Clean eating- does it matter?
Options
Replies
-
endlessfall16 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »It might help to clarify which version of clean eating we're talking about.
Calories matter for weight loss. Good nutrition matters for things like hunger and health. But those can both be achieved with or without a "clean" diet.
Your diary shows a really low fat intake. I just want to be sure you're being smart about that because I can't imagine keeping my fat that low (and I have to stay low fat without my gallbladder).
Best of luck with your goals! :flowerforyou:
I have to eat low fat because fat cause my skin to break out and give me breakouts but I make sure I get my omegas from my greens on chronometer and if I don't, I'll have a tbsp of seeds. All my blood work is perfect for the first time in my life. I think eating clean just helps you feel full. For example, I'm going to feel a lot more full on a giant salad then two Oreos so I feel like it would be harder to feel full without eating clean
Who makes a choice between a giant salad, or two oreos? What harm will I come to, if I eat a salad AND eat Oreos, when I have room in my calories for both?
She already stated that eating Oreos would not make her feel full (and presumably would lead to overeating).
If you are someone who can eat anything, anytime and stay in tiptop shape, well then..hallelujah.
I make good steaks.
Eating just Oreos wouldn't make most feel full. Eating a balanced healthy diet with lots of filling foods -- including, say, a big salad with protein on it, steak and lots of vegetables, some eggs and veg (this day is really not for OP, obviously, but I would enjoy it), and then having room for an Oreo is not challenging and won't make most people hungry. (It's also not challenging even if you don't log.)
Now some people wouldn't enjoy just one Oreo, and that's fine, but does that mean the only option is to never ever eat them or instead to eat them more rarely? Up to the person, but I wouldn't say one or the other solution is better.
I don't think Oreos are that great, so I use the calories for something else. I'm not sure girl scout cookies are better tastewise really, but I do have nostalgia value there and enjoy supporting girl scouts and so always do think they are worth the calories (well, the Samoas and thin mints). Otherwise, a homemade cookie--although it would have to be small to have as few calories as an Oreo--or some ice cream or good cheese or chocolate. But the point is one can fit in something just for pleasure and still not struggle with hunger. This idea that if one doesn't eat 100% clean one will be hungry is not true for most of us. The all or nothing, clean or all junk, thing is a false dichotomy.6 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »It might help to clarify which version of clean eating we're talking about.
Calories matter for weight loss. Good nutrition matters for things like hunger and health. But those can both be achieved with or without a "clean" diet.
Your diary shows a really low fat intake. I just want to be sure you're being smart about that because I can't imagine keeping my fat that low (and I have to stay low fat without my gallbladder).
Best of luck with your goals! :flowerforyou:
I have to eat low fat because fat cause my skin to break out and give me breakouts but I make sure I get my omegas from my greens on chronometer and if I don't, I'll have a tbsp of seeds. All my blood work is perfect for the first time in my life. I think eating clean just helps you feel full. For example, I'm going to feel a lot more full on a giant salad then two Oreos so I feel like it would be harder to feel full without eating clean
Who makes a choice between a giant salad, or two oreos? What harm will I come to, if I eat a salad AND eat Oreos, when I have room in my calories for both?
She already stated that eating Oreos would not make her feel full (and presumably would lead to overeating).
If you are someone who can eat anything, anytime and stay in tiptop shape, well then..hallelujah.
I make good steaks.
Eating Oreos instead of a salad would not make her feel full. Me neither. I really can't think of a time when I was trying to decide between a salad, which I would consider a meal, and two Oreos, which I would consider dessert. My point is that why does there always have to be this false dilemma? Are there people who choose to eat Oreos instead of a sensible meal? Not that they choose to consume Oreos after a sensible meal, but instead of? Those are the scenarios that are always proposed in these threads and they just don't seem realistic to me.
Eat anything, any time and stay in tip top shape? I don't think I would go that far, but I don't see how my comments indicate that I believe that I do that. I'm not striving for top top shape.... I'm striving for generally healthy and happy, and a diet that includes a variety of Whole Foods, processed foods, and even Oreos in moderation - helps me achieve that.
The problem is you are speaking from the perspective of someone who's healthy and rational and balanced.
But nothing is rational or absurd, rare about this false dilemma when it comes to food choice for people with eating disorder.
I think it's encouraging that the OP finds salad to be a solution for her, however it may seem trivial to you. Also, people like me could read more from it and develop other ideas. It doesn't have to be for a meal. Anytime I feel hungry, instead of going for Oreos, I can preemptively eat a big salad.
Does it mean I think Oreos are bad? No. But while dealing with an eating disorder, I need to pick a side and decide that Oreos would derail my effort and need to be avoided. It's like an alcoholic forgoing alcohol drinks completely to deal with his problem instead of striving for a balance like responsible drinkers do.
Whilst I respect and empathise with your situation it is completely different from the average person, this has sort of been brought up before. Should we, in every thread, tiptoe round and cover every single eventuality and medical issue someone might be dealing with if they haven't disclosed that to be an issue?
That's something someone should be working on with their treatment team if they have one. It's not my responsibility or expertise to make sure that when I say you can have a salad and an Orea that someone with an ED might be thrown for a loop because they find the notion in conflict with themselves. It's horrible for that person no doubt, but this isn't an ED specific support forum.
I second this, in addition to the fact that very few people would automatically think "Oreos" when hungry. People don't eat cookies to feel full, they eat them because they are enjoyable. I eat Oreos sometimes (I don't have moderation issues with them) but I have never ever caught myself thinking "I'm hungry, I need to eat some Oreos". My line of thought tends to automatically bounce to tuna or boiled potatoes, or even a small sandwich for a hunger reducing snack. The only times I find myself going for Oreos is when my line of thought goes like "I feel like having Oreos, they taste nice".
This was exactly my point, thank you.
The OP started with that age old question of whether clean eating is required for weight loss. The short answer is "no". The longer answer is "no, for weight loss, calories are all that matter. However, it's important to eat in a way that provides satiety and nutrition as well as an appropriate amount of calories; and for many of us, finding room for treats also helps for long term adherence to our plan".
She then elaborated that her friend is feeling hungry on her limited calories because of the foods she's choosing to eat on her plan. If that friend is hungry and reaching for Oreos, then I don't think that's a sensible choice and I don't think that has anything to do with clean eating. I don't actually find salads to be terribly filling so if I were hungry, that wouldn't be my first choice either. I would probably choose some frozen veggies, a grilled chicken breast and maybe a sweet potato. And then an Oreo of course.
But like so many of these threads, people either aren't asking the right questions, or people are misconstruing the responses. Just like you don't have to eat "clean" to lose weight, you also don't have to eat "clean" to feel full. For lunch at work, sometimes I eat frozen meals (to which I often add extra chicken or frozen vegetables) and find that satiating. Not everyone may, but again, that I choose a frozen meal for my lunch occasionally definitely puts me in the "not a clean eater" camp, but it doesn't mean I'm anti-nutrition or choose to eat nothing but soda, cupcakes and cookies.
My advice to OP's friend: read what @diannethegeek wrote above - great suggestions there. And just be sensible, don't live in the extremes. There's a lot of happiness and success to be found in the middle ground. Trust me.7 -
Sometimes in these "clean eating" conversations, the concept of nutrition seems to get lost. I see repeated statements that calorie deficit is THE ONLY THING that matters, and that food choices are an irrelevant personal preference.
Honestly, I have to wonder what you are reading, as I don't think this is an accurate understanding of what is said, at all. It seems like a misreading based on your own assumptions, perhaps.
Often we are asked if you can lose weight despite eating "bad food." Sometimes the person means an occasional cookie, sometimes the person creates (as a thought experiment) some silly hypothetical (all donuts). The answer is given: yes, for strictly weight loss, calories are what matter. However, ALWAYS in those discussions many people (including me) ALSO say that you should eat healthfully, that food choice matters for nutrition and satiety and just how you will feel. I say I personally find it far easier to eat calorie-appropriate on a good diet and simply could not eat only donuts (it's not that I'd be hungry, I'd want other foods, like vegetables and protein SO BADLY -- that anyone thinks anyone would choose to eat this way always confuses me).
So the pretense that people say nutrition doesn't matter is just that, a pretense. But more significantly for this discussion, and as I said in my first post way back on page 1, clean eating and nutrition are not the same things. Many people who claim to clean eat are just focused on cutting out things and don't focus on what I would consider really important to nutrition. Whereas if I think if you do focus on what's important to nutrition you won't have to worry about using too many calories on junk. Not if you watch calories.Furthermore, when you're eating fewer calories than you burn, every bite of food you take becomes more important in terms of meeting your body's needs. For instance, I'm eating at around 1200 calories a day plus most of my exercise calories. At 1200 calories, my body's nutritional demands simply don't leave any room for foods that aren't nutrient dense. I have to make sure every bite is maximally nutritious, or I'd end up thinner but malnourished.
It really depends on how many calories you have, and many of us are on lower calorie deficits and at maintenance.
However, I started with 1250 plus exercise (I exercise a lot now, but was not when I started). My experience was: pre MFP and with a background of being obsessed with eating only whole food, homemade, as locally available as possible, and lots of veg (hmm, I got fat despite this), my immediate reaction was to go extreme and eat really mostly protein and veg with small (measured) portions of whole food starches (potatoes, oats, sweet potatoes, stuff like that). Lots and lots of veg, some fruit, not a lot because winter. Lean meat. It was tasty and filling, but probably something that would have gotten dull after a while. After a month of this I started logging and discovered I was eating around 1000, which was too low. Over my "but it's working!" protests, and because I did want to ratchet up exercise, I started adding in more food, mainly by getting more lenient on what I would eat -- I used a bit more olive oil, occasional butter, I used 2% dairy for my Fage and cottage cheese and sometimes just got the whole goat yogurt from the green market. I switched out whole chicken for the boneless stuff I don't really like. I added back in some other cuts of meat with a bit more fat (not a lot, I'm usually not into high fat cuts of meat). I used a little cheese in some meals as an accent. I reintroduced pasta and found it was a lovely base for lean meat and veg. I added back in smoked salmon. I went out to dinner on the weekend again, which is part of my foodie lifestyle and social life (many good restaurants where I live). Oh, and when I had the calories I'd have a square of good chocolate or some good cheese after dinner. As I increased exercise calories, I even included some occasional ice cream and found that I enjoyed it more eating a variety of carefully chosen flavors in small amounts (serving or less depending on the ice cream).
That was all on low calories, and without sacrificing satiety or nutrition at all.
Since my plan was to be losing for a year, and I hadn't realized how many more calories exercise would eventually give me, I think this allowed me to have a truly sustainable diet for that amount of time, one that didn't feel at all like I was dieting, one that didn't feel super strict or puritanical but just how I liked to eat. I credit this and my loosening up with me being able to find something sustainable, and I don't think that my looser diet was unhealthy, sorry.I also see a lot of arguments that "clean eating" doesn't exist, because it doesn't have an ironclad definition. It seems sensible to substitute the phrase "nutrient dense" for "clean."
No, it does not, because the precise argument we are having, usually, is whether eating "clean" is somehow superior to eating a nutrient dense or healthful, balanced diet. IMO, it is not. Obviously I think there are benefits to the latter, I do it. Doing it does not require me to cut out all "processed" foods (although from above I obviously mainly eat whole foods). Not is it about NEVER eating specific things for reasons other than thinking they aren't good or aren't worth the calories ever. I don't think "clean eating" is a sensible approach to nutrition at all. I think it is assuming there's something magical about eating a "bad" food that ruins things in some way, or an excuse not to actually learn about nutrition. Some claim to "eat clean" (because they don't eat bread or sweets or whatever) and yet don't really eat veg. It's not a sensible approach.
Eat a good, nutrient dense diet? Yeah, no argument here.
Also, why do people use examples that contrast a good healthful meal (although I'd hope kale is not the only veg) with a couple of cookies. Who eats cookies for a meal, at least in any kind of normal, regular way? Absolutely no one I know.11 -
JerSchmare wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »It might help to clarify which version of clean eating we're talking about.
Calories matter for weight loss. Good nutrition matters for things like hunger and health. But those can both be achieved with or without a "clean" diet.
Your diary shows a really low fat intake. I just want to be sure you're being smart about that because I can't imagine keeping my fat that low (and I have to stay low fat without my gallbladder).
Best of luck with your goals! :flowerforyou:
I have to eat low fat because fat cause my skin to break out and give me breakouts but I make sure I get my omegas from my greens on chronometer and if I don't, I'll have a tbsp of seeds. All my blood work is perfect for the first time in my life. I think eating clean just helps you feel full. For example, I'm going to feel a lot more full on a giant salad then two Oreos so I feel like it would be harder to feel full without eating clean
Who makes a choice between a giant salad, or two oreos? What harm will I come to, if I eat a salad AND eat Oreos, when I have room in my calories for both?
She already stated that eating Oreos would not make her feel full (and presumably would lead to overeating).
If you are someone who can eat anything, anytime and stay in tiptop shape, well then..hallelujah.
I make good steaks.
Eating Oreos instead of a salad would not make her feel full. Me neither. I really can't think of a time when I was trying to decide between a salad, which I would consider a meal, and two Oreos, which I would consider dessert. My point is that why does there always have to be this false dilemma? Are there people who choose to eat Oreos instead of a sensible meal? Not that they choose to consume Oreos after a sensible meal, but instead of? Those are the scenarios that are always proposed in these threads and they just don't seem realistic to me.
Eat anything, any time and stay in tip top shape? I don't think I would go that far, but I don't see how my comments indicate that I believe that I do that. I'm not striving for top top shape.... I'm striving for generally healthy and happy, and a diet that includes a variety of Whole Foods, processed foods, and even Oreos in moderation - helps me achieve that.
The problem is you are speaking from the perspective of someone who's healthy and rational and balanced.
But nothing is rational or absurd, rare about this false dilemma when it comes to food choice for people with eating disorder.
I think it's encouraging that the OP finds salad to be a solution for her, however it may seem trivial to you. Also, people like me could read more from it and develop other ideas. It doesn't have to be for a meal. Anytime I feel hungry, instead of going for Oreos, I can preemptively eat a big salad.
Does it mean I think Oreos are bad? No. But while dealing with an eating disorder, I need to pick a side and decide that Oreos would derail my effort and need to be avoided. It's like an alcoholic forgoing alcohol drinks completely to deal with his problem instead of striving for a balance like responsible drinkers do.
Whilst I respect and empathise with your situation it is completely different from the average person, this has sort of been brought up before. Should we, in every thread, tiptoe round and cover every single eventuality and medical issue someone might be dealing with if they haven't disclosed that to be an issue?
That's something someone should be working on with their treatment team if they have one. It's not my responsibility or expertise to make sure that when I say you can have a salad and an Orea that someone with an ED might be thrown for a loop because they find the notion in conflict with themselves. It's horrible for that person no doubt, but this isn't an ED specific support forum.
I second this, in addition to the fact that very few people would automatically think "Oreos" when hungry. People don't eat cookies to feel full, they eat them because they are enjoyable. I eat Oreos sometimes (I don't have moderation issues with them) but I have never ever caught myself thinking "I'm hungry, I need to eat some Oreos". My line of thought tends to automatically bounce to tuna or boiled potatoes, or even a small sandwich for a hunger reducing snack. The only times I find myself going for Oreos is when my line of thought goes like "I feel like having Oreos, they taste nice".
This is true for me also. I don't feel hungry and look for cookies or Doritos or anything of that nature at all. It doesn't even cross my mind.
Yeah, this. If I am hungry I think about when my next meal is. If it seems far enough away that it's worth having something before (rare for me), I grab nuts or maybe some cottage cheese or a piece of fruit. A cookie is a treat I might have AFTER a meal if I have enough calories in my day to do so (and something sufficiently tempting is available).1 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »cassandrarodriguez89 wrote: »Yes, it 100% matters, for instance, I eat healthy. I ate one cancer meal (taco bell) and broke out in sweat throwing up for hours. If I eat a slice of cake I get horrid acne. Actually, anything that has no good nutrition sends me into oblivion, I will get sick, depressed and acne. Not to mention I hate the taste of white bread, white rice and fried foods. The flavors are nasty, I don't understand why some people enjoy the taste, I honestly think they pretend to like it because they don't want to make effort in eating healthy. White bread tastes like paper... unless they have weird taste buds its a strange concept to me. I will say sugar is different though, it tastes AMAZING... and sometimes its worth the acne and migraine
I don't understand why some people enjoy sugar in their coffee. It tastes absolutely vile to me. I'd rather put salt in my coffee. But I don't think they're pretending. And I know the fact that I hate sweet coffee doesn't make it unhealthy for other people.
And when you're in the minority on a food preference, like I am on coffee, it probably makes sense to think maybe you might be the one with the weird taste buds.
Heh, totally agree with you about coffee. In college I used to use milk in mine and even though I stopped in my 20s (I thought black was more adult, who knows why, and besides it was more convenient at meetings), I get that. I don't get adding sugar, it's nasty to me (also hate sweetened tea/iced tea, which is an issue since I have to go to Mississippi on business a lot lately). ;-)
However, that I don't like it doesn't make it bad or unhealthy and I don't believe others are just pretending to like it, why would they.
I hate cold cereal and canned tuna, others seem to love them (er, I don't mean together, I hope no one is that odd), I take them at their word. Why would they lie? I love some weird things too.2 -
RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »My view is yes. I eat a super clean diet Within my calorie range and I am losing more then a pound a week (even though I'm not overweight) I'm 5"8 and started at about 160 and now I'm at 138. It's been super easy and my skin and hair look great.
My best friend is focusing only on calories and she is losing too but she always feels hungry, her nails are breaking too and she gets moody. So I think clean eating is super important during weight loss. What do you guys think?
P.S. my food diary is open if you want to look and friend adds are welcome
My little n+1, nope. I lost 50lbs and improved all my health markers while eating all sorts of 'processed' diet foods. I then transitioned into maintenance no problem. I just hit my 4 year maintenance anniversary last week and I still eat a wide variety of foods, which includes daily 800+ grams of veggies and fruit, and then things like Halo Top ice cream and chili cheese Fritos. I'm doing things in a way that's realistic and sustainable for me, for the long term. Yes, I care deeply about my health (the reason why I lost the weight in the first place was to stabilize a high glucose number), but I've also been at this whole thing long enough to know that labeling food is a pointless exercise.7 -
Me personally, I prefer wholemeal bread but I like white rice much better than brown.
Certainly not pretending to like white rice better
I do not eat clean by any definition of such, and I successfully lost weight to my goal weight. Blood work is all in healthy range too. Nails are fine,moods are fine,not hungry all the time.
Of course I don't live solely on Oreos or macdonalds or whatever evil food is cancer causing either.
There is sensible middle ground moderation, as with most things.4 -
RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »My view is yes. I eat a super clean diet Within my calorie range and I am losing more then a pound a week (even though I'm not overweight) I'm 5"8 and started at about 160 and now I'm at 138. It's been super easy and my skin and hair look great.
My best friend is focusing only on calories and she is losing too but she always feels hungry, her nails are breaking too and she gets moody. So I think clean eating is super important during weight loss. What do you guys think?
P.S. my food diary is open if you want to look and friend adds are welcome
I eat McDonald's breakfast 2-3 times a week and I still lost 1lb per week. I started at 197 and I now weight 179.6 -
RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »My view is yes. I eat a super clean diet Within my calorie range and I am losing more then a pound a week (even though I'm not overweight) I'm 5"8 and started at about 160 and now I'm at 138. It's been super easy and my skin and hair look great.
My best friend is focusing only on calories and she is losing too but she always feels hungry, her nails are breaking too and she gets moody. So I think clean eating is super important during weight loss. What do you guys think?
P.S. my food diary is open if you want to look and friend adds are welcome
I know you have probably already heard this, but while clean eating may be your thing it has nil to do with actual weight loss. Weight loss is strictly calories in, calories out.
Why are you trying to lose weight when you are not overweight? In fact, you are at the low end of a healthy weight range.2 -
cassandrarodriguez89 wrote: »Yes, it 100% matters, for instance, I eat healthy. I ate one cancer meal (taco bell) and broke out in sweat throwing up for hours. If I eat a slice of cake I get horrid acne. Actually, anything that has no good nutrition sends me into oblivion, I will get sick, depressed and acne. Not to mention I hate the taste of white bread, white rice and fried foods. The flavors are nasty, I don't understand why some people enjoy the taste, I honestly think they pretend to like it because they don't want to make effort in eating healthy. White bread tastes like paper... unless they have weird taste buds its a strange concept to me. I will say sugar is different though, it tastes AMAZING... and sometimes its worth the acne and migraine
Taco meal is not a cancer meal, it's a meal....and it's the only meal for some people because it's fairly cheap.
What you don't like is someone else's favorite. No food is good or bad, it's all just food. 6 -
cassandrarodriguez89 wrote: »Cancer meal means that ingredients in the food have been proven to cause cancer or cause death. When they make white bread and white rice in the process they get rid of good nutrition. This is in every single science article and all over the news almost every day in the past several decades.
What? Post your peer reviewed studies for these, please.2 -
Sometimes in these "clean eating" conversations, the concept of nutrition seems to get lost. I see repeated statements that calorie deficit is THE ONLY THING that matters, and that food choices are an irrelevant personal preference. Sure, there's a certain physics involved in weight loss, and you could lose weight eating nothing but candy bars if you count calories accurately -- but our bodies are more than just numbers on a scale! There are a whole bunch of nutrients we need, and more of those nutrients exist in foods like lean meats, cheeses, beans, dark green vegetables, whole grains, etc., than exist in cupcakes and soda. Nutrition is actually a real science. What you put in your mouth matters for more reasons than just calories. It affects our brains, our cardiac systems, all the delicate chemistry of our bodies.
Furthermore, when you're eating fewer calories than you burn, every bite of food you take becomes more important in terms of meeting your body's needs. For instance, I'm eating at around 1200 calories a day plus most of my exercise calories. At 1200 calories, my body's nutritional demands simply don't leave any room for foods that aren't nutrient dense. I have to make sure every bite is maximally nutritious, or I'd end up thinner but malnourished.
I also see a lot of arguments that "clean eating" doesn't exist, because it doesn't have an ironclad definition. It seems sensible to substitute the phrase "nutrient dense" for "clean." That's objectively measurable. If you eat a 250-calorie meal of kale and chicken, you'll be getting protein, fiber, Vitamins A, K, C, B6, manganese, calcium, copper, potassium, magnesium, selenium, phosphorus, and more. If you eat a 250-calorie meal of 2 cookies, what do you get? Some fat, some refined carbs, and maybe a bit of protein from eggs in the recipe?
It's also worth noting that added sugars are not a nutrient our bodies need. While scientists are still disputing the exact health outcome of eating more sugar than we need, nobody claims that our bodies NEED added sugar. We can get all the sugars we need from eating fruits and vegies and grains that include fiber and other important nutrients in the same package.
So while we're eating fewer calories than we're burning, it doesn't make sense to squander those precious calories on something our bodies just don't need.
People are not saying that nutrition is not important, they are saying it's irrelevant when it comes to the mechanics of weight loss. In other words, you can't eat all clean while eating at a surplus and still lose weight, nor can you eat unclean and at a calorie deficit and gain weight.
Yes, nutrition is important but many people have lose weight on poor nutrition, and gained on excellent nutrition.4 -
That's also the general impression I have from my short time here at MFP. When the subject of making more nutritionally dense food choices comes up and someone is enthusiastic about it or says it made a real difference in their lives, an army of posters comes along to mock and ridicule and force them to define what they mean with Merriam Webster like accuracy. When somene comes along and says, "Oh I can't stop eating cookies", they are barraged with.....understanding and acceptance. I find it especially funny how the oreos are globbed onto as if the OP wasn't just using oreos as an example to illustrate a point.Sometimes in these "clean eating" conversations, the concept of nutrition seems to get lost. I see repeated statements that calorie deficit is THE ONLY THING that matters, and that food choices are an irrelevant personal preference.
If calories in/calories out really is the only thing that matters in weight loss, why don't we simply accept the OP's choices as what's working best for them and leave it at that? Why can't we be positive about someone making food choices that are healthier in the long run, especially when the OP says it's already having an effect on her skin and hair and her blood work is great for the first time in her life. Sad that she'd be readily accepted if she had a fetish for bonbons and french fries yet was able to meet her calorie targets, but is roasted for advocating a diet that has had literally life changing benefits for her.2 -
TwntyOnePointTwo wrote: »From what I heard from a dietician, cleaner eating does matter in the long term for optimal health. There should be enough of each food group (protein,carbs, veggies, fat) at each meal or the body will be lacking in other areas potentially compromising long term health. For weight loss, both ways cleaner vs junkier eating(I.e too much fat) will contribute to weight loss in the short term (calories in/out) just the same; but not in the long term. Eventually if too much junk is eaten, ie fast food every day, weight loss will slow down due to imbalance in macros. Not sure how accurate this is but that's what I was told.
The bold part is the inaccurate part.3 -
JohnnyPenso wrote: »
That's also the general impression I have from my short time here at MFP. When the subject of making more nutritionally dense food choices comes up and someone is enthusiastic about it or says it made a real difference in their lives, an army of posters comes along to mock and ridicule and force them to define what they mean with Merriam Webster like accuracy. When somene comes along and says, "Oh I can't stop eating cookies", they are barraged with.....understanding and acceptance. I find it especially funny how the oreos are globbed onto as if the OP wasn't just using oreos as an example to illustrate a point.Sometimes in these "clean eating" conversations, the concept of nutrition seems to get lost. I see repeated statements that calorie deficit is THE ONLY THING that matters, and that food choices are an irrelevant personal preference.
If calories in/calories out really is the only thing that matters in weight loss, why don't we simply accept the OP's choices as what's working best for them and leave it at that? Why can't we be positive about someone making food choices that are healthier in the long run, especially when the OP says it's already having an effect on her skin and hair?
Because the OP asked for opinions?11 -
I think the thing that bugs me the most about these "clean eating" posts, besides the fact that there is no actual definition, is that the zealots imply that they NEVER eat anything else. It's hard to believe so many people never have a glass of wine at a wedding, eat a Christmas cookie, a piece of pie in Thanksgiving, or a special dinner on vacation. Not to mention that plenty of the food they claim is unprocessed of course is - like 90% of food.
I never made that claim. I drink twice a year and I eat a homemade dessert about once a month. I do use some processed sauces and when I'm sick, I eat white toast and drink processed juice. But my focus is on a whole foods plant based diet. Obviously, industry has confused the public to the point that we have such a hard time defining what is healthy that some people become apathetic. I think studies make it clear that eating a diet rich in whole foods (fruits, vegetables, beans, legumes, rice, potatoes, etc) is going to be healthy for you. I'm vegan but I understand that lots of people would also include some of the healthier meat options in that list. Either way, I don't want to debate semantics. It's clear that this threat is about if there is benefit to eating a healthier diet vs a junkier one for weight loss. It's just a converstaion. I don'to know why a tee, would bother you so much. It's just some click bait that we all understand... now, can we move on to the real discussion ? It doesn't bother me what your opinion on it is but I don't see how your post is aiding. I'm not virtue signaling or claiming to be above anyone. I'm posing a legit question0 -
Sometimes in these "clean eating" conversations, the concept of nutrition seems to get lost. I see repeated statements that calorie deficit is THE ONLY THING that matters, and that food choices are an irrelevant personal preference. Sure, there's a certain physics involved in weight loss, and you could lose weight eating nothing but candy bars if you count calories accurately -- but our bodies are more than just numbers on a scale! There are a whole bunch of nutrients we need, and more of those nutrients exist in foods like lean meats, cheeses, beans, dark green vegetables, whole grains, etc., than exist in cupcakes and soda. Nutrition is actually a real science. What you put in your mouth matters for more reasons than just calories. It affects our brains, our cardiac systems, all the delicate chemistry of our bodies.
Furthermore, when you're eating fewer calories than you burn, every bite of food you take becomes more important in terms of meeting your body's needs. For instance, I'm eating at around 1200 calories a day plus most of my exercise calories. At 1200 calories, my body's nutritional demands simply don't leave any room for foods that aren't nutrient dense. I have to make sure every bite is maximally nutritious, or I'd end up thinner but malnourished.
I also see a lot of arguments that "clean eating" doesn't exist, because it doesn't have an ironclad definition. It seems sensible to substitute the phrase "nutrient dense" for "clean." That's objectively measurable. If you eat a 250-calorie meal of kale and chicken, you'll be getting protein, fiber, Vitamins A, K, C, B6, manganese, calcium, copper, potassium, magnesium, selenium, phosphorus, and more. If you eat a 250-calorie meal of 2 cookies, what do you get? Some fat, some refined carbs, and maybe a bit of protein from eggs in the recipe?
It's also worth noting that added sugars are not a nutrient our bodies need. While scientists are still disputing the exact health outcome of eating more sugar than we need, nobody claims that our bodies NEED added sugar. We can get all the sugars we need from eating fruits and vegies and grains that include fiber and other important nutrients in the same package.
So while we're eating fewer calories than we're burning, it doesn't make sense to squander those precious calories on something our bodies just don't need.
I completely agree. I think if a lot of people checked their food intake on chronometer.com (which shows your whole RDA) instead of just MyFitnessPal, they'd realize how many nutrient deficiencies their diet may be contributing to. I think you'll have an easier time excercise he, sticking to a diet and generally moving around your life if you are eating a nutrient rich diet with minimally processed foods0 -
RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »Sometimes in these "clean eating" conversations, the concept of nutrition seems to get lost. I see repeated statements that calorie deficit is THE ONLY THING that matters, and that food choices are an irrelevant personal preference. Sure, there's a certain physics involved in weight loss, and you could lose weight eating nothing but candy bars if you count calories accurately -- but our bodies are more than just numbers on a scale! There are a whole bunch of nutrients we need, and more of those nutrients exist in foods like lean meats, cheeses, beans, dark green vegetables, whole grains, etc., than exist in cupcakes and soda. Nutrition is actually a real science. What you put in your mouth matters for more reasons than just calories. It affects our brains, our cardiac systems, all the delicate chemistry of our bodies.
Furthermore, when you're eating fewer calories than you burn, every bite of food you take becomes more important in terms of meeting your body's needs. For instance, I'm eating at around 1200 calories a day plus most of my exercise calories. At 1200 calories, my body's nutritional demands simply don't leave any room for foods that aren't nutrient dense. I have to make sure every bite is maximally nutritious, or I'd end up thinner but malnourished.
I also see a lot of arguments that "clean eating" doesn't exist, because it doesn't have an ironclad definition. It seems sensible to substitute the phrase "nutrient dense" for "clean." That's objectively measurable. If you eat a 250-calorie meal of kale and chicken, you'll be getting protein, fiber, Vitamins A, K, C, B6, manganese, calcium, copper, potassium, magnesium, selenium, phosphorus, and more. If you eat a 250-calorie meal of 2 cookies, what do you get? Some fat, some refined carbs, and maybe a bit of protein from eggs in the recipe?
It's also worth noting that added sugars are not a nutrient our bodies need. While scientists are still disputing the exact health outcome of eating more sugar than we need, nobody claims that our bodies NEED added sugar. We can get all the sugars we need from eating fruits and vegies and grains that include fiber and other important nutrients in the same package.
So while we're eating fewer calories than we're burning, it doesn't make sense to squander those precious calories on something our bodies just don't need.
I completely agree. I think if a lot of people checked their food intake on chronometer.com (which shows your whole RDA) instead of just MyFitnessPal, they'd realize how many nutrient deficiencies their diet may be contributing to. I think you'll have an easier time excercise he, sticking to a diet and generally moving around your life if you are eating a nutrient rich diet with minimally processed foods
I track on cronometer instead of MFP and I'm hitting all my targets. Still ate chili cheese Fritos yesterday, as well as chocolate Almond crunch Halo Top ice cream 13 -
What is the question? Will you lose more weight eating "clean" by whatever personal definition that is? No.
Your friend appears to be suffering the effect of undereating. By and large, those getting enough calories from fast food etc don't experience things like brittle nails. Or there could be an unknown medical cause.5 -
Im only trying to lose another few and then I'll start bulking in the gym. I'm still recovering from a fractured patella so I'm getting back down to my normal weight and then I'll start rock climbing and lifting again and put back on some healthy weightRedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »My view is yes. I eat a super clean diet Within my calorie range and I am losing more then a pound a week (even though I'm not overweight) I'm 5"8 and started at about 160 and now I'm at 138. It's been super easy and my skin and hair look great.
My best friend is focusing only on calories and she is losing too but she always feels hungry, her nails are breaking too and she gets moody. So I think clean eating is super important during weight loss. What do you guys think?
P.S. my food diary is open if you want to look and friend adds are welcome
I know you have probably already heard this, but while clean eating may be your thing it has nil to do with actual weight loss. Weight loss is strictly calories in, calories out.
Why are you trying to lose weight when you are not overweight? In fact, you are at the low end of a healthy weight range.
I'm not just talking about the weight loss itself but also how satisfied you feel during the process and how the rest of you looks.
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
- 392 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 929 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions