Abs?

Options
2»

Replies

  • purple18194
    purple18194 Posts: 52 Member
    Options
    Even when I was working out every day and eating only 1200 calories a day, I was not losing weight when I was eating heavily processed/fried/etc nightly. It was a caloric deficit and I did not lose weight. Now that I work out almost every day and pay pretty close attention to how much processed, fried, additive-filled foods I eat regularly, I lose weight and ta-da... have abs. Yeah, it's a caloric deficit but it's not the same thing, in my experience.

    It's not going to be the same for everyone, but it has really worked for me and just about everyone I know who has tried it. In my opinion, eating 1200 calories of ice cream, cheesy pasta, fried chicken, etc. every day is not going to give you the same result as eating 1200 calories a day of lean protein, vegetables, fruits, healthy fats, etc. even if you're in a caloric deficit.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,404 MFP Moderator
    Options
    purple18194 wrote: »
    Even when I was working out every day and eating only 1200 calories a day, I was not losing weight when I was eating heavily processed/fried/etc nightly. It was a caloric deficit and I did not lose weight. Now that I work out almost every day and pay pretty close attention to how much processed, fried, additive-filled foods I eat regularly, I lose weight and ta-da... have abs. Yeah, it's a caloric deficit but it's not the same thing, in my experience.

    It's not going to be the same for everyone, but it has really worked for me and just about everyone I know who has tried it. In my opinion, eating 1200 calories of ice cream, cheesy pasta, fried chicken, etc. every day is not going to give you the same result as eating 1200 calories a day of lean protein, vegetables, fruits, healthy fats, etc. even if you're in a caloric deficit.

    The question would be how you were tracking your calories. A lot of processed stuff is also packages and there is a lot of variation in actual calorie count. Also, if you ate a lot then its even to miscalculate calories in.

    We agree that one should have a solid diet full of nutrients dense foods but you can eat dirty and get abs.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,344 Member
    edited August 2016
    Options
    purple18194 wrote: »
    Even when I was working out every day and eating only 1200 calories a day, I was not losing weight when I was eating heavily processed/fried/etc nightly. It was a caloric deficit and I did not lose weight. Now that I work out almost every day and pay pretty close attention to how much processed, fried, additive-filled foods I eat regularly, I lose weight and ta-da... have abs. Yeah, it's a caloric deficit but it's not the same thing, in my experience.

    It's not going to be the same for everyone, but it has really worked for me and just about everyone I know who has tried it. In my opinion, eating 1200 calories of ice cream, cheesy pasta, fried chicken, etc. every day is not going to give you the same result as eating 1200 calories a day of lean protein, vegetables, fruits, healthy fats, etc. even if you're in a caloric deficit.

    But it's not possible to have a viable solution somewhere between the two extremes? You know, where you eat mostly lean protein, vegetables, fruits and healthy fats, etc., but mix in the occasional ice cream, cheesy pasta, fried chicken, etc.?

    I ask because usually when the "clean eating" discussions take place, many self-proclaimed "clean eaters" act as if it's a completely binary, black and white issue. Either you're eating nothing but kale washed in angels' tears or you're shoveling pounds of packaged, processed junk food down your gullet every day. Context and dosage are important considerations in any diet.

    The whole junk food diet is a strawman because I have never seen anybody on MFP, nor on any other site related to nutrition/fitness/overall health advocate that anybody eat a diet consisting mostly or entirely of ice cream, cheesy pasta, fried chicken, etc., nor have I ever seen anybody state that it's an optimal diet for weight loss or overall health.
  • purple18194
    purple18194 Posts: 52 Member
    Options
    I didn't say it's one or the other. The majority of my diet is "clean," and once or a twice a week you bet your *kitten* I'm eating something junky, but I didn't think I needed to spell it out that "clean eating" doesn't mean "nothing but clean 100%, no balance at all," and I guess I trusted the OP to know that. Sorry.

    Also, my example wasn't literal. I was responding to everyone saying that losing weight only depends on caloric deficit. My point is that you can't just eat 1200 calories of ANYTHING as just lose weight. It does matter somewhat WHAT those 1200 calories are coming from.
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    Options
    purple18194 wrote: »
    I didn't say it's one or the other. The majority of my diet is "clean," and once or a twice a week you bet your *kitten* I'm eating something junky, but I didn't think I needed to spell it out that "clean eating" doesn't mean "nothing but clean 100%, no balance at all," and I guess I trusted the OP to know that. Sorry.

    Also, my example wasn't literal. I was responding to everyone saying that losing weight only depends on caloric deficit. My point is that you can't just eat 1200 calories of ANYTHING as just lose weight. It does matter somewhat WHAT those 1200 calories are coming from.

    Clean! so is mine! the majority anyway.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,344 Member
    edited August 2016
    Options
    purple18194 wrote: »
    I didn't say it's one or the other. The majority of my diet is "clean," and once or a twice a week you bet your *kitten* I'm eating something junky, but I didn't think I needed to spell it out that "clean eating" doesn't mean "nothing but clean 100%, no balance at all," and I guess I trusted the OP to know that. Sorry.

    Also, my example wasn't literal. I was responding to everyone saying that losing weight only depends on caloric deficit. My point is that you can't just eat 1200 calories of ANYTHING as just lose weight. It does matter somewhat WHAT those 1200 calories are coming from.

    As they say - "you're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts". The scientific fact is that, assuming 1200 calories is a caloric deficit for a person, they will lose weight eating 1200 calories whether it's 100% "clean" (by whatever definition) or comprised entirely of junk food. Nutrition and overall health are completely different topics, we're speaking purely in terms of weight loss here.

    [ETA:] On topic to the OP, the correct answer is that she needs to create a sustained caloric deficit to eventually lose the subcutaneous fat in her abdomen, which will create definition of her abdominal muscles. Eating "clean" has nothing whatsoever to do with it, the OP can eat in whatever manner she chooses to create the necessary caloric deficit. A strength training program will help with preserving lean body mass and strengthening the muscles beneath the fat, but it won't result in spot reduction.
  • errollmaclean
    errollmaclean Posts: 562 Member
    edited August 2016
    Options
    fitgamercatlady wrote: »
    Wait, what's wrong with the phrase "clean eating?" I'm a healthy diet noob and I don't know exactly what "clean eating" is exactly, but I thought it was when you eat unprocessed fresh food. Can someone explain what it actually is and why it's so terrible?

    Clean eating is old "broscience". Basically your body can only absorb so much macro/micronutrients in a given time period, so you don't get bonus points for more once you reach your daily threshold. The newer way of looking at it is a macro approach. Once you've, met your daily macro/micro goals (protein/fat/fiber/vitamins) there is no gold star for having more "clean food" and if you stay within your calories there is no negative consequences to eating "dirty/bad" food (provided you've met your macro and micronutrient goals). With your daily goals met and staying within your calories "bad" food won't magically make you fat.

    Clean eating is pushed by the diet industry, and is almost impossible to maintain long term. And once you fail, and eat bad food, there is guilt. This cycle causes a poor relationship with food, deaming some good and some bad. A macro approach categorizes food by it's macro content and calories. Does it fit within you daily calories and contribute to your macros goals? If it does then eat it. If it doesn't fit, then don't. It leads to a better relationship with food. There's no good or bad, just it's component macros and calories.

    *edit to add that this is based on my experience with clean eating and iifym. If you simply enjoy clean eating and it works for you, great. You still need to eat "clean" foods to meet your macros/micros doing flexible dieting and iifym.
  • errollmaclean
    errollmaclean Posts: 562 Member
    Options
    tennispolly wrote: »
    I am 139 pounds
    5'6 Female
    23 BMI
    How do I get abs and how much do I need to lift ?

    Judging by your picture, you are pretty thin. I'd recommend changing your body composition (add more muscle) by lifting heavy. Here's an example of what changing your body composition by adding muscle can do:
    3fdxoryl3q0w.jpg

  • rybo
    rybo Posts: 5,424 Member
    Options
    fitgamercatlady wrote: »
    Wait, what's wrong with the phrase "clean eating?" I'm a healthy diet noob and I don't know exactly what "clean eating" is exactly, but I thought it was when you eat unprocessed fresh food. Can someone explain what it actually is and why it's so terrible?

    That's what the definition originally started out as, but the Internet allows people to define it thousands of different ways and then the MFP nit picking semantics police take over and ruin every thread that even mentions clean eating.

Categories