It's not a diet it's a ..
Options
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Many people here may not "eat clean," but I suspect that some clean eating principles (eating more whole foods, for example) probably contribute to a lot of the success we see here. I think it would be neat see some comparisons of how people ate before and after.
I don't see why something so normal and common as eating lots of whole foods (or lots of vegetables, for that matter) should be considered a "clean eating principle." Nor is caring about nutrition a "clean eating principle." I do these things (and did when I was getting fat--I do eat better and more mindfully, but it has nothing to do with "processed foods," which is an enormously broad category).
I also dislike the term "clean up ones diet" when what is really meant is "eating in a healthier fashion." Sure, I do the latter (although again I ate vegetables and no fast food prior to losing weight--the assumption that fat people must eat poor quality foods and not just too many calories is annoying), but that has zero to do with "eating clean" or "cleaning up" anything. I don't have any need to justify the merits of my own diet by calling foods others eat--or foods I eat, like cottage cheese or ice cream (both processed)--"unclean."
I don't believe that eating lots of whole foods or veggies is specific to clean eating, I was merely stating that it's one of the principles. Nor did I say that overweight people must eat poor quality foods. I merely said that I thought it would be interesting to see how many people altered their eating style in achieving their goals - as much as the term "clean eating" is shunned on this site, many people actually include some of the principles associated with it in their diet, whether they call it clean eating or not.
I think if we actually took the time to look and didn't get into semantic arguments about terminology, we would probably find that most of the people enjoying success have very similar eating habits, and while the type of foods may not meet up exactly, many of the behaviors and approaches probably do. No eating style is all bad, and there are good things to be pulled from all of them that can be incorporated into success.
Saying they "cleaned up" their diets wasn't a judgment about any food or the merits of a diet, it was simply a catch-all term to refer to making changes to get their diet where they want it to be for success. I also ate vegetables and didn't eat fast food prior to losing weight; I don't think there was anything wrong with the foods I ate or currently eat. That doesn't mean that I didn't have some housekeeping to do with my diet and some changes to make to be successful.0 -
The thing is for many of us who have gone through yo yo diet or ups and down so many times, the word diets makes us remember the many times we were on a diet -.-, and the word usually meant like there was an ending for the 'diet', and then we get back to 'normal' again.
Oh and yes usually diet meant=sad sad phase
So yeah I may personally have an issue with the word it self, the only way I know this is going to work is the fact that I do Not intend to eat any different from what I'm eating now.
So as cheesy as it sound yep! I'm in lifestyle team O/0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »This didn't mean to come across self righteous or rude or insensitive, but I've read a lot of people trying to lose a lot of weight( 50 or more lbs) and they do these crash or fad diets, I don't think it's realistic to keep the weight off after using these methods. If you just incorporate healthy eating into your lifestyle while working out I feel that's more sustainable for long term success, again it's just my opinion and every one is entitled to their own. And I think lifestyle change is a fitting word, not a fad word for a lot of people. I think this because a lot of people spent a lot of their days obsessing about food, and how much and what they were going to eat next, and over indulging, myself included until I decided to completely change the way I saw food and made this change, food is a struggle for alot of people. Before I was depressed, and binge ate and wasn't active, so yea, this was a lifestyle change for me.
I think that most people here would agree with you that crash diets don't work. I don't see anything wrong with telling people not to crash diet. But instead your OP seems to be dictating the terms we all can and cannot use and that's not going to sit very well around here.
I do call it a diet. I'm dieting when I drop my calories below maintenance and maintaining when I eat at maintenance. I avoided weight loss for a very long time because I knew that it had to be a "lifestyle change" and I wasn't ready for that. I understood "lifestyle change" to mean giving up everything that I loved, the foods, the sedentary hobbies, etc. in favor of some perfect fitness life that doesn't exist. If more people like the posters here had been around to tell me that I could eat the foods I wanted in portions that fit my goals and lose weight, I might have saved myself years of weight gain.
I'm sorry, I did word it wrong and I wasn't trying to come across that way at all, that's not me at all. You all rock ! Keep on keeping on
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Nah, if you eat you "have a diet." Being "on a diet" means intentionally eating less than you need to sustain your weight.
Or more to gain weight. That's also a "diet". So is maintenance.
Anytime you're monitoring your intake for a specific purpose, you're on a diet.
You want a lifestyle change? Commit to doing an Ironman in 12 months.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Many people here may not "eat clean," but I suspect that some clean eating principles (eating more whole foods, for example) probably contribute to a lot of the success we see here. I think it would be neat see some comparisons of how people ate before and after.
I don't see why something so normal and common as eating lots of whole foods (or lots of vegetables, for that matter) should be considered a "clean eating principle." Nor is caring about nutrition a "clean eating principle." I do these things (and did when I was getting fat--I do eat better and more mindfully, but it has nothing to do with "processed foods," which is an enormously broad category).
I also dislike the term "clean up ones diet" when what is really meant is "eating in a healthier fashion." Sure, I do the latter (although again I ate vegetables and no fast food prior to losing weight--the assumption that fat people must eat poor quality foods and not just too many calories is annoying), but that has zero to do with "eating clean" or "cleaning up" anything. I don't have any need to justify the merits of my own diet by calling foods others eat--or foods I eat, like cottage cheese or ice cream (both processed)--"unclean."
I don't believe that eating lots of whole foods or veggies is specific to clean eating, I was merely stating that it's one of the principles. Nor did I say that overweight people must eat poor quality foods. I merely said that I thought it would be interesting to see how many people altered their eating style in achieving their goals - as much as the term "clean eating" is shunned on this site, many people actually include some of the principles associated with it in their diet, whether they call it clean eating or not.
I think if we actually took the time to look and didn't get into semantic arguments about terminology, we would probably find that most of the people enjoying success have very similar eating habits, and while the type of foods may not meet up exactly, many of the behaviors and approaches probably do. No eating style is all bad, and there are good things to be pulled from all of them that can be incorporated into success.
Oh, I've been saying this for ages. It's one of my pet peeves about the "clean eating" terminology. For the most part people who "eat clean" may SAY they don't eat "processed foods," but of course they do, and why shouldn't they. Instead, they mean they are trying to eat healthy. As are most of the rest of is, certainly those who get involved in these discussions. It's that I'm accused of not caring about nutrition because I don't "eat clean" that got me bugged by the term in the first place.
But instead of just saying that, and acknowledging that we all have common interests and goals (for example, I imagine that most of the stuff people talk about in the "clean eating" group are things I also care about, like putting together a healthy and delicious dinner from whole foods, usually incorporating seasonal ingredients and all that), they cling to a label that implies that they eat "cleaner" than others and that there is something wrong with what others eat or with eating "processed" foods which, as I pointed out, include very helpful foods like smoked salmon or bagged spinach or dried pasta or greek yogurt or even more "processed" things like a packaged rice & beans or Amy's Light & Lean which someone starting out might find extremely helpful and shouldn't be made to feel makes them less "clean" or less successful at eating well.
So the way I see these discussions, it's the self-proclaimed "clean eaters" who want to pretend there's something fundamentally different about how they eat and who accuse the rest of us of not caring about nutrition or the like (up to and including nonsense about eating only donuts).
I should clarify that I don't mean OP here and did not jump on her. I just briefly pointed out why I don't think "clean eating" is important to weight loss, although for me "eating healthy" has been.That doesn't mean that I didn't have some housekeeping to do with my diet and some changes to make to be successful.
I don't think it's debated that quite often people change their diets somewhat in lowering calories. After all, you have to learn what will be satisfying on a reduced number of calories, and that's going to push many of us to focus on different foods. My issue before was really that I failed to eat mindfully and did not plan well, though. When I cooked at home I made nutritious meals of whole foods (more calories than those I made now, but not hugely different). But I was prone to overindulgence when I went out to eat (I go out to eat--and to restaurants with good quality, nutritious food, as always--about the same amount, but don't pretend it's an excuse for indulging like it's a special occasion), to snacking on foods just because they were there (a problem at work especially), and to planning badly, coming home late and tired and having nothing to cook, so ordering out for Indian food.
I've gone into all this before, including on "clean eating" threads so I certainly don't deny that I changed my diet and my focus some. But it's not about "cleaning it up" as it wasn't dirty before and I (again) really see no usefulness to the "clean" term in this context. I'm not trying to have a "clean" diet, as I don't buy the premises that (a) all processed food is bad or unhealthy; or (b) that eliminating foods is the focus (instead I think the focus should be on having an overall healthy, balanced, and calorie-appropriate diet.
Now, I don't care if others want to cut out "processed" foods (although virtually no one who claims to actually does) or eliminate all sweets or the like. That's great for them, if it makes them happy. I do care if they pretend to be superior to others who do not ("I eat clean" and by implication "the food others eat is unclean") and--more significantly--if they insist that that is a more healthy choice, as there is no evidence for that.0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »This didn't mean to come across self righteous or rude or insensitive, but I've read a lot of people trying to lose a lot of weight( 50 or more lbs) and they do these crash or fad diets, I don't think it's realistic to keep the weight off after using these methods. If you just incorporate healthy eating into your lifestyle while working out I feel that's more sustainable for long term success, again it's just my opinion and every one is entitled to their own. And I think lifestyle change is a fitting word, not a fad word for a lot of people. I think this because a lot of people spent a lot of their days obsessing about food, and how much and what they were going to eat next, and over indulging, myself included until I decided to completely change the way I saw food and made this change, food is a struggle for alot of people. Before I was depressed, and binge ate and wasn't active, so yea, this was a lifestyle change for me.
I think that most people here would agree with you that crash diets don't work. I don't see anything wrong with telling people not to crash diet. But instead your OP seems to be dictating the terms we all can and cannot use and that's not going to sit very well around here.
I do call it a diet. I'm dieting when I drop my calories below maintenance and maintaining when I eat at maintenance. I avoided weight loss for a very long time because I knew that it had to be a "lifestyle change" and I wasn't ready for that. I understood "lifestyle change" to mean giving up everything that I loved, the foods, the sedentary hobbies, etc. in favor of some perfect fitness life that doesn't exist. If more people like the posters here had been around to tell me that I could eat the foods I wanted in portions that fit my goals and lose weight, I might have saved myself years of weight gain.
That's really interesting, I can definitely see that psychology take place. I used to get into the all-or-nothing trap, or really, something more like a perfection vs. John Belushi trap. "Perfection" meant many things at many times, but it was always something completely "other" than my regular lifestyle, followed by going full on self-destructive once behaving perfectly got too hard.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »But it's not about "cleaning it up" as it wasn't dirty before and I (again) really see no usefulness to the "clean" term in this context.
Other people do - so let them.
That you keep hammering people on it says the term does hold a lot of meaning for you. If it didn't, you wouldn't have a problem just letting it go.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Nah, if you eat you "have a diet." Being "on a diet" means intentionally eating less than you need to sustain your weight.
Or more to gain weight. That's also a "diet". So is maintenance.
Anytime you're monitoring your intake for a specific purpose, you're on a diet.
You want a lifestyle change? Commit to doing an Ironman in 12 months.
I might, I'm doing a half ironman in one month. So I could go crazy, who knows. ;-)
My understanding of normal usage is that "I'm on a diet" refers almost exclusively to trying to lose weight. I'm on a "special diet" would mean some kind of health-related eating plan, of course, and "I'm on a training diet" could relate to improving athletic performance independent of weight efforts. But there you'd add the "training" bit unless you were with people who would know it was implied.
It is also true that everyone has a diet, and if I were trying to gain weight I'd be eating a diet for that purpose, but in that case or when I've been eating at maintenance I wouldn't have said "I'm on a diet."
It's not something that I feel strongly about, but just how I think the phrases are employed in American English (at least in the subcultures in which I've spent my life). Maybe outside the US it's different or in the bodybuilding world or some such.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Nah, if you eat you "have a diet." Being "on a diet" means intentionally eating less than you need to sustain your weight.
Or more to gain weight. That's also a "diet". So is maintenance.
Anytime you're monitoring your intake for a specific purpose, you're on a diet.
You want a lifestyle change? Commit to doing an Ironman in 12 months.
I might, I'm doing a half ironman in one month. So I could go crazy, who knows. ;-)
That's no small thing - good luck! :drinker:
0 -
It's not a diet, it's a lifestyle change!
Crash diets do not work, for long term results. Eating clean, and healthy will help you lose weight and/ or maintain your weight, but really it's a lifestyle change not a diet.
Mini vent.
When you say "it's" not a diet, what is "it" that you are referring to??? This is the main issue I have with this type of dramatic post. Are you talking about YOUR food choices? Fine. Call it a lifestyle change if it makes you happy. If "it" is someone else's food choices, let them call it whatever they want!
I don't call "it" either one! I don't really discuss "it" a whole lot. I just plan and eat accordingly. Kind of like flossing...no heart to hearts over it, just do it.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »But it's not about "cleaning it up" as it wasn't dirty before and I (again) really see no usefulness to the "clean" term in this context.
Other people do - so let them.
That you keep hammering people on it says the term does hold a lot of meaning for you. If it didn't, you wouldn't have a problem just letting it go.
I don't like the term, no. Like I said, it's my version of tilting at windmills (and yes that makes me a little crazy in this respect).
I also hate the misspelling "loose" but I'm not permitted to comment on that, as well as the word "impactful" but I haven't noticed that one being an issue here. ;-)
I think if I understood a reason for people to want to divide us into "clean eaters" and "non clean eaters" -- even though as many have pointed out we basically eat similarly and it's not just "clean eaters" who care about nutrition -- and to prefer "clean" (which implies an "unclean") to something more neutral like "I try to eat healthy" I'd feel less like the only reason for the usage is to try to pretend superiority or say something nasty about other people, and wouldn't see it as rude. But I've asked often and never gotten a reason. So I (quite nicely, I believe) do like to point out why I think it's a poor term to use.
Beyond that, the underlying argument is more substantial -- is processing inherently bad, is more natural always better? "Processing," of course, makes available a wide range of food that contribute to health in many cases (like frozen foods, smoked salmon, greek yogurt, yadda, yadda). And more natural would actually be quite a problem where I live, as the climate would make produce largely unavailable much of the year if we couldn't do "unnatural" things like can and freeze and cart stuff in from far away.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Nah, if you eat you "have a diet." Being "on a diet" means intentionally eating less than you need to sustain your weight.
Or more to gain weight. That's also a "diet". So is maintenance.
Anytime you're monitoring your intake for a specific purpose, you're on a diet.
You want a lifestyle change? Commit to doing an Ironman in 12 months.
I might, I'm doing a half ironman in one month. So I could go crazy, who knows. ;-)
That's no small thing - good luck! :drinker:
Thanks!0 -
It's not a diet, it's a lifestyle change!
Crash diets do not work, for long term results. Eating clean, and healthy will help you lose weight and/ or maintain your weight, but really it's a lifestyle change not a diet.
Mini vent.
When you say "it's" not a diet, what is "it" that you are referring to??? This is the main issue I have with this type of dramatic post. Are you talking about YOUR food choices? Fine. Call it a lifestyle change if it makes you happy. If "it" is someone else's food choices, let them call it whatever they want!
I don't call "it" either one! I don't really discuss "it" a whole lot. I just plan and eat accordingly. Kind of like flossing...no heart to hearts over it, just do it.
Yes, I suppose I am referring to my own bc I don't plan on quitting the way I am going about eating now, so it's not short term to me. Thats why I refer to it as a lifestyle change. I aplogized for my wording it wasn't suppose to be meant to be so dramatic, I was just frustrated when i posted with multiple things. Everyone has their own opinion and things that work for their bodies. I was just simply implying that the fad/crash diets don't work, and I guess I should have stated for myself personally.0 -
For some people, their weight loss "diet" becomes part of a new lifestyle. Many people who never ate veggies, become vegetarians and for them it does change their lifestyle as they now must plan their social and shopping activities more carefully around their new "diet"/lifestyle (ie they probably won't want to go to a steakhouse or Brazilian restaurants).
For long term health, many people, Diabetics and epileptics come first to mind, have to adjust their lifestyles. No more carbs means much more careful and thoughtful eating. They will do whatever is necessary to keep themselves out of tempting environments so that they are do not slip and eat something which affects their health. For many of these people, their doctors first told them they could control their issues, blood sugar and seizures in these populations, only through medication. For some people, they did so for many years without ever knowing that HEY they could avoid medication and control their medical conditions through lifestyle/diet changes. So when they learn about food modification, it is an actual big lifestyle change for them.
0 -
None of the moderation cleans up their diet. You're either a cleaner eater, or you eat 50 twinkies a day or whatever number fits your macros, and nothing else, ever.Alatariel75 wrote: »Eating clean is not a prerequisite to losing weight, or keeping it off.
While eating clean is not a prerequisite, it would be interesting to see how many MFPers "clean up" their diets as part of their success. Not just eating less food, but if there is a shift in the frequency they enjoy certain highly processed or high calorie foods (in any quantity), or if they begin including more whole foods.
Many people here may not "eat clean," but I suspect that some clean eating principles (eating more whole foods, for example) probably contribute to a lot of the success we see here. I think it would be neat see some comparisons of how people ate before and after.0 -
It's not a diet, it's a lifestyle change!
Crash diets do not work, for long term results. Eating clean, and healthy will help you lose weight and/ or maintain your weight, but really it's a lifestyle change not a diet.
Mini vent.
When you say "it's" not a diet, what is "it" that you are referring to??? This is the main issue I have with this type of dramatic post. Are you talking about YOUR food choices? Fine. Call it a lifestyle change if it makes you happy. If "it" is someone else's food choices, let them call it whatever they want!
I don't call "it" either one! I don't really discuss "it" a whole lot. I just plan and eat accordingly. Kind of like flossing...no heart to hearts over it, just do it.
You can call it a "lifestyle change" if your purpose is to soothe yourself. If your purpose is to convey information, it conveys nothing, unless you assume that that person you are communicating with knows that your are speaking in code, in which case, what's the point of speaking in code?0 -
Decided to join the traveling carnival and diet has invariably changed. Staples are: funnel cake, Mountain Dew, fried Oreos, cotton candy and hotdogs. The physical activity is great; you get real wirey packing and unpacking all the rides. It sure is a lifestyle change!0
-
-
louubelle16 wrote: »I agree with those who said the term "lifestyle change" is just another fad to make eating healthily sound more appealing. Personally, it irritates me a lot - just because I'm eating healthily and enjoying exercise now, whereas before I didn't do either, doesn't mean I've had a lifestyle change. My life isn't that sad that it's entirely focussed on food etc. Changing job? Yes, a new lifestyle. Moving to a new country? Yes, also. Eating more vegetables? No.
+1
And it irritates me because it assumes that we all ate really badly (whatever that means) and didn't exercise and didn't take care of ourselves before ... but now we've made this "lifestyle change" and we are now eating well, exercising, etc. etc.
Many of us had quite good diets (defined as the food we eat generally, not in an attempt to change our weight) ... lots of fruit and veg, lean meats, whole grains, nuts, etc. etc. etc.
Many of us exercised quite a bit, doing a variety of cardio and strength activities.
BUT ... we ate a little bit too much of all those good things. As I mentioned earlier, when I calculated it all out, I was averaging 79 cal/day too much over 4 years. That's not a lot. That's like 1 egg, or 3/4 of a piece of bread or banana, or 1.5 kiwi fruits.
Now I am on a diet (defined as a method to lose weight) where I am deliberately and carefully eating fewer calories than I burn in order to drop back to the weight I want to be. I already reached my first goal mid-June and have lost 2 kg more since then.
When I get to my second goal, I'll decide whether I want to return to "normal" (less 79 cal/day) or whether I want to keep going with the diet and aim for a third goal.
But the diet (defined as a method to lose weight) I am on is not something I want to spend a lot of time doing. It is not a lifestyle. I definitely don't want it to be a lifestyle. And I am looking forward to returning to "normal" (less 79 cal/day).
And yes ... when I moved to a new country and took on new jobs here, that was a lifestyle change. 0 -
louubelle16 wrote: »I agree with those who said the term "lifestyle change" is just another fad to make eating healthily sound more appealing. Personally, it irritates me a lot - just because I'm eating healthily and enjoying exercise now, whereas before I didn't do either, doesn't mean I've had a lifestyle change. My life isn't that sad that it's entirely focussed on food etc. Changing job? Yes, a new lifestyle. Moving to a new country? Yes, also. Eating more vegetables? No.
+1
And it irritates me because it assumes that we all ate really badly (whatever that means) and didn't exercise and didn't take care of ourselves before ... but now we've made this "lifestyle change" and we are now eating well, exercising, etc. etc.
Many of us had quite good diets (defined as the food we eat generally, not in an attempt to change our weight) ... lots of fruit and veg, lean meats, whole grains, nuts, etc. etc. etc.
Many of us exercised quite a bit, doing a variety of cardio and strength activities.
BUT ... we ate a little bit too much of all those good things. As I mentioned earlier, when I calculated it all out, I was averaging 79 cal/day too much over 4 years. That's not a lot. That's like 1 egg, or 3/4 of a piece of bread or banana, or 1.5 kiwi fruits.
Now I am on a diet (defined as a method to lose weight) where I am deliberately and carefully eating fewer calories than I burn in order to drop back to the weight I want to be. I already reached my first goal mid-June and have lost 2 kg more since then.
When I get to my second goal, I'll decide whether I want to return to "normal" (less 79 cal/day) or whether I want to keep going with the diet and aim for a third goal.
But the diet (defined as a method to lose weight) I am on is not something I want to spend a lot of time doing. It is not a lifestyle. I definitely don't want it to be a lifestyle. And I am looking forward to returning to "normal" (less 79 cal/day).
And yes ... when I moved to a new country and took on new jobs here, that was a lifestyle change.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 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
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions