyone.
That's the point I've been making in making that statement. You can eat 1500 calories of cake and lose weight - but there's a whole minefield there in doing so - and it's not sustainable long-term. Hence why everyone refuses to do it.
I was weighing it all out and I was submitting diaries to my PTs at the time I was eating a diet that was more full of processed food than not. Many people could testify under oath to this - and many people saw me eat when I was eating poorly (nutrition-wise) that I wasn't eating enough in volume. I was not a closet eater. I wouldn't sit and eat 10 cookies in one sitting with no one watching. I would eat one cookie - and it was a normal sized portion, in a day.
Disappointed to read and see an implication that I am untruthful in my previous remarks when I was not.
if you did not do it then why do you keep telling everyone else to do it?
The twinkie diet guy lost weight AND had improved blood panels, so not sure how he was not healthier post twinkie diet...
The problem with discussions like these is that people want to use ridiculous comparison points like 1500 calories of cake VS 1500 calories of clean food.
He admitted that the long-term ramifications for his diet were very inconclusive - he did so in interviews. Short-term, yes - long-term, not so fast. That assumes he would have to maintain his diet by increasing his caloric intake to a "maintenance" level - which is where I go and suggest that anyone doing so is just putting themselves in a no-win position health-wise - it's not sustainable.
I am making a point by positing the above - no one in their right mind would ever eat 1500 calories of cake and only cake for one year because of the health ramifications of doing so.
That's why I tie good dietary nutrition to CICO. Inevitably, people will flee choices like the one I am made above for a more rounded dietary profile.
I am doing so to make a point. You validate the point that you (or anyone) would ever do that - or has done it. That's the point.
Here we go again with the "nothing but cake" strawman. Hate to break it to you, Ted, but nobody in the IIFYM camp ever recommended that.
Why don't we just add "excluding the middle" to your logical fallacy BINGO card?
Oh the irony! Most people in the "clean eating" camp never advocated eating 100% clean all the time. Yet here you guys go with that strawman!
Um, yes they do. That's been the past 12 pages. The argument is that person A eats mostly "clean-ish" (hard to define obviously but nutritious foods) and fills in the blanks with stuff like ice cream. The clean eating people aren't saying that's OK, in fact they're arguing that it's not.
0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »
Forget about the 500 calorie deficit for a minute. I said the clean eater could have a higher defict (i.e. greater than 500 calories) than the non clean eater, whilst maintaining his nutritional needs . In other words he can eat fewer calories and still be healthy; the junk eater needs more calories to get his macro/micronutrients in because he is eating stuff that doesn't have a good calorie to nutrient ratio. 'Empty calories', dare I use the term.
Or the clean eater could eat more than the dirty eater based on volume and calories and still retain the fabled 500 calorie deficit. So a 1500 calorie diet of "dirty" foods would be equivalent to let's say 1800 in a clean eater because of the metabolics involved. Either way - you are right - the clean eater wouldn't have to eat 1500 to obtain the nutrients that a dirty eater would obtain at 1500. Nice point.
what????
Do you ever make sense?0 -
-
Very well put. Too many variables to consider from person a to person B.Justygirl77 wrote: »
This is an "All Things Being Equal" scenario. When it exists, then FINE! If all you are measuring is the one-dimensional result of losing weight, and are satisfied and get those results, Bravo!I have been asked this a few times over the past days, or it has been posed in a general sense in some threads, so I am going to put it out here to discuss in this thread.
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.
So anyway, the ridiculous premise is that if Person A (Lets says a 35 year old 200 pound 5'10 male) eats clean food and is in a calorie deficit; they will lose more than Person B (also a 35 year old 200 pound 5-10 male). For the purpose of this discussion Person A and B have no medical condition; both Person A & B engage in strength training four times a week for an hour a session; both person A & B are in a 500 calorie daily deficit.
Understanding that 100 calories of carrots = 100 calories of donuts from an energy perspective. However, they are not nutritionally the same. What matters is the context of ones diet and that you are hitting micros and macros.
so anyway, who will lose more weigh Person A, or Person B?
My answer is C they will both lose relatively the save weight within about +/- five pounds of one another.
discuss….
For a many people, All Things Are Not Equal! There are other factors (whether they are measuring/tracking them or not) which are weighing into the scenario, causing this simplistic model to NOT WORK.
It's because the body is not simple math. If CICO is all you are interested in, then you are not interested in physiology, or else you don't really care enough when other signs of problems (showing up as symptoms a person is having) are causing people to fail with the CICO mindset.
0 -
"Highly processed foods are made from combinations of unprocessed food, minimally processed
food and processed food ingredients.4 Many are designed with consumer convenience in mind.4
They are often portable, can be eaten anywhere (while driving, working at the office and watching
TV, for example) and require little or no preparation.4,11 Discussions of “processed foods” in the
popular media often refer to products in this category. Highly processed foods include snacks and
desserts, such as cereal bars, biscuits, chips, cakes and pastries, ice cream and soft drinks;4 as well
as breads, pasta, breakfast cereals and infant formula.4,5,11 Highly processed animal products
include smoked, canned, salted and cured meats11 and products made from extruded remnants of
meat, such as nuggets, hot dogs and some sausages and burgers.5 Many vegetarian alternatives to
meat are also highly processed.11 Highly processed foods are made using techniques like mixing,
baking, frying, curing, smoking and the addition of vitamins and minerals.4
Given the wide variety of foods that could qualify as highly processed and the lack of any clear,
widely accepted criteria for defining them as such, it is difficult to make any generalizations about
the nutritional value of highly processed foods. Some health professionals, however, have
expressed concern over the growing popularity of certain highly processed foods in diets."
So baking something makes it highly processed? If I bake chicken does that mean it is highly processed?
If I make a turkey sandwich and can hold it in my hand and eat while watching tv it is then highly processed?
This is why this whole processed = bad argument gets ludicrous.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
You believe he weighed out 1500 calories of cake each day and ate nothing else, and gained weight over a long period?Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
You are simply taking his word for everything he said but there is no proof to back up his claims.
Yes, I believe he is truthful, just as I believe you are telling the truth and others who have posted here... if we have to suspect everyone of lying, there would be no point to any of these discussions at all. Anyone could fake their diary, photoshop their photos, how do we know?
So why don't we all agree to trust one another.
I have no response to that.
I didn't eat 1500 calories of cake each day. I was creating a position of eating just cake (which someone did - Twinkie diet reference) versus eating a nutritious diet. The Twinkie guy lost the weight - but he also qualified his results by adding that he didn't know what the long-term ramifications of his undertaking did to him - or would do to anyone.
That's the point I've been making in making that statement. You can eat 1500 calories of cake and lose weight - but there's a whole minefield there in doing so - and it's not sustainable long-term. Hence why everyone refuses to do it.
I was weighing it all out and I was submitting diaries to my PTs at the time I was eating a diet that was more full of processed food than not. Many people could testify under oath to this - and many people saw me eat when I was eating poorly (nutrition-wise) that I wasn't eating enough in volume. I was not a closet eater. I wouldn't sit and eat 10 cookies in one sitting with no one watching. I would eat one cookie - and it was a normal sized portion, in a day.
Disappointed to read and see an implication that I am untruthful in my previous remarks when I was not.
if you did not do it then why do you keep telling everyone else to do it?
The twinkie diet guy lost weight AND had improved blood panels, so not sure how he was not healthier post twinkie diet...
The problem with discussions like these is that people want to use ridiculous comparison points like 1500 calories of cake VS 1500 calories of clean food.
He admitted that the long-term ramifications for his diet were very inconclusive - he did so in interviews. Short-term, yes - long-term, not so fast. That assumes he would have to maintain his diet by increasing his caloric intake to a "maintenance" level - which is where I go and suggest that anyone doing so is just putting themselves in a no-win position health-wise - it's not sustainable.
I am making a point by positing the above - no one in their right mind would ever eat 1500 calories of cake and only cake for one year because of the health ramifications of doing so.
That's why I tie good dietary nutrition to CICO. Inevitably, people will flee choices like the one I am made above for a more rounded dietary profile.
I am doing so to make a point. You validate the point that you (or anyone) would ever do that - or has done it. That's the point.
Here we go again with the "nothing but cake" strawman. Hate to break it to you, Ted, but nobody in the IIFYM camp ever recommended that.
Why don't we just add "excluding the middle" to your logical fallacy BINGO card?
Oh the irony! Most people in the "clean eating" camp never advocated eating 100% clean all the time. Yet here you guys go with that strawman!
ummm yes they do, go search the forums and search clean eating...
Well that's crazy. Their orthorexia shouldn't be used to discredit those who feel there is a benefit to eating "clean" 80% of the time.
You realize you just described Person B, right?I have been asked this a few times over the past days, or it has been posed in a general sense in some threads, so I am going to put it out here to discuss in this thread.
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
0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »
Forget about the 500 calorie deficit for a minute. I said the clean eater could have a higher defict (i.e. greater than 500 calories) than the non clean eater, whilst maintaining his nutritional needs . In other words he can eat fewer calories and still be healthy; the junk eater needs more calories to get his macro/micronutrients in because he is eating stuff that doesn't have a good calorie to nutrient ratio. 'Empty calories', dare I use the term.
Or the clean eater could eat more than the dirty eater based on volume and calories and still retain the fabled 500 calorie deficit. So a 1500 calorie diet of "dirty" foods would be equivalent to let's say 1800 in a clean eater because of the metabolics involved. Either way - you are right - the clean eater wouldn't have to eat 1500 to obtain the nutrients that a dirty eater would obtain at 1500. Nice point.
what????
Do you ever make sense?
Maybe these metabolics he talks about has to do with the medical issues he has?
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
Oh no, he is by far the only example. And his results are specious because there's no evidence he was accurately counting calories.
We can pull in @lemurcat12, and there's also me. I've eaten just like Ted and gained weight.
In fact, since clean eaters keep mentioning health... I was eating "clean" and developed a progressive autoimmune disease.
The difference is that Ted was in a calorie deficit, assuming his calorie counting was accurate (we have no reason to think it wasn't.) If I've understood you correctly from previous posts, you weren't. You said that you ate clean but ate too many calories and therefore gained weight.
Oh, we do have reason to think he wasn't.
Also, he claims he was eating basically 1500 calories of cake or some such (which is absurd), which is NOT the hypothetical.
For the record, during my weight loss I've eaten in ways that would be categorized as "clean," I think, and ways that wouldn't (specifically because I gave up added sugar and grains for a time). My loss has not varied in rate based on whether I do one or the other.
I do mostly eat from whole foods and get lots of protein and veggies, but that's consistent with OP's hypothetical of the non clean eater, as opposed to this nonsense about someone eating only "junk food."0 -
0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
Oh no, he is by far the only example. And his results are specious because there's no evidence he was accurately counting calories.
We can pull in @lemurcat12, and there's also me. I've eaten just like Ted and gained weight.
In fact, since clean eaters keep mentioning health... I was eating "clean" and developed a progressive autoimmune disease.
The difference is that Ted was in a calorie deficit, assuming his calorie counting was accurate (we have no reason to think it wasn't.) If I've understood you correctly from previous posts, you weren't. You said that you ate clean but ate too many calories and therefore gained weight.
Oh, we do have reason to think he wasn't.
Also, he claims he was eating basically 1500 calories of cake or some such (which is absurd), which is NOT the hypothetical.
For the record, during my weight loss I've eaten in ways that would be categorized as "clean," I think, and ways that wouldn't (specifically because I gave up added sugar and grains for a time). My loss has not varied in rate based on whether I do one or the other.
I do mostly eat from whole foods and get lots of protein and veggies, but that's consistent with OP's hypothetical of the non clean eater, as opposed to this nonsense about someone eating only "junk food."
yea, but then he came back and admitted that he never ate 1500 calories of cake a day ...LOLZ0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
You believe he weighed out 1500 calories of cake each day and ate nothing else, and gained weight over a long period?Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
You are simply taking his word for everything he said but there is no proof to back up his claims.
Yes, I believe he is truthful, just as I believe you are telling the truth and others who have posted here... if we have to suspect everyone of lying, there would be no point to any of these discussions at all. Anyone could fake their diary, photoshop their photos, how do we know?
So why don't we all agree to trust one another.
I have no response to that.
I didn't eat 1500 calories of cake each day. I was creating a position of eating just cake (which someone did - Twinkie diet reference) versus eating a nutritious diet. The Twinkie guy lost the weight - but he also qualified his results by adding that he didn't know what the long-term ramifications of his undertaking did to him - or would do to anyone.
That's the point I've been making in making that statement. You can eat 1500 calories of cake and lose weight - but there's a whole minefield there in doing so - and it's not sustainable long-term. Hence why everyone refuses to do it.
I was weighing it all out and I was submitting diaries to my PTs at the time I was eating a diet that was more full of processed food than not. Many people could testify under oath to this - and many people saw me eat when I was eating poorly (nutrition-wise) that I wasn't eating enough in volume. I was not a closet eater. I wouldn't sit and eat 10 cookies in one sitting with no one watching. I would eat one cookie - and it was a normal sized portion, in a day.
Disappointed to read and see an implication that I am untruthful in my previous remarks when I was not.
if you did not do it then why do you keep telling everyone else to do it?
The twinkie diet guy lost weight AND had improved blood panels, so not sure how he was not healthier post twinkie diet...
The problem with discussions like these is that people want to use ridiculous comparison points like 1500 calories of cake VS 1500 calories of clean food.
He admitted that the long-term ramifications for his diet were very inconclusive - he did so in interviews. Short-term, yes - long-term, not so fast. That assumes he would have to maintain his diet by increasing his caloric intake to a "maintenance" level - which is where I go and suggest that anyone doing so is just putting themselves in a no-win position health-wise - it's not sustainable.
I am making a point by positing the above - no one in their right mind would ever eat 1500 calories of cake and only cake for one year because of the health ramifications of doing so.
That's why I tie good dietary nutrition to CICO. Inevitably, people will flee choices like the one I am made above for a more rounded dietary profile.
I am doing so to make a point. You validate the point that you (or anyone) would ever do that - or has done it. That's the point.
Here we go again with the "nothing but cake" strawman. Hate to break it to you, Ted, but nobody in the IIFYM camp ever recommended that.
Why don't we just add "excluding the middle" to your logical fallacy BINGO card?
Oh the irony! Most people in the "clean eating" camp never advocated eating 100% clean all the time. Yet here you guys go with that strawman!
Um, yes they do. That's been the past 12 pages. The argument is that person A eats mostly "clean-ish" (hard to define obviously but nutritious foods) and fills in the blanks with stuff like ice cream. The clean eating people aren't saying that's OK, in fact they're arguing that it's not.
We're not talking about what's "OK", we're discussing which approach might lead to more weight loss. It's OK for anyone to eat what they damn well please, as long as they're not harming someone else by doing so.
And in any case, I've never seen any clean eaters, paleo follwers, or low carbers on this forum telling anyone else it's the "only way". However I have seen lots of junk-food eaters (for want of a better label) jumping onto threads where the OP has specifically stated he/she wants to try aforementioned eating plans and telling them not to bother.0 -
OP I think next time when you explain yourself which I really thought you did pretty well that people know what terms you use mean. Half the nonsense in this thread is hilarious. It like people really do not know what a calorie deficit really is.0
-
No person A will lose more weight ***Period*** What everyone fails to take into consideration is that person A who eats a balanced diet and probably has slow releasing complex carbs in their diet will be able to expend more energy than person B eating donuts. While person B will have a burst of energy up front that will be short lived and the workout will end quicker than person A's who is on a steady energy release path.
Person B isn't just eating donuts. He's eating a varied diet that may include a donut or other treat upon occasion. Read the OP again.
This is so telling. WHY is there a subset of posters who assume that "not eating 100% clean" means eating donuts only? I wonder if they suspect that if they relaxed the rules a little that they would only eat "junk food" and then project that onto everyone else.
Sorry, but if I ate everything I wanted with no concern for gaining weight I'd almost certainly eat above maintenance, but I would still eat a mostly nutrient dense diet with lots of veggies and protein. I'd just also eat a lot more fat and treats, sure. But this idea that one would eat all fast food or all donuts seems really messed up and freakish.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
You believe he weighed out 1500 calories of cake each day and ate nothing else, and gained weight over a long period?Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
You are simply taking his word for everything he said but there is no proof to back up his claims.
Yes, I believe he is truthful, just as I believe you are telling the truth and others who have posted here... if we have to suspect everyone of lying, there would be no point to any of these discussions at all. Anyone could fake their diary, photoshop their photos, how do we know?
So why don't we all agree to trust one another.
I have no response to that.
I didn't eat 1500 calories of cake each day. I was creating a position of eating just cake (which someone did - Twinkie diet reference) versus eating a nutritious diet. The Twinkie guy lost the weight - but he also qualified his results by adding that he didn't know what the long-term ramifications of his undertaking did to him - or would do to anyone.
That's the point I've been making in making that statement. You can eat 1500 calories of cake and lose weight - but there's a whole minefield there in doing so - and it's not sustainable long-term. Hence why everyone refuses to do it.
I was weighing it all out and I was submitting diaries to my PTs at the time I was eating a diet that was more full of processed food than not. Many people could testify under oath to this - and many people saw me eat when I was eating poorly (nutrition-wise) that I wasn't eating enough in volume. I was not a closet eater. I wouldn't sit and eat 10 cookies in one sitting with no one watching. I would eat one cookie - and it was a normal sized portion, in a day.
Disappointed to read and see an implication that I am untruthful in my previous remarks when I was not.
if you did not do it then why do you keep telling everyone else to do it?
The twinkie diet guy lost weight AND had improved blood panels, so not sure how he was not healthier post twinkie diet...
The problem with discussions like these is that people want to use ridiculous comparison points like 1500 calories of cake VS 1500 calories of clean food.
He admitted that the long-term ramifications for his diet were very inconclusive - he did so in interviews. Short-term, yes - long-term, not so fast. That assumes he would have to maintain his diet by increasing his caloric intake to a "maintenance" level - which is where I go and suggest that anyone doing so is just putting themselves in a no-win position health-wise - it's not sustainable.
I am making a point by positing the above - no one in their right mind would ever eat 1500 calories of cake and only cake for one year because of the health ramifications of doing so.
That's why I tie good dietary nutrition to CICO. Inevitably, people will flee choices like the one I am made above for a more rounded dietary profile.
I am doing so to make a point. You validate the point that you (or anyone) would ever do that - or has done it. That's the point.
Here we go again with the "nothing but cake" strawman. Hate to break it to you, Ted, but nobody in the IIFYM camp ever recommended that.
Why don't we just add "excluding the middle" to your logical fallacy BINGO card?
Oh the irony! Most people in the "clean eating" camp never advocated eating 100% clean all the time. Yet here you guys go with that strawman!
Um, yes they do. That's been the past 12 pages. The argument is that person A eats mostly "clean-ish" (hard to define obviously but nutritious foods) and fills in the blanks with stuff like ice cream. The clean eating people aren't saying that's OK, in fact they're arguing that it's not.
We're not talking about what's "OK", we're discussing which approach might lead to more weight loss. It's OK for anyone to eat what they damn well please, as long as they're not harming someone else by doing so.
And in any case, I've never seen any clean eaters, paleo follwers, or low carbers on this forum telling anyone else it's the "only way". However I have seen lots of junk-food eaters (for want of a better label) jumping onto threads where the OP has specifically stated he/she wants to try aforementioned eating plans and telling them not to bother.
LOL
the whole reason I started this thread is because clean eaters were going into non clean eating threads and posing that question.
I love how you classify people practicing moderation as "junk food eaters."
I would rather be a junk food eater than someone who sits on their couch and gets the shakes from looking at a donut and has to slowly nibble it over an hour, because they are afraid of said donut.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
You believe he weighed out 1500 calories of cake each day and ate nothing else, and gained weight over a long period?Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
You are simply taking his word for everything he said but there is no proof to back up his claims.
Yes, I believe he is truthful, just as I believe you are telling the truth and others who have posted here... if we have to suspect everyone of lying, there would be no point to any of these discussions at all. Anyone could fake their diary, photoshop their photos, how do we know?
So why don't we all agree to trust one another.
I have no response to that.
I didn't eat 1500 calories of cake each day. I was creating a position of eating just cake (which someone did - Twinkie diet reference) versus eating a nutritious diet. The Twinkie guy lost the weight - but he also qualified his results by adding that he didn't know what the long-term ramifications of his undertaking did to him - or would do to anyone.
That's the point I've been making in making that statement. You can eat 1500 calories of cake and lose weight - but there's a whole minefield there in doing so - and it's not sustainable long-term. Hence why everyone refuses to do it.
I was weighing it all out and I was submitting diaries to my PTs at the time I was eating a diet that was more full of processed food than not. Many people could testify under oath to this - and many people saw me eat when I was eating poorly (nutrition-wise) that I wasn't eating enough in volume. I was not a closet eater. I wouldn't sit and eat 10 cookies in one sitting with no one watching. I would eat one cookie - and it was a normal sized portion, in a day.
Disappointed to read and see an implication that I am untruthful in my previous remarks when I was not.
if you did not do it then why do you keep telling everyone else to do it?
The twinkie diet guy lost weight AND had improved blood panels, so not sure how he was not healthier post twinkie diet...
The problem with discussions like these is that people want to use ridiculous comparison points like 1500 calories of cake VS 1500 calories of clean food.
He admitted that the long-term ramifications for his diet were very inconclusive - he did so in interviews. Short-term, yes - long-term, not so fast. That assumes he would have to maintain his diet by increasing his caloric intake to a "maintenance" level - which is where I go and suggest that anyone doing so is just putting themselves in a no-win position health-wise - it's not sustainable.
I am making a point by positing the above - no one in their right mind would ever eat 1500 calories of cake and only cake for one year because of the health ramifications of doing so.
That's why I tie good dietary nutrition to CICO. Inevitably, people will flee choices like the one I am made above for a more rounded dietary profile.
I am doing so to make a point. You validate the point that you (or anyone) would ever do that - or has done it. That's the point.
Here we go again with the "nothing but cake" strawman. Hate to break it to you, Ted, but nobody in the IIFYM camp ever recommended that.
Why don't we just add "excluding the middle" to your logical fallacy BINGO card?
Oh the irony! Most people in the "clean eating" camp never advocated eating 100% clean all the time. Yet here you guys go with that strawman!
Um, yes they do. That's been the past 12 pages. The argument is that person A eats mostly "clean-ish" (hard to define obviously but nutritious foods) and fills in the blanks with stuff like ice cream. The clean eating people aren't saying that's OK, in fact they're arguing that it's not.
We're not talking about what's "OK", we're discussing which approach might lead to more weight loss. It's OK for anyone to eat what they damn well please, as long as they're not harming someone else by doing so.
And in any case, I've never seen any clean eaters, paleo follwers, or low carbers on this forum telling anyone else it's the "only way". However I have seen lots of junk-food eaters (for want of a better label) jumping onto threads where the OP has specifically stated he/she wants to try aforementioned eating plans and telling them not to bother.
I like to ask you do you really know what calorie deficit means? All the points you bring up in this thread to me means you don't.
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
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions