CI/CO vs Clean Eating
Options
Replies
-
ceoverturf wrote: »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.
Jealous. I love Jim Gaffigan!0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »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.
Dude, I made it through college on Turkey, Ham and Cheese Lean Pockets and butter noodles with seasoning salt.
0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »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.
I dunno - looking at HP nutrition info...carbs check. Fat check. Protein check.
Looks like one could pretty easily subsist on Hot Pockets and hit a reasonable macro ratio.
0 -
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.
+1
Yeah, I see I'm lagging behind with my hot pocket joke post, but this.
You say you are a clean eater but then define how you eat as the same (basically) as those of us arguing for moderation as an acceptable, healthy choice (although if someone prefers to eat "clean" -- never, ever eat hot pockets or, say, ice cream again -- that's their choice. It's just not healthier (or actually "cleaner") than those of us who do the moderate thing).
That's all the argument is about.
No one is saying "eat mostly hot pockets" or "ignore nutrition."0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »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.
But if lean pockets make you lean, does that mean hot pockets make you hot?0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »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.
Dude, I made it through college on Turkey, Ham and Cheese Lean Pockets and butter noodles with seasoning salt.
I ate quite a few pizza Lean Pockets in college, myself. It was a nice change from the jail food they served at the campus diner, and I got tired of ramen really quickly!0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »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.
But if lean pockets make you lean, does that mean hot pockets make you hot?
Why do I have to choose??? They need to make Hot Lean Sexy Pockets. Life is so unfair.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »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.
But if lean pockets make you lean, does that mean hot pockets make you hot?
Darn. I eat a lot of pita pockets. No surprise there.
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.
People say "to lose weight all you need is a calorie deficit." They do not say "nutrition is unimportant for any purpose" or "nutrition doesn't matter to health."0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »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.
But if lean pockets make you lean, does that mean hot pockets make you hot?
This is a very philosophical question with an extremely complex answer. If you'll look at this chart:
You can see that Hot Pockets, in moderation along with a diet consisting mainly of lean pockets, will make you somewhat hot. It's really strongly determined by genetics, though, so you don't get extra points for eating more Hot Pockets than necessary.
I don't expect you to understand, as you are a mouse.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »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!
Oh, not *white* sugar, so you are okay.0 -
If your sodium intake is high you may retain more water weight than you would have otherwise. CICO is the law of the land. If you burn more than you eat, you will lose weight. The trick is to find what foods you like to eat that keep you full.0
-
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »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.
Maybe so, but then Hot Pockets make you hotter.
So there!
Edit: Beaten to it! I guess great minds think alike or else perhaps I should catch up in the thread before posting. :-)0 -
Is a cheeto ever healthy? ... ... If I eat one I eat 20 and want more; vanishing caloric density; it makes me thirsty / hungrier, leading to terrible decisions. The item itself may be fine as part of some CI/CO calculation if I eat two of them and move to a carrot, but it was designed for me really want another making that carrot seem as bland as ever.
That has to factor into any equation about whether or not to eat something, right?
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
"What I have argued is that NO ONE is so ignorant that they don't know eating veggies is considered healthy"
"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."
"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."
"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."
I think your contempt for those looking to improve their diet and have the audacity to use a term you don't approve of while doing so comes through loud and clear. So loud and clear all I can see is your rude assumptions; not those who you are railing against.
I don't think it's warranted from you or anyone else -- even if these so-called-clean-eaters are so stupid as to ask for "clean" recipes when everyone knows all good cookbooks and recipes are "clean" already and readily available to anyone not too stupid to look.
I'm very much done with this topic.0 -
this thread...delivers..?
idk I keep catching up on it and falling asleep halfway through the new posts0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I think what we are really talking about is some people eat absurd diets (and assume everyone else does) and rather than merely cutting down on sugar or fast food or the like cut it out and of course feel better. And they assume that most people ate like they used to when of course most people do not and most people know what a healthy diet is. There's no real need to go from 100% fast food (or sugar) to none, and if you do chances are you will miss it. I don't eat fast food and don't miss it because I never really ate much and don't like it, but that's why making some big point about cutting it out is not interesting to me. My guess is for those whom that's a big thing it's not a good approach. Similarly, I didn't find cutting out added sugar a big thing, so added it back in. If someone really eats so much that's a big deal, they are going to want it again. (And personally I did, and see no reason not to have it.)
I think the diet you call absurd is more common than you think. A lot of people eat too much food that is low-value/low-satiety/low-nutrient. I think that is why there is an obesity epidemic. It's true that some might gain on what people call "clean" foods, but it's way harder to do that. Check out forums here and elsewhere, where bodybuilders strive to consume as much as possible on a "clean" diet for their gainz. It's simply not as easy to pound down 3000 calories of chicken and broccoli as it is to overindulge on chicken wings and fries, or pasta carbonara (with garlic bread, and a dessert...). Satiety tends to level off when people eat a certain way. I don't even want to give it a name at this point
(Also - I am not saying everyone should eat chicken and broccoli.)
I think we actually agreed that the holy rollers who eat 0% treats are probably few, and that most people wind up doing 80/20, and use these different heuristics to think through their meals and days. I'm not bothered if they're not entirely self-consistent, as long as they're seeing results that promote normal weight (and health). I really haven't noticed rudeness, so I can't speak to that.
Curious: what offends you about people looking for recipes? Or about the idea that some people don't know how to cook? It's a fact, there are people who don't know how to cook. Or people who cooked in ways that didn't serve their goals and now want to learn something else.
[Deleted a bunch of comments because the nested quotes weren't quoting well.]
I agree that bad diets are common, after all, that's why we have the term Standard American Diet.
The Standard American Diet in 3 Simple Charts
US obesity and diabetes rates are among the globe's very highest. Why? On her blog, the NYU nutritionist and food-politics expert Marion Nestle recently pointed (hat-tip, RealFood.org) to this telling chart on how we spend our grocery money, from the USDA's Amber Waves publication:
So, we do a pretty good job eating enough potatoes. But the healthier, more brightly colored vegetables like kale and carrots, no so much. We spend four times the amount on refined grains the USDA thinks is proper, and about a fifth of the target expenditure in whole grains. We spend nearly 14 percent of our at-home food budgets on sugar and candies, and another 8 percent on premade frozen and fridge entrees. Whole fruit barley accounts for less than 5 percent of our grocery bill. And so on—a pretty dismal picture.
That chart deals with at-home expenditures. What about our food choices out in the world? The USDA article has more. This chart shows that we're getting more and more of our sustenance outside of our own kitchens:
And while the article doesn't offer comparable data to the above at-home chart about expenditures outside the home, it does deliver evidence that our eating out habits are pretty dire as well:
Pointless in context of the boards. As is the issue, really, of the general obesity epidemic in this discussion.
Waving SAD around is a strawman in a lot of discussions around here.
If you compare how you eat vs. SAD while you're discussing things with a bunch of other conscientiously dieting people, how exactly are they supposed to interpret your comments?
What does SAD have to do with this whole discussion? What does what the general public eats have to do when it comes down to what to do when it comes to losing fat (which is, after all, the topic of the thread)?
While the regulars may be "conscientiously dieting people," it's a stretch to apply this to all new posters as well, judging from what I see in their diaries and questions.
But see, here's the thing.
I thought you didn't judge.
So why are you even arguing or checking out diaries if it doesn't matter?
Why did you bring obesity and diabetes risks into the discussion? You directly linked it to quality of food consumed then provided your charts, made a judgement about "health" (something you said you don't do, and now you're talking about all the noob's whose diaries you scope out who do all this "dismal" eating.
But you don't judge.
The need for nutrition while practicing CICO has been adequately covered in this discussion, AGES and pages ago. Debating the merits of SAD as an abstract thing outside of the discussion is pointless and derailing.
0 -
Is a cheeto ever healthy? ... ... If I eat one I eat 20 and want more; vanishing caloric density; it makes me thirsty / hungrier, leading to terrible decisions. The item itself may be fine as part of some CI/CO calculation if I eat two of them and move to a carrot, but it was designed for me really want another making that carrot seem as bland as ever.
That has to factor into any equation about whether or not to eat something, right?
For some, perhaps. But that has to do with the moderation aspect, and not the fact the Cheetos are "unhealthy" in the context of a balanced diet.
Also, who the eff only eats 2 Cheetos? If I eat Cheetos, I'm going to make them worth my while, and you bet your butt that they'll fit into my day.
0 -
Is a cheeto ever healthy? ... ... If I eat one I eat 20 and want more; vanishing caloric density; it makes me thirsty / hungrier, leading to terrible decisions. The item itself may be fine as part of some CI/CO calculation if I eat two of them and move to a carrot, but it was designed for me really want another making that carrot seem as bland as ever.
That has to factor into any equation about whether or not to eat something, right?
I think this side of things gets waaaaaay overlooked. There are people being paid a schwack of money to make these foods / hijack taste buds in order to make owners of those companies even more money.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Is a cheeto ever healthy? ... ... If I eat one I eat 20 and want more; vanishing caloric density; it makes me thirsty / hungrier, leading to terrible decisions. The item itself may be fine as part of some CI/CO calculation if I eat two of them and move to a carrot, but it was designed for me really want another making that carrot seem as bland as ever.
That has to factor into any equation about whether or not to eat something, right?
For some, perhaps. But that has to do with the moderation aspect, and not the fact the Cheetos are "unhealthy" in the context of a balanced diet.
Also, who the eff only eats 2 Cheetos? If I eat Cheetos, I'm going to make them worth my while, and you bet your butt that they'll fit into my day.
A lot of people will do that and end up hungry because that food tends not to fill a lot of people up. Then some of them might go over cal targets and think something's wrong with them. But nothing's wrong with them that making different choices won't help with.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
- 959 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions