Do you lose more when you eat less processed food?
Options
Replies
-
i completely agree with this post on @Monklady123 's previous postMonklady123 wrote: »
Not trying to derail the thread at all (to reply to whoever said that above). But if I eat certain types of things I cannot stay within my calories because it makes me too hungry. So from a purely calorie point of view I couldn't do it.Monklady123 wrote: »Yes.
Eating potato chips, or chocolate chip cookies (my two main downfalls) adds a LOT of calories to my diet but neither one keeps me full for very long. So therefore not only am I eating the chip/cookie calories but then I'm starving and eating a bunch of other stuff. By simply eliminating those things -- and white bread, certain cold cereals (especially for breakfast), etc. -- I'm replacing them with foods that have protein and that keep me full till the next meal time. So I don't have any binges or that shaky type of hunger.
while a calorie is just a calorie, the nutrition content made a huge difference.0 -
No. I haven't seen a difference. Even with processed foods I don't eat a high sodium diet, though. If you chose processed options that are high in sodium it might make a difference with water weight.0
-
I could see being hungrier on a diet with a lot of processed stuff, leading to more eating over your goal. Possibly. That and sodium. But not necessarily since it still depends on what those processed foods are.
Even on the hunger issue, exactly this. I eat some processed stuff (as does just about everyone), but the processed stuff I eat (say, adding some smoked salmon to breakfast) is satiating--that's one reason I choose it. But like others have said, OP is asking about keeping calories equal, and there I've seen no difference.
My understanding is that there's some thought that calories from some items, like meat and nuts and higher fiber foods, may be overstated, at least as in what most of us can take from them, so if there's a big shift between these types of foods vs. others, maybe some people actually are getting fewer calories. If OP is talking about eating mostly the same stuff but just having a FiberOne bar or not, though, I can't see how that would make a difference.0 -
I thought OP was asking for people's experiences. I eat a lot of "processed" food and I've lost a lot of weight. Other people have lost a lot of weight eating less "processed" food.Monklady123 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
OP said, "I wonder if it is my body hanging onto something longer?"Monklady123 wrote: »Monklady123 wrote: »Yes.
Eating potato chips, or chocolate chip cookies (my two main downfalls) adds a LOT of calories to my diet but neither one keeps me full for very long. So therefore not only am I eating the chip/cookie calories but then I'm starving and eating a bunch of other stuff. By simply eliminating those things -- and white bread, certain cold cereals (especially for breakfast), etc. -- I'm replacing them with foods that have protein and that keep me full till the next meal time. So I don't have any binges or that shaky type of hunger.
It still comes down to self control. Don't blame proceeded foods for the lack of self control.
I'm not. But the OP asked if we lose more from eating less processed food and my answer is "yes".
It clearly wasn't about the way of eating question you're using to derail the discussion of whether processed calories cause slower loss than whole calories.
OP understands that eating more will make the situation different. You're just derailing to your low-carb, whole foods hobbyhorse, which has nothing to do with the OP.
lolololol. Go find my reply in the Krispy Kreme donuts thread if you think I'm on a "low carb, whole foods hobby horse". I regulate my carb count because my doctor told me to. And I do eat a donut every once in awhile if I want it.
OP, I apologize for what some have called "derailing" your thread. Not intended. I misunderstood your use of "you" and assumed you were asking for our experiences.
0 -
But not if eating more of one than the other, because that's a different question. Yeah, if what you're eating leads to your eating more, there will be a difference in outcomes. But, again, that wasn't the question.0
-
i completely agree with this post on @Monklady123 's previous postMonklady123 wrote: »
Not trying to derail the thread at all (to reply to whoever said that above). But if I eat certain types of things I cannot stay within my calories because it makes me too hungry. So from a purely calorie point of view I couldn't do it.Monklady123 wrote: »Yes.
Eating potato chips, or chocolate chip cookies (my two main downfalls) adds a LOT of calories to my diet but neither one keeps me full for very long. So therefore not only am I eating the chip/cookie calories but then I'm starving and eating a bunch of other stuff. By simply eliminating those things -- and white bread, certain cold cereals (especially for breakfast), etc. -- I'm replacing them with foods that have protein and that keep me full till the next meal time. So I don't have any binges or that shaky type of hunger.
while a calorie is just a calorie, the nutrition content made a huge difference.
I wonder how I lost 121 pounds, lol!!
Calories in Calories out, science, read up on it!!0 -
Yes and no. Yes I lose a lot of weight eating healthy foods, but No, it's not the quality of the food that causes it, I don't think. Plenty of anorexics eat junk food and still lose weight...because they eat so very little!
It's a lot easier to stay full when you eat healthier fare because you can eat so much more of it for so few calories. So, that helps with weight loss, I guess.
I choose to eat healthier food because it's good for me. I watch my calories because I'm losing weight.0 -
i completely agree with this post on @Monklady123 's previous postMonklady123 wrote: »
Not trying to derail the thread at all (to reply to whoever said that above). But if I eat certain types of things I cannot stay within my calories because it makes me too hungry. So from a purely calorie point of view I couldn't do it.Monklady123 wrote: »Yes.
Eating potato chips, or chocolate chip cookies (my two main downfalls) adds a LOT of calories to my diet but neither one keeps me full for very long. So therefore not only am I eating the chip/cookie calories but then I'm starving and eating a bunch of other stuff. By simply eliminating those things -- and white bread, certain cold cereals (especially for breakfast), etc. -- I'm replacing them with foods that have protein and that keep me full till the next meal time. So I don't have any binges or that shaky type of hunger.
while a calorie is just a calorie, the nutrition content made a huge difference.
To how much you lose, all calories kept equal? I'm not sure what the scientific explanation would be for that.
The main reason I'm responding, though, is that processed doesn't mean "low nutrient" or not satiating, and that's where I disagree with Monklady. My smoked salmon example is a good one, or greek yogurt or cottage cheese are other examples of processed foods that I think have a good nutrition to calorie ratio and tend to make me less hungry. Some people even find Quest bars quite filling.0 -
Yes, you will probably lose more weight if you eat less "processed" food.
Not because of anything magical about non-processed food.
But simply because most "processed" food is an engineered product that has been designed to be very tasty, very convenient, cheap, and is usually calorie-dense.
So cutting out "processed" foods generally means cutting out calorie-dense foods, which can help with weight loss. Think of it this way: You can eat one Snicker's Bar for 250 calories or two apples for 220. About the same number of calories, but one is a whole lot more compelling for most people to eat, which can lead to self-control issues where you want to eat another one and another one. Not many people binge on apples.
That said, there is nothing "bad" about the Snicker's bar and you could lose weight eating only Snicker's bars.0 -
From a strictly losing weight standpoint, do you find that you lose more with cleaner foods? I agree with calories in vs calories out for the most point, but I seem to lose a bit more when my calories are made up of lean proteins, fruits, veggies, etc., then when I allow myself to have some processed treats, like fiber one bars. I'm still losing either way, just not as quickly with more processed foods. I wonder if it is my body hanging onto something longer? Anyone had a similar experience?
I always get flamed for this by IIFYM/CICO junkies but here you go.
the reason you feel better or lose more on cleaner foods is because your body has a hormonal response to what you eat. IE your body doesn't deal with MCT oil the same way it does with a transfat, although they both equal 9 calories per gram and you can consume 1 gram and = the same amount of calorie intake, your body is better off with the MCT oils versus transfats.
0 -
The confusion is that OP asked about whether you lose more without processed foods if you keep calories equal. People saying "yes, because I ate less," really should be saying no or simply aren't answering the question.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »
i completely agree with this post on @Monklady123 's previous postMonklady123 wrote: »
Not trying to derail the thread at all (to reply to whoever said that above). But if I eat certain types of things I cannot stay within my calories because it makes me too hungry. So from a purely calorie point of view I couldn't do it.Monklady123 wrote: »Yes.
Eating potato chips, or chocolate chip cookies (my two main downfalls) adds a LOT of calories to my diet but neither one keeps me full for very long. So therefore not only am I eating the chip/cookie calories but then I'm starving and eating a bunch of other stuff. By simply eliminating those things -- and white bread, certain cold cereals (especially for breakfast), etc. -- I'm replacing them with foods that have protein and that keep me full till the next meal time. So I don't have any binges or that shaky type of hunger.
while a calorie is just a calorie, the nutrition content made a huge difference.
To how much you lose, all calories kept equal? I'm not sure what the scientific explanation would be for that.
The main reason I'm responding, though, is that processed doesn't mean "low nutrient" or not satiating, and that's where I disagree with Monklady. My smoked salmon example is a good one, or greek yogurt or cottage cheese are other examples of processed foods that I think have a good nutrition to calorie ratio and tend to make me less hungry. Some people even find Quest bars quite filling.
i don't consider those processed. well, the quest bar. but by processed i would mean hot dogs, some brands of mac and cheese, nacho cheese, snickers, etc
i tried a quest bar and i was full 10 min later. but i also don't find oatmeal filling. personal preferences i suppose 0 -
I have seen no difference with weight loss either unless the processed food is very high in sodium. Then I just retain water and feel all bloated.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »The confusion is that OP asked about whether you lose more without processed foods if you keep calories equal. People saying "yes, because I ate less," really should be saying no or simply aren't answering the question.
Right. I feel like the discussion could be translated to this:
OP: Does 2+2 always equal 4? Because I feel like sometimes it doesn't, but I'm not sure.
Commenters: NO! Sometimes 2+3 = 5 and 2+1 = 3!!! See, the math doesn't always work!
0 -
no one is arguing calories in and calories out
i completely agree with this post on @Monklady123 's previous postMonklady123 wrote: »
Not trying to derail the thread at all (to reply to whoever said that above). But if I eat certain types of things I cannot stay within my calories because it makes me too hungry. So from a purely calorie point of view I couldn't do it.Monklady123 wrote: »Yes.
Eating potato chips, or chocolate chip cookies (my two main downfalls) adds a LOT of calories to my diet but neither one keeps me full for very long. So therefore not only am I eating the chip/cookie calories but then I'm starving and eating a bunch of other stuff. By simply eliminating those things -- and white bread, certain cold cereals (especially for breakfast), etc. -- I'm replacing them with foods that have protein and that keep me full till the next meal time. So I don't have any binges or that shaky type of hunger.
while a calorie is just a calorie, the nutrition content made a huge difference.
I wonder how I lost 121 pounds, lol!!
Calories in Calories out, science, read up on it!!
we only said less process food kept us full longer and therefore less likely to go over our calorie allotment
i might suggest reading up on reading comprehension
You may want to as well, as satiety has nothing to do with the OP.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
i completely agree with this post on @Monklady123 's previous postMonklady123 wrote: »
Not trying to derail the thread at all (to reply to whoever said that above). But if I eat certain types of things I cannot stay within my calories because it makes me too hungry. So from a purely calorie point of view I couldn't do it.Monklady123 wrote: »Yes.
Eating potato chips, or chocolate chip cookies (my two main downfalls) adds a LOT of calories to my diet but neither one keeps me full for very long. So therefore not only am I eating the chip/cookie calories but then I'm starving and eating a bunch of other stuff. By simply eliminating those things -- and white bread, certain cold cereals (especially for breakfast), etc. -- I'm replacing them with foods that have protein and that keep me full till the next meal time. So I don't have any binges or that shaky type of hunger.
while a calorie is just a calorie, the nutrition content made a huge difference.
To how much you lose, all calories kept equal? I'm not sure what the scientific explanation would be for that.
The main reason I'm responding, though, is that processed doesn't mean "low nutrient" or not satiating, and that's where I disagree with Monklady. My smoked salmon example is a good one, or greek yogurt or cottage cheese are other examples of processed foods that I think have a good nutrition to calorie ratio and tend to make me less hungry. Some people even find Quest bars quite filling.
i don't consider those processed. well, the quest bar. but by processed i would mean hot dogs, some brands of mac and cheese, nacho cheese, snickers, etc
i tried a quest bar and i was full 10 min later. but i also don't find oatmeal filling. personal preferences i suppose
I guess that's the issue with this conversation. Some people seem to have quite different definitions of "processed foods" than what I think is the correct one. IMO, some processed foods are filling, some are not.
(For what it's worth, I don't find oatmeal especially filling UNLESS I add processed protein powder, and then it is.)
Bigger point, of course, is that OP wasn't asking about what's satiating, but if foods have a different effect on fat gain, even holding calories equal.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The confusion is that OP asked about whether you lose more without processed foods if you keep calories equal. People saying "yes, because I ate less," really should be saying no or simply aren't answering the question.
Right. I feel like the discussion could be translated to this:
OP: Does 2+2 always equal 4? Because I feel like sometimes it doesn't, but I'm not sure.
Commenters: NO! Sometimes 2+3 = 5 and 2+1 = 3!!! See, the math doesn't always work!
Not only that, but sometimes 3+1 = 4 too!!! And God help us if we have to introduce multiplication, division, or algebra.
0 -
Tedebearduff wrote: »From a strictly losing weight standpoint, do you find that you lose more with cleaner foods? I agree with calories in vs calories out for the most point, but I seem to lose a bit more when my calories are made up of lean proteins, fruits, veggies, etc., then when I allow myself to have some processed treats, like fiber one bars. I'm still losing either way, just not as quickly with more processed foods. I wonder if it is my body hanging onto something longer? Anyone had a similar experience?
I always get flamed for this by IIFYM/CICO junkies but here you go.
the reason you feel better or lose more on cleaner foods is because your body has a hormonal response to what you eat. IE your body doesn't deal with MCT oil the same way it does with a transfat, although they both equal 9 calories per gram and you can consume 1 gram and = the same amount of calorie intake, your body is better off with the MCT oils versus transfats.
Aren't you "flaming" said individuals by calling them "junkies"?0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The confusion is that OP asked about whether you lose more without processed foods if you keep calories equal. People saying "yes, because I ate less," really should be saying no or simply aren't answering the question.
Right. I feel like the discussion could be translated to this:
OP: Does 2+2 always equal 4? Because I feel like sometimes it doesn't, but I'm not sure.
Commenters: NO! Sometimes 2+3 = 5 and 2+1 = 3!!! See, the math doesn't always work!
Heh, perfect.0
This discussion has been closed.
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