CI/CO vs Clean Eating
Options
Replies
-
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »I'm personally a proponent of "clean eating" -- but that's because I feel a ton better when I eat whole foods and hit my targets more easily (in fact, MUCH more easily).
Also just want to say there's a huge difference between weight and overall health. A slightly overweight person who eats a balanced, nutritious diet is going to be healthier/happier than a skinny dude who only eats hot pockets. That's just science.
Have you read this thread at all?
Who in here has said to just eat hot pockets?
Round and round we go...
I... I.... used to eat a primarily hot pocket-based diet and I'm not terribly proud of it
. Needless to say radical change was needed.
But would you say that someone who eats a varied and balanced diet which meets nutritional needs, leads an active lifestyle, and occasionally a Hot Pocket, would be less healthy or feel worse than you, who never eats Hot Pockets?
Oh no, of course not. I'm not crazy.
I had one of these a month ago and I'm still happy and healthy:
[yummy doughnut chicken sandwich]
Okay, that is all anyone here on these boards is arguing when we argue moderation. We are saying that you can have a diet that consists mainly of nutrient-dense foods (hate the word clean) and have some "junk" food in moderation and still be perfectly healthy.
That looks delicious, btw.
What I object to is the posts that say "All you need is CICO" and stop there, without making all the good points about moderation and balanced diet that have been made on this thread. I started taking screenshots of these posts because lemurcat and others weren't familiar with them but am in forum jail for posting a screenshot on another thread, so won't be posting screenshots again, but you'll see them if you look.0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I continue to think that if you think you need to find a special "clean" cookbook to learn to cook without those ingredients you aren't being sensible and have never actually looked at many recipes.
Or they have looked for recipes and they're not finding what they're looking for because convenience products are what's in the popular cookbooks and recipes that are affordable and readily available to most. Clean is only a pejorative on this website -- everywhere else I've seen the word used it's just a descriptor without connotation. It's perfectly sensible for people to ask for what they're looking for in terms other like minded people will understand.
P.S. Bookstores exist but they're not readily available to everyone and never have been.
You wouldn't call this (THE cookbook, in my opinion) a clean cookbook?
(removed image)
Of course, that's a great suggestion. The next time someone is looking for clean recipes you should mention it.
Just saying - this should be just as readily available to anyone as a cookbook that calls for convenience foods. It just depends on one's cooking style and preferences.
Except it's not and hasn't been for years -- especially not in the era of boneless, skinless chicken breasts and ground turkey. People can't find what they don't know to look for which is why they post and ask for recommendations in the first place.
In my Publix, in the meats section, you can get everything from a whole raw chicken, to chicken livers, to bone-in, skin-on wings, thighs, drumsticks, etc., as well as boneless skinless chicken breasts. They're right next to one another. You can get cookbooks like Julia Child's at places like WalMart or at your local library, although you can get the convenience cookbooks there, too. I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue here - forgive me for missing your point.
I do agree that there is a huge lack of education in this country regarding calories, energy expenditure, nutrition, and health, and I am a proponent of more education. The information is available to everyone, but I understand that not everyone knows how to use it.0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »Or they have looked for recipes and they're not finding what they're looking for because convenience products are what's in the popular cookbooks and recipes that are affordable and readily available to most.
This is simply not true.
For example, one of the cookbooks that is most commonly given to new graduates and others who might want to learn to cook is the Mark Bittman book I often recommend here. It does not rely on convenience products. Nor do most mainstream books. I browse cookbooks all the time. The idea that it's hard to find a normal cookbook that is based around whole foods is just not true, and if people are genuinely looking and unable to find them, they aren't looking at amazon or in bookstores (or in major websites like epicurious, which is free). This is almost as bad as "what can I order at Starbucks" in terms of what causes me to worry about the basic competence of people.Clean is only a pejorative on this website -- everywhere else I've seen the word used it's just a descriptor without connotation.
It's a trendy fad thing, often associated with specific named diets when used in cookbooks. You will almost certainly get a better set of recipes from something like the Bittman book (or Greene on Greens, which I also quite like, or one of numerous other major mainstream cookbooks) than some special "clean diet" cookbook.It's perfectly sensible for people to ask for what they're looking for in terms other like minded people will understand.
Again, this is my point: I don't think cooking from whole foods is something only "clean eaters" have an interest in. It's this rude assumption that if someone doesn't self-identify as a "clean eater" one must not cook (or cooks only with lots of sugar and cream of mushroom soup), and can't have anything of interest to say about good cookbooks or recipes or any interest in nutrition.
I reject the claim that "eating clean" and cutting out whatever things you have defined as "unclean" (which are completely different depending on who you ask anyway) means that your diet is more nutrition-conscious than mine or that I care less about health or overall fitness.0 -
Don't think the science of happiness has done much hot pocket intake effects on depression studies.I'm personally a proponent of "clean eating" -- but that's because I feel a ton better when I eat whole foods and hit my targets more easily (in fact, MUCH more easily).
Also just want to say there's a huge difference between weight and overall health. A slightly overweight person who eats a balanced, nutritious diet is going to be healthier/happier than a skinny dude who only eats hot pockets. That's just science.
The fact that CI/CO ultimately affects weight is kind of irrelevant to overall health, until you're dealing in being overweight or underweight in a way that negatively affects your well-being.
Disclaimer: Well-read on the topic but no background nutrition or science. Grain of salt with things I say (or a lot of salt).
Plus I thought un-clean food activated all those dopamine receptors in the brain, so they must be happy.
0 -
Don't think the science of happiness has done much hot pocket intake effects on depression studies.I'm personally a proponent of "clean eating" -- but that's because I feel a ton better when I eat whole foods and hit my targets more easily (in fact, MUCH more easily).
Also just want to say there's a huge difference between weight and overall health. A slightly overweight person who eats a balanced, nutritious diet is going to be healthier/happier than a skinny dude who only eats hot pockets. That's just science.
The fact that CI/CO ultimately affects weight is kind of irrelevant to overall health, until you're dealing in being overweight or underweight in a way that negatively affects your well-being.
Disclaimer: Well-read on the topic but no background nutrition or science. Grain of salt with things I say (or a lot of salt).
Plus I thought un-clean food activated all those dopamine receptors in the brain, so they must be happy.
no, that is just sugar...because sugar = cocaine...try to keep it all straight man...0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »I'm personally a proponent of "clean eating" -- but that's because I feel a ton better when I eat whole foods and hit my targets more easily (in fact, MUCH more easily).
Also just want to say there's a huge difference between weight and overall health. A slightly overweight person who eats a balanced, nutritious diet is going to be healthier/happier than a skinny dude who only eats hot pockets. That's just science.
Have you read this thread at all?
Who in here has said to just eat hot pockets?
Round and round we go...
I... I.... used to eat a primarily hot pocket-based diet and I'm not terribly proud of it. Needless to say radical change was needed.
But would you say that someone who eats a varied and balanced diet which meets nutritional needs, leads an active lifestyle, and occasionally a Hot Pocket, would be less healthy or feel worse than you, who never eats Hot Pockets?
Oh no, of course not. I'm not crazy.
I had one of these a month ago and I'm still happy and healthy:
[yummy doughnut chicken sandwich]
Okay, that is all anyone here on these boards is arguing when we argue moderation. We are saying that you can have a diet that consists mainly of nutrient-dense foods (hate the word clean) and have some "junk" food in moderation and still be perfectly healthy.
That looks delicious, btw.
What I object to is the posts that say "All you need is CICO" and stop there, without making all the good points about moderation and balanced diet that have been made on this thread. I started taking screenshots of these posts because lemurcat and others weren't familiar with them but am in forum jail for posting a screenshot on another thread, so won't be posting screenshots again, but you'll see them if you look.
But all you need for weight loss is CICO. All of the threads that you are referring to always go into more detail about macros and micronutrients, and state that other aspects of diet matter for health. No one on these boards ever tells someone to eat nothing but doughnuts in a calorie deficit to lose weight.
When someone says "all you need is a calorie deficit to lose weight," it's usually in response to someone asking about diet pills or fad diets or low carb or clean eating - people think that something magical is needed for weight loss, and that's just not true.0 -
If you blow a day, it's gone, you can never get it back, and you can't ever make it up, because time is a one way arrow. You can (probably) recover, but once you've blown your goals for a day, that day's gone.
If you don't work at the timescale of days, that's fine - same applies to weeks. Or months. Or years.
Work at the timescale you're comfortable with. Make your goals compatible with your timescale. Choose foods that are "healthy" for those goals, avoid foods that aren't.
The rest is just semantics.
Of course you can make up a blown day. Went over your calories? Eat a few less than you would have on the coming days until you break even. Didn't meet your macros? Make sure to hit them, maybe get a bit more of what you had too little of.
And not meeting your micronutrients on a single day is even less relevant on your overall health, provided you're good on them most of the time. Your body isn't a worker that clocks in and out of work every day and whatever you did on a given day gets written down and gets reprimanded if you didn't hit a certain quota.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »I'm personally a proponent of "clean eating" -- but that's because I feel a ton better when I eat whole foods and hit my targets more easily (in fact, MUCH more easily).
Also just want to say there's a huge difference between weight and overall health. A slightly overweight person who eats a balanced, nutritious diet is going to be healthier/happier than a skinny dude who only eats hot pockets. That's just science.
Have you read this thread at all?
Who in here has said to just eat hot pockets?
Round and round we go...
I... I.... used to eat a primarily hot pocket-based diet and I'm not terribly proud of it. Needless to say radical change was needed.
But would you say that someone who eats a varied and balanced diet which meets nutritional needs, leads an active lifestyle, and occasionally a Hot Pocket, would be less healthy or feel worse than you, who never eats Hot Pockets?
Oh no, of course not. I'm not crazy.
I had one of these a month ago and I'm still happy and healthy:
[yummy doughnut chicken sandwich]
Okay, that is all anyone here on these boards is arguing when we argue moderation. We are saying that you can have a diet that consists mainly of nutrient-dense foods (hate the word clean) and have some "junk" food in moderation and still be perfectly healthy.
That looks delicious, btw.
What I object to is the posts that say "All you need is CICO" and stop there, without making all the good points about moderation and balanced diet that have been made on this thread. I started taking screenshots of these posts because lemurcat and others weren't familiar with them but am in forum jail for posting a screenshot on another thread, so won't be posting screenshots again, but you'll see them if you look.
But all you need for weight loss is CICO. All of the threads that you are referring to always go into more detail about macros and micronutrients, and state that other aspects of diet matter for health. No one on these boards ever tells someone to eat nothing but doughnuts in a calorie deficit to lose weight.
When someone says "all you need is a calorie deficit to lose weight," it's usually in response to someone asking about diet pills or fad diets or low carb or clean eating - people think that something magical is needed for weight loss, and that's just not true.
cosign0 -
Don't think the science of happiness has done much hot pocket intake effects on depression studies.I'm personally a proponent of "clean eating" -- but that's because I feel a ton better when I eat whole foods and hit my targets more easily (in fact, MUCH more easily).
Also just want to say there's a huge difference between weight and overall health. A slightly overweight person who eats a balanced, nutritious diet is going to be healthier/happier than a skinny dude who only eats hot pockets. That's just science.
The fact that CI/CO ultimately affects weight is kind of irrelevant to overall health, until you're dealing in being overweight or underweight in a way that negatively affects your well-being.
Disclaimer: Well-read on the topic but no background nutrition or science. Grain of salt with things I say (or a lot of salt).
Plus I thought un-clean food activated all those dopamine receptors in the brain, so they must be happy.
Hot Pockets make me decidedly unhappy if I fail to let them cool before biting into them...
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
Don't think the science of happiness has done much hot pocket intake effects on depression studies.I'm personally a proponent of "clean eating" -- but that's because I feel a ton better when I eat whole foods and hit my targets more easily (in fact, MUCH more easily).
Also just want to say there's a huge difference between weight and overall health. A slightly overweight person who eats a balanced, nutritious diet is going to be healthier/happier than a skinny dude who only eats hot pockets. That's just science.
The fact that CI/CO ultimately affects weight is kind of irrelevant to overall health, until you're dealing in being overweight or underweight in a way that negatively affects your well-being.
Disclaimer: Well-read on the topic but no background nutrition or science. Grain of salt with things I say (or a lot of salt).
Plus I thought un-clean food activated all those dopamine receptors in the brain, so they must be happy.
Hot Pockets make me decidedly unhappy if I fail to let them cool before biting into them...
Right??!
I don't trust any food that remains at a reasonable temperature on the outside but could evaporate molten lava on the inside!
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Also, the 2012 Better Homes and Gardens New Cook Book looks to be stuffed with convenience food ingredients.
Or be a fool who thinks there are special "clean eating" recipes and the rest of us are dumping cream of mushroom soup on our steak* or loads of sugar on our salmon. Because that's how us non-clean eaters roll.
.
Speak for yourself lemurcat! Brown sugar, pineapple juice, soy sauce, and Jack Daniels is my favorite salmon marinade!
0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
Don't think the science of happiness has done much hot pocket intake effects on depression studies.I'm personally a proponent of "clean eating" -- but that's because I feel a ton better when I eat whole foods and hit my targets more easily (in fact, MUCH more easily).
Also just want to say there's a huge difference between weight and overall health. A slightly overweight person who eats a balanced, nutritious diet is going to be healthier/happier than a skinny dude who only eats hot pockets. That's just science.
The fact that CI/CO ultimately affects weight is kind of irrelevant to overall health, until you're dealing in being overweight or underweight in a way that negatively affects your well-being.
Disclaimer: Well-read on the topic but no background nutrition or science. Grain of salt with things I say (or a lot of salt).
Plus I thought un-clean food activated all those dopamine receptors in the brain, so they must be happy.
Hot Pockets make me decidedly unhappy if I fail to let them cool before biting into them...
Right??!
I don't trust any food that remains at a reasonable temperature on the outside but could evaporate molten lava on the inside!
"Will it burn my mouth?"
"It will destroy your mouth."
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I continue to think that if you think you need to find a special "clean" cookbook to learn to cook without those ingredients you aren't being sensible and have never actually looked at many recipes.
Or they have looked for recipes and they're not finding what they're looking for because convenience products are what's in the popular cookbooks and recipes that are affordable and readily available to most. Clean is only a pejorative on this website -- everywhere else I've seen the word used it's just a descriptor without connotation. It's perfectly sensible for people to ask for what they're looking for in terms other like minded people will understand.
P.S. Bookstores exist but they're not readily available to everyone and never have been.
You wouldn't call this (THE cookbook, in my opinion) a clean cookbook?
(removed image)
Of course, that's a great suggestion. The next time someone is looking for clean recipes you should mention it.
I love it, but there are better cookbooks for beginners, and that's why I tend to recommend ones aimed at them, like the Bittman book.
(Also lots of people asking for "clean" books really mean recipes that are diet-friendly, which is one reason I dislike so the imprecise and faddish use of the term. For example, people claiming clean means "lean meats," when there is no reason lean cuts are less "processed" than other cuts and I'd think someone into "clean" eating would want to eat the whole animal and not just the skinless, boneless breast.)0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »I'm personally a proponent of "clean eating" -- but that's because I feel a ton better when I eat whole foods and hit my targets more easily (in fact, MUCH more easily).
Also just want to say there's a huge difference between weight and overall health. A slightly overweight person who eats a balanced, nutritious diet is going to be healthier/happier than a skinny dude who only eats hot pockets. That's just science.
Have you read this thread at all?
Who in here has said to just eat hot pockets?
Round and round we go...
Oh, isn't that what you always tell people? It's the advice I give.
Every time I see one of those "what should I eat" threads I say "only hot pockets." In fact, I recommend doing IIAHP, which stands for "if it's a hot pocket."0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I continue to think that if you think you need to find a special "clean" cookbook to learn to cook without those ingredients you aren't being sensible and have never actually looked at many recipes.
Or they have looked for recipes and they're not finding what they're looking for because convenience products are what's in the popular cookbooks and recipes that are affordable and readily available to most. Clean is only a pejorative on this website -- everywhere else I've seen the word used it's just a descriptor without connotation. It's perfectly sensible for people to ask for what they're looking for in terms other like minded people will understand.
P.S. Bookstores exist but they're not readily available to everyone and never have been.
You wouldn't call this (THE cookbook, in my opinion) a clean cookbook?
(removed image)
Of course, that's a great suggestion. The next time someone is looking for clean recipes you should mention it.
I love it, but there are better cookbooks for beginners, and that's why I tend to recommend ones aimed at them, like the Bittman book.
(Also lots of people asking for "clean" books really mean recipes that are diet-friendly, which is one reason I dislike so the imprecise and faddish use of the term. For example, people claiming clean means "lean meats," when there is no reason lean cuts are less "processed" than other cuts and I'd think someone into "clean" eating would want to eat the whole animal and not just the skinless, boneless breast.)
Maybe people asking for "clean" cookbooks are hoping there is some sort of definitive explanation of what "clean" means in the Prologue, so they are just asking for a book suggestion so they don't have to admit they don't know what it means...
0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
Don't think the science of happiness has done much hot pocket intake effects on depression studies.I'm personally a proponent of "clean eating" -- but that's because I feel a ton better when I eat whole foods and hit my targets more easily (in fact, MUCH more easily).
Also just want to say there's a huge difference between weight and overall health. A slightly overweight person who eats a balanced, nutritious diet is going to be healthier/happier than a skinny dude who only eats hot pockets. That's just science.
The fact that CI/CO ultimately affects weight is kind of irrelevant to overall health, until you're dealing in being overweight or underweight in a way that negatively affects your well-being.
Disclaimer: Well-read on the topic but no background nutrition or science. Grain of salt with things I say (or a lot of salt).
Plus I thought un-clean food activated all those dopamine receptors in the brain, so they must be happy.
Hot Pockets make me decidedly unhappy if I fail to let them cool before biting into them...
Right??!
I don't trust any food that remains at a reasonable temperature on the outside but could evaporate molten lava on the inside!
"Will it burn my mouth?"
"It will destroy your mouth."
0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
Don't think the science of happiness has done much hot pocket intake effects on depression studies.I'm personally a proponent of "clean eating" -- but that's because I feel a ton better when I eat whole foods and hit my targets more easily (in fact, MUCH more easily).
Also just want to say there's a huge difference between weight and overall health. A slightly overweight person who eats a balanced, nutritious diet is going to be healthier/happier than a skinny dude who only eats hot pockets. That's just science.
The fact that CI/CO ultimately affects weight is kind of irrelevant to overall health, until you're dealing in being overweight or underweight in a way that negatively affects your well-being.
Disclaimer: Well-read on the topic but no background nutrition or science. Grain of salt with things I say (or a lot of salt).
Plus I thought un-clean food activated all those dopamine receptors in the brain, so they must be happy.
Hot Pockets make me decidedly unhappy if I fail to let them cool before biting into them...
Right??!
I don't trust any food that remains at a reasonable temperature on the outside but could evaporate molten lava on the inside!
"Will it burn my mouth?"
"It will destroy your mouth."
Going to see him live a few weeks.
I'll probably be saying "Hot Pockets" in a high sing-songy voice for the ensuing weeks.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
Don't think the science of happiness has done much hot pocket intake effects on depression studies.I'm personally a proponent of "clean eating" -- but that's because I feel a ton better when I eat whole foods and hit my targets more easily (in fact, MUCH more easily).
Also just want to say there's a huge difference between weight and overall health. A slightly overweight person who eats a balanced, nutritious diet is going to be healthier/happier than a skinny dude who only eats hot pockets. That's just science.
The fact that CI/CO ultimately affects weight is kind of irrelevant to overall health, until you're dealing in being overweight or underweight in a way that negatively affects your well-being.
Disclaimer: Well-read on the topic but no background nutrition or science. Grain of salt with things I say (or a lot of salt).
Plus I thought un-clean food activated all those dopamine receptors in the brain, so they must be happy.
Hot Pockets make me decidedly unhappy if I fail to let them cool before biting into them...
Right??!
I don't trust any food that remains at a reasonable temperature on the outside but could evaporate molten lava on the inside!
"Will it burn my mouth?"
"It will destroy your mouth."
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I continue to think that if you think you need to find a special "clean" cookbook to learn to cook without those ingredients you aren't being sensible and have never actually looked at many recipes.
Or they have looked for recipes and they're not finding what they're looking for because convenience products are what's in the popular cookbooks and recipes that are affordable and readily available to most. Clean is only a pejorative on this website -- everywhere else I've seen the word used it's just a descriptor without connotation. It's perfectly sensible for people to ask for what they're looking for in terms other like minded people will understand.
P.S. Bookstores exist but they're not readily available to everyone and never have been.
You wouldn't call this (THE cookbook, in my opinion) a clean cookbook?
(removed image)
Of course, that's a great suggestion. The next time someone is looking for clean recipes you should mention it.
Just saying - this should be just as readily available to anyone as a cookbook that calls for convenience foods. It just depends on one's cooking style and preferences.
Except it's not and hasn't been for years -- especially not in the era of boneless, skinless chicken breasts and ground turkey. People can't find what they don't know to look for which is why they post and ask for recommendations in the first place.
Essentially no one I've ever seen asking for "clean recipes" is planning to phase out boneless, skinless breasts and ground turkey. Usually it's the same people claiming they switched to those things as part of their "clean eating" and "no processed food" plans. Sigh.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »I'm personally a proponent of "clean eating" -- but that's because I feel a ton better when I eat whole foods and hit my targets more easily (in fact, MUCH more easily).
Also just want to say there's a huge difference between weight and overall health. A slightly overweight person who eats a balanced, nutritious diet is going to be healthier/happier than a skinny dude who only eats hot pockets. That's just science.
Have you read this thread at all?
Who in here has said to just eat hot pockets?
Round and round we go...
Oh, isn't that what you always tell people? It's the advice I give.
Every time I see one of those "what should I eat" threads I say "only hot pockets." In fact, I recommend doing IIAHP, which stands for "if it's a hot pocket."
*chortle*
I personally live by IIALP (if it's a lean pocket) because Lean Pockets will make you leaner than Hot Pockets. We should argue back and forth about it for pages and pages. I have charts and everything.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K 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
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K 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
- 970 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions