Clean eating- does it matter?
Options
Replies
-
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »
Interesting... so the lowered energy expenditure, slower metabolism and what we call plateaus are just bro science, my example isn't of impovershed conditions so please stop taking it out of context and going to the extreme, its in relation to the person who thinks eating at 1000 calorie deficit will equate to more weight loss and now they are eating way lower cals than they should, this person will not have any sustained weight loss, the body will slow down to save energy and depending on the food thats coming in they can store fat, lose muscle and be worse off than when they started ... search through the forum plenty of examples of this very thing, the " i don't know whats happening" posts " help gaining weight and don't know why" ..... i digress though, lol hey if its bro science then thats cool because everything ive done to this point has worked
You mean adaptive thermogenesis? When your body adapts to lower calories? You don't put on weight if you don't eat enough... You still lose.
Or when people lose significant amounts of weight and their "new" maintenance level is naturally less than it was when they were bigger as there is less body to sustain?
No i meant what i said, slowed metabolism and lowered energy expenditure. The body slowing its self down in order to preserve energy, this causes hormonal changes, and many other issues that can lead to higher body fat
Everyone is so caught up on this now lmao but i guess we're going to ignore the link i provided that inturn provides 15 studies that backup everything ive said about the source of calories..... it was ignorantly written off as opinion but thats because that person doesn't read they only skim and missed the peer reviews and studies they've been so desperately asking for .... funny enough number 1 is on the laws of thermodynamics0 -
There are literally 15 links to studies, reviews and journals in the article, maybe if you read it opposed to skimming through it you would have seen that ... and to say you don't store energy when at a low deficit is one if the most ridiculous statements ever, your body will hold onto whatever energy source it has coming in and use it sparingly because it does not have an consistent and or adequate amount coming in... I'm not talking about prisoners and people who literally have no food to eat I'm talking about people who go at waay too low of a deficit thinking they will lose more weight because ...you know ... calories in vs calories out lmao
Wrong again. More science for you: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/
And FYI, Authority Nutrition is widely regarded as a bogus junk science site. About on the same level as taking your nutritional information from Dr. Oz.6 -
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »
Interesting... so the lowered energy expenditure, slower metabolism and what we call plateaus are just bro science, my example isn't of impovershed conditions so please stop taking it out of context and going to the extreme, its in relation to the person who thinks eating at 1000 calorie deficit will equate to more weight loss and now they are eating way lower cals than they should, this person will not have any sustained weight loss, the body will slow down to save energy and depending on the food thats coming in they can store fat, lose muscle and be worse off than when they started ... search through the forum plenty of examples of this very thing, the " i don't know whats happening" posts " help gaining weight and don't know why" ..... i digress though, lol hey if its bro science then thats cool because everything ive done to this point has worked
You mean adaptive thermogenesis? When your body adapts to lower calories? You don't put on weight if you don't eat enough... You still lose.
Or when people lose significant amounts of weight and their "new" maintenance level is naturally less than it was when they were bigger as there is less body to sustain?
No i meant what i said, slowed metabolism and lowered energy expenditure. The body slowing its self down in order to preserve energy, this causes hormonal changes, and many other issues that can lead to higher body fat
Everyone is so caught up on this now lmao but i guess we're going to ignore the link i provided that inturn provides 15 studies that backup everything ive said about the source of calories..... it was ignorantly written off as opinion but thats because that person doesn't read they only skim and missed the peer reviews and studies they've been so desperately asking for .... funny enough number 1 is on the laws of thermodynamics
Thats adaptive thermogenesis.
You won't gain weight if you eat less than you burn. CICO still applies, CO is just lower.4 -
There are literally 15 links to studies, reviews and journals in the article, maybe if you read it opposed to skimming through it you would have seen that ... and to say you don't store energy when at a low deficit is one if the most ridiculous statements ever, your body will hold onto whatever energy source it has coming in and use it sparingly because it does not have an consistent and or adequate amount coming in... I'm not talking about prisoners and people who literally have no food to eat I'm talking about people who go at waay too low of a deficit thinking they will lose more weight because ...you know ... calories in vs calories out lmao
Wrong again. More science for you: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/
And FYI, Authority Nutrition is widely regarded as a bogus junk science site. About on the same level as taking your nutritional information from Dr. Oz.
The links in the article are actual published studies i honestly wouldn't post anything that doesn't have any scientific data behind it, those links have that, so while there may be a bunch of garbage on that site the articles references and data behind it are not... these articles are just simplified, i started by posting ncbi links, overlooked, i could switch to the world health organization if thats more credible or how about pub med? Or i mean should i just settle for the opinons of the long timers on a mfp forum ....0 -
There are literally 15 links to studies, reviews and journals in the article, maybe if you read it opposed to skimming through it you would have seen that ... and to say you don't store energy when at a low deficit is one if the most ridiculous statements ever, your body will hold onto whatever energy source it has coming in and use it sparingly because it does not have an consistent and or adequate amount coming in... I'm not talking about prisoners and people who literally have no food to eat I'm talking about people who go at waay too low of a deficit thinking they will lose more weight because ...you know ... calories in vs calories out lmao
Wrong again. More science for you: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/
And FYI, Authority Nutrition is widely regarded as a bogus junk science site. About on the same level as taking your nutritional information from Dr. Oz.
The links in the article are actual published studies i honestly wouldn't post anything that doesn't have any scientific data behind it, those links have that, so while there may be a bunch of garbage on that site the articles references and data behind it are not... these articles are just simplified, i started by posting ncbi links, overlooked, i could switch to the world health organization if thats more credible or how about pub med? Or i mean should i just settle for the opinons of the long timers on a mfp forum ....
Know how I know you didn't read the research review I linked to?3 -
At the kind of deficits we're talking about here? Yeah, that's broscience. Doesn't really happen.
Interesting... so the lowered energy expenditure, slower metabolism and what we call plateaus are just bro science, my example isn't of impovershed conditions so please stop taking it out of context and going to the extreme, its in relation to the person who thinks eating at 1000 calorie deficit will equate to more weight loss and now they are eating way lower cals than they should, this person will not have any sustained weight loss, the body will slow down to save energy and depending on the food thats coming in they can store fat, lose muscle and be worse off than when they started ... search through the forum plenty of examples of this very thing, the " i don't know whats happening" posts " help gaining weight and don't know why" ..... i digress though, lol hey if its bro science then thats cool because everything ive done to this point has worked
Your attempt to identify cases where people don't know what's happening as gaining weight from decreased calorie consumption is like when people see something they don't understand in the sky and conclude that this unidentified flying object must be an alien spacecraft. No, it's unidentified. That means you don't know what it is. But someone else might. It's the same here. Do I really need to paste that flowchart in here?
I'm speaking from experience, as someone who for a stretch was regularly underestimating his daily consumption by about 700 calories. I was losing -- but not as fast as I might have, and probably because of my exercise burn. It's very easy to miscount your calories if you're not careful. So when I see people insist they're only eating X calories and they're gaining, I take it with a very large grain of water-retaining salt.
Now, what the wrong choice of macros in calorie reduction with insufficient exercise might to do body composition is another matter entirely, but we're talking about weight loss here, not other fitness goals.3 -
There are literally 15 links to studies, reviews and journals in the article, maybe if you read it opposed to skimming through it you would have seen that ... and to say you don't store energy when at a low deficit is one if the most ridiculous statements ever, your body will hold onto whatever energy source it has coming in and use it sparingly because it does not have an consistent and or adequate amount coming in... I'm not talking about prisoners and people who literally have no food to eat I'm talking about people who go at waay too low of a deficit thinking they will lose more weight because ...you know ... calories in vs calories out lmao
Wrong again. More science for you: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/
And FYI, Authority Nutrition is widely regarded as a bogus junk science site. About on the same level as taking your nutritional information from Dr. Oz.
The links in the article are actual published studies i honestly wouldn't post anything that doesn't have any scientific data behind it, those links have that, so while there may be a bunch of garbage on that site the articles references and data behind it are not... these articles are just simplified, i started by posting ncbi links, overlooked, i could switch to the world health organization if thats more credible or how about pub med? Or i mean should i just settle for the opinons of the long timers on a mfp forum ....
Know how I know you didn't read the research review I linked to?
The link you provided is some random dudes blog trying to sell his books who provides zero studies to back it up ... im not going to read that i tried until i got to the part of him selling me stuff, tried again and again he mentions buying his books ... might have good info but I'm more interested in seeing scientific studies, research, data ...0 -
At the kind of deficits we're talking about here? Yeah, that's broscience. Doesn't really happen.
Interesting... so the lowered energy expenditure, slower metabolism and what we call plateaus are just bro science, my example isn't of impovershed conditions so please stop taking it out of context and going to the extreme, its in relation to the person who thinks eating at 1000 calorie deficit will equate to more weight loss and now they are eating way lower cals than they should, this person will not have any sustained weight loss, the body will slow down to save energy and depending on the food thats coming in they can store fat, lose muscle and be worse off than when they started ... search through the forum plenty of examples of this very thing, the " i don't know whats happening" posts " help gaining weight and don't know why" ..... i digress though, lol hey if its bro science then thats cool because everything ive done to this point has worked
Your attempt to identify cases where people don't know what's happening as gaining weight from decreased calorie consumption is like when people see something they don't understand in the sky and conclude that this unidentified flying object must be an alien spacecraft. No, it's unidentified. That means you don't know what it is. But someone else might. It's the same here. Do I really need to paste that flowchart in here?
I'm speaking from experience, as someone who for a stretch was regularly underestimating his daily consumption by about 700 calories. I was losing -- but not as fast as I might have, and probably because of my exercise burn. It's very easy to miscount your calories if you're not careful. So when I see people insist they're only eating X calories and they're gaining, I take it with a very large grain of water-retaining salt.
Now, what the wrong choice of macros in calorie reduction with insufficient exercise might to do body composition is another matter entirely, but we're talking about weight loss here, not other fitness goals.
Semantics... lets be real here, no one is ok with losing weight just to see a lower number on the scale, the goal isn't to drop weight and stay fat, so yes we are discussing other fitness goals and body composition as they go hand in hand... who in life has set out to lose 40 lbs and increase bf percentage, this mentality is why people end up skinny fat sometimes with a higher percentage of bf than they began with because instead of fat they lost water and muscle... i equate weight gain with fat gain, its not just a number on a scale yes i can gain water weight, yes i can gain muscle, but i really only care about the fat because gaining that is where the problems are ...who looks in the mirror and is like damn I'm 40% bf but *kitten* i lost 10lbs water weight almost at my goal.. lol0 -
There are literally 15 links to studies, reviews and journals in the article, maybe if you read it opposed to skimming through it you would have seen that ... and to say you don't store energy when at a low deficit is one if the most ridiculous statements ever, your body will hold onto whatever energy source it has coming in and use it sparingly because it does not have an consistent and or adequate amount coming in... I'm not talking about prisoners and people who literally have no food to eat I'm talking about people who go at waay too low of a deficit thinking they will lose more weight because ...you know ... calories in vs calories out lmao
Wrong again. More science for you: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/
And FYI, Authority Nutrition is widely regarded as a bogus junk science site. About on the same level as taking your nutritional information from Dr. Oz.
The links in the article are actual published studies i honestly wouldn't post anything that doesn't have any scientific data behind it, those links have that, so while there may be a bunch of garbage on that site the articles references and data behind it are not... these articles are just simplified, i started by posting ncbi links, overlooked, i could switch to the world health organization if thats more credible or how about pub med? Or i mean should i just settle for the opinons of the long timers on a mfp forum ....
Know how I know you didn't read the research review I linked to?
The link you provided is some random dudes blog trying to sell his books who provides zero studies to back it up ... im not going to read that i tried until i got to the part of him selling me stuff, tried again and again he mentions buying his books ... might have good info but I'm more interested in seeing scientific studies, research, data ...
LOL. If you trust Authority Nutrition and think Lyle McDonald is "some random dude", you've told me everything I need to know.6 -
There are literally 15 links to studies, reviews and journals in the article, maybe if you read it opposed to skimming through it you would have seen that ... and to say you don't store energy when at a low deficit is one if the most ridiculous statements ever, your body will hold onto whatever energy source it has coming in and use it sparingly because it does not have an consistent and or adequate amount coming in... I'm not talking about prisoners and people who literally have no food to eat I'm talking about people who go at waay too low of a deficit thinking they will lose more weight because ...you know ... calories in vs calories out lmao
Wrong again. More science for you: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/
And FYI, Authority Nutrition is widely regarded as a bogus junk science site. About on the same level as taking your nutritional information from Dr. Oz.
The links in the article are actual published studies i honestly wouldn't post anything that doesn't have any scientific data behind it, those links have that, so while there may be a bunch of garbage on that site the articles references and data behind it are not... these articles are just simplified, i started by posting ncbi links, overlooked, i could switch to the world health organization if thats more credible or how about pub med? Or i mean should i just settle for the opinons of the long timers on a mfp forum ....
Know how I know you didn't read the research review I linked to?
The link you provided is some random dudes blog trying to sell his books who provides zero studies to back it up ... im not going to read that i tried until i got to the part of him selling me stuff, tried again and again he mentions buying his books ... might have good info but I'm more interested in seeing scientific studies, research, data ...
LOL. If you trust Authority Nutrition and think Lyle McDonald is "some random dude", you've told me everything I need to know.
Nothing on that page indicates that thats lyle McDonald, now i will read it, credible source i can admit when I'm wrong .... and authority nutrition is full of bs i agree but when i come across an article that has the research attached and the author backs up his claims with scientific data and peer reviews as the one i posted did then to me its credible as credible as it would be on ncbi, or pubmed its not a go to source for me but from time to time there are legitimate articles ... have you looked at it, clicked the studies? Lol0 -
I'm open to learn, and can admit when I'm wrong so I'm going to read the link ...i wish others would give me that same respect0
-
At the kind of deficits we're talking about here? Yeah, that's broscience. Doesn't really happen.
Interesting... so the lowered energy expenditure, slower metabolism and what we call plateaus are just bro science, my example isn't of impovershed conditions so please stop taking it out of context and going to the extreme, its in relation to the person who thinks eating at 1000 calorie deficit will equate to more weight loss and now they are eating way lower cals than they should, this person will not have any sustained weight loss, the body will slow down to save energy and depending on the food thats coming in they can store fat, lose muscle and be worse off than when they started ... search through the forum plenty of examples of this very thing, the " i don't know whats happening" posts " help gaining weight and don't know why" ..... i digress though, lol hey if its bro science then thats cool because everything ive done to this point has worked
Your attempt to identify cases where people don't know what's happening as gaining weight from decreased calorie consumption is like when people see something they don't understand in the sky and conclude that this unidentified flying object must be an alien spacecraft. No, it's unidentified. That means you don't know what it is. But someone else might. It's the same here. Do I really need to paste that flowchart in here?
I'm speaking from experience, as someone who for a stretch was regularly underestimating his daily consumption by about 700 calories. I was losing -- but not as fast as I might have, and probably because of my exercise burn. It's very easy to miscount your calories if you're not careful. So when I see people insist they're only eating X calories and they're gaining, I take it with a very large grain of water-retaining salt.
Now, what the wrong choice of macros in calorie reduction with insufficient exercise might to do body composition is another matter entirely, but we're talking about weight loss here, not other fitness goals.
Semantics... lets be real here, no one is ok with losing weight just to see a lower number on the scale, the goal isn't to drop weight and gain fat, so yes we are discussing other fitness goals and body composition as they go hand in hand... who in life has set out to lose 40 lbs and increase bf percentage, this mentality is why people end up skinny fat sometimes with a higher percentage of bf than they began with because instead of fat they lost water and muscle... i equate weight gain with fat gain, its not just a number on a scale yes i can gain water weight, yes i can gain muscle, but i really only care about the fat because gaining that is where the problems are ...who looks in the mirror and is like damn I'm 40% bf but *kitten* i lost 10lbs water weight almost at my goal.. lol
Well, yes,some people are ok with just losing weight to see a lower number on the scale or to fit into a wedding dress or those sort of non health related goals.
They aren't setting out to increase bf % and I doubt anyone loses weight and increases their bf % to 40% anyway.
And ,No, we are not discussing fitness goals and body composition - the question was 'clean eating - does it matter for weight loss?'
And simple answer - No it doesn't.
Calorie deficit does.
Eating a reasonably nutritious balanced diet matters for health - but doesn't have to be the extreme clean super disciplined no treats for a month thing you are advocating.
3 -
At the kind of deficits we're talking about here? Yeah, that's broscience. Doesn't really happen.
Interesting... so the lowered energy expenditure, slower metabolism and what we call plateaus are just bro science, my example isn't of impovershed conditions so please stop taking it out of context and going to the extreme, its in relation to the person who thinks eating at 1000 calorie deficit will equate to more weight loss and now they are eating way lower cals than they should, this person will not have any sustained weight loss, the body will slow down to save energy and depending on the food thats coming in they can store fat, lose muscle and be worse off than when they started ... search through the forum plenty of examples of this very thing, the " i don't know whats happening" posts " help gaining weight and don't know why" ..... i digress though, lol hey if its bro science then thats cool because everything ive done to this point has worked
Your attempt to identify cases where people don't know what's happening as gaining weight from decreased calorie consumption is like when people see something they don't understand in the sky and conclude that this unidentified flying object must be an alien spacecraft. No, it's unidentified. That means you don't know what it is. But someone else might. It's the same here. Do I really need to paste that flowchart in here?
I'm speaking from experience, as someone who for a stretch was regularly underestimating his daily consumption by about 700 calories. I was losing -- but not as fast as I might have, and probably because of my exercise burn. It's very easy to miscount your calories if you're not careful. So when I see people insist they're only eating X calories and they're gaining, I take it with a very large grain of water-retaining salt.
Now, what the wrong choice of macros in calorie reduction with insufficient exercise might to do body composition is another matter entirely, but we're talking about weight loss here, not other fitness goals.
Semantics... lets be real here, no one is ok with losing weight just to see a lower number on the scale, the goal isn't to drop weight and stay fat, so yes we are discussing other fitness goals and body composition as they go hand in hand... who in life has set out to lose 40 lbs and increase bf percentage, this mentality is why people end up skinny fat sometimes with a higher percentage of bf than they began with because instead of fat they lost water and muscle... i equate weight gain with fat gain, its not just a number on a scale yes i can gain water weight, yes i can gain muscle, but i really only care about the fat because gaining that is where the problems are ...who looks in the mirror and is like damn I'm 40% bf but *kitten* i lost 10lbs water weight almost at my goal.. lol
If someone's morbidly obese, then yeah, they'd be happy to see just a lower number on the scale, and a good amount of fat is certainly going away as well. If you want to stand in their way by throwing a bunch of really torturous rules at them as they go, it's not really helpful.3 -
There are literally 15 links to studies, reviews and journals in the article, maybe if you read it opposed to skimming through it you would have seen that ... and to say you don't store energy when at a low deficit is one if the most ridiculous statements ever, your body will hold onto whatever energy source it has coming in and use it sparingly because it does not have an consistent and or adequate amount coming in... I'm not talking about prisoners and people who literally have no food to eat I'm talking about people who go at waay too low of a deficit thinking they will lose more weight because ...you know ... calories in vs calories out lmao
Wrong again. More science for you: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/
And FYI, Authority Nutrition is widely regarded as a bogus junk science site. About on the same level as taking your nutritional information from Dr. Oz.
Good read, honestly thank you for that! So metabolism does slow down but not enough to cause gain, just slowed loss and more than likely water retention, that makes sense.. the cortisol and other issues mentioned are what I'm going to research more and its correlation with caloric deficits and cardio, they touched on it briefly but these things could be a cause for fat gain, once it gets to a hormonal level and insulin is affected etc. ...definitely a great read for sure, i can appreciate things like this, like i said I'm always open to learn and see from a new perspective0 -
paperpudding wrote: »
At the kind of deficits we're talking about here? Yeah, that's broscience. Doesn't really happen.
Interesting... so the lowered energy expenditure, slower metabolism and what we call plateaus are just bro science, my example isn't of impovershed conditions so please stop taking it out of context and going to the extreme, its in relation to the person who thinks eating at 1000 calorie deficit will equate to more weight loss and now they are eating way lower cals than they should, this person will not have any sustained weight loss, the body will slow down to save energy and depending on the food thats coming in they can store fat, lose muscle and be worse off than when they started ... search through the forum plenty of examples of this very thing, the " i don't know whats happening" posts " help gaining weight and don't know why" ..... i digress though, lol hey if its bro science then thats cool because everything ive done to this point has worked
Your attempt to identify cases where people don't know what's happening as gaining weight from decreased calorie consumption is like when people see something they don't understand in the sky and conclude that this unidentified flying object must be an alien spacecraft. No, it's unidentified. That means you don't know what it is. But someone else might. It's the same here. Do I really need to paste that flowchart in here?
I'm speaking from experience, as someone who for a stretch was regularly underestimating his daily consumption by about 700 calories. I was losing -- but not as fast as I might have, and probably because of my exercise burn. It's very easy to miscount your calories if you're not careful. So when I see people insist they're only eating X calories and they're gaining, I take it with a very large grain of water-retaining salt.
Now, what the wrong choice of macros in calorie reduction with insufficient exercise might to do body composition is another matter entirely, but we're talking about weight loss here, not other fitness goals.
Semantics... lets be real here, no one is ok with losing weight just to see a lower number on the scale, the goal isn't to drop weight and gain fat, so yes we are discussing other fitness goals and body composition as they go hand in hand... who in life has set out to lose 40 lbs and increase bf percentage, this mentality is why people end up skinny fat sometimes with a higher percentage of bf than they began with because instead of fat they lost water and muscle... i equate weight gain with fat gain, its not just a number on a scale yes i can gain water weight, yes i can gain muscle, but i really only care about the fat because gaining that is where the problems are ...who looks in the mirror and is like damn I'm 40% bf but *kitten* i lost 10lbs water weight almost at my goal.. lol
Well, yes,some people are ok with just losing weight to see a lower number on the scale or to fit into a wedding dress or those sort of non health related goals.
They aren't setting out to increase bf % and I doubt anyone loses weight and increases their bf % to 40% anyway.
And ,No, we are not discussing fitness goals and body composition - the question was 'clean eating - does it matter for weight loss?'
And simple answer - No it doesn't.
Calorie deficit does.
Eating a reasonably nutritious balanced diet matters for health - but doesn't have to be the extreme clean super disciplined no treats for a month thing you are advocating.
40% was an exaggerated random number i tossed out to make a point ... lets try this..
Lets say someone is starting at 32% bf 5'8 225lbs (I'm making up numbers so no need to tell me how this is inaccurate lol) they have a goal to reach 200lbs, they eat at a caloric deficit of 1000 cals and only consume 1200 a day... they hit their macro goals though, but mind you these macros aren't accurate because of the deficit they are also getting fats and carbs from candy and cookies, or whatever unhealthy option you want to say... calories in vs calories out would say this person will lose weight, the number on the scale will drop.. yaaay they hit 200lbs but have lost muscle and water and a little fat... but they are still, well, fat... at this point does the number on the scale matter? This isn't a realistic approach to weight loss if you start at 32% and end at 30%, increasing calories and eating at an appropriate deficit and eating clean foods that contain less of the "bad stuff" will always equal better results, when i hear people encourage this eat what you want thing especially on a platform like this this is what i think of. This is why i am so passionate about clean strict nutrition, when you've reached your goals and have maintained them for a period of time and the weight loss is sustainable then yeah you can be a little more relaxed, you've already done the work, you at this point know how your body responds to certain foods and exercise, but to say eating clean makes no difference is crazy and its all calories in vs calories out .. nah still not buying that one at all, America is soooo obese, now look at countries where processed and fast foods aren't the norm, obesity isn't much of an issue. Yes this is due to portions and sedentary American lifestyles and over indulgence but its also about the quality of food, 500 calories from rice is going to be utilized in the body much better than 500 calories from a slice of cheesecake, both carbs, same calories but the body will break these down and utilize these two in a much different way0 -
This is why i am so passionate about clean strict nutrition, when you've reached your goals and have maintained them for a period of time and the weight loss is sustainable then yeah you can be a little more relaxed, you've already done the work, you at this point know how your body responds to certain foods and exercise, but to say eating clean makes no difference is crazy and its all calories in vs calories out .. nah still not buying that one at all,
You can be passionate for you on whatever clean eating discipline nutritious goals you want - doesnt negate fact that for weight loss calories in calories out is what matters.
and No, you dont have to wait until you have reached your goals until you can relax on the strict food rules - most people would never reach their goal weight following that approach.
and as many of us have said, we did reach our goals without doing that.3 -
This thread truly is the gift that keeps on giving.7
-
Maybe your friend isn't eating enough calories? You two probably are not the same height and weight which means you should definitely not be on the same amount of calories.
No such thing as 'Clean' foods in my opinion- a calorie is a calorie and you need to be in a caloric deficit to lose weight/fat/muscle.
Satiety is a whole other story- Protein and fats will help fill her up. Carbs will help produce energy.
Vitamins and Minerals are needed in the body and this is where what you call "Clean foods" come in: Fruits, vegetables, wholefoods.
Id rather have a balance in my life and not restrict any foods- I just plan well- I get my healthy needs and I also treat myself when I like. Its called balanced diet. Im losing well, and I'm also happier now Im not restricting certain food groups.
0 -
but giving what is the question
2 -
I'm not spewing some illogical broscience, I've done my due diligence on the subject.
Authority Nutrition is not "due diligence."
More significantly, you are avoiding the actual questions asked and now seem focused on changing the subject, Above I outlined what we are not arguing about (that eating a good diet and enough protein and having a reasonable deficit, etc. are good for health and muscle maintenance) and asked specific questions, which you did not answer. I also pointed out that despite your claims that people should "eat clean" your own posts show that you likely do not, and you have not given any evidence why that would be preferable to eating a good balanced diet with some processed foods (like dried pasta) or treats (like cheese or ice cream).
The latest seems to be that an overly aggressive deficit can have negative effects. This is true, it's more true if you don't eat adequate protein or have less fat to lose (someone 300 lbs and NOT doing a dumb Biggest Loser diet probably doesn't have to worry about it). I happen to agree that eating a moderate deficit makes more sense for a lot of reasons. I also know that has zip, nada, nothing to do with the topic of this thread. You for some reason switched your topic.
I still want to know why the greater bioavailability of the nutrients in white fish (as if they were identical nutrients) is supposed to mean I should eat that and not steak. I like to eat fish (and not just white fish, I'm partial to salmon) AND steak. (Also, isn't steak normally considered "clean"? So how is that even on topic?)People are so caught up in whats familiar or what the general consensus is that they just totally negate any shred of evidence I've provided
You have not provided evidence on the things people have asked about. You also are wrong as to what's unfamiliar, we'd talked about TEF here and in other threads before you arrived, we all know about TEF, it's not relevant to the clean diet discussion for the reasons I explained above (and that others also did, for example stevencloser).obviously discipline and will power are key issues for people who struggle with weight and sometimes things need to be said how they are
I don't actually think the answer is will power. It's easy for a lot of people to lose, even using dumb extreme diets that take lots of will power, and then have a hard time maintaining. What's important is to teach them that it's not that hard and not going to require constant will power (as life is hard and very often our will power gets used on unavoidable and more important things, like not killing a boss or employee, dealing with teenagers or marital issues, dealing with parents with failing health or a spouse's job loss or on and on and on).
I do agree that saying things as they are is a good idea, but again you have NOT explained why a clean diet (no processed foods) is in any way better than a good nutrition conscious diet. Again, I think "clean" is a dumb approach that demonstrates actual ignorance about nutrition or an assumption that actual nutrition is too hard, so let's boil it down to fake rules about avoiding processed foods (and then apparently still eat processed foods that for some reason you think don't count as processed, like a homemade burger). (I am not anti homemade burgers at all, but obviously they are processed.)"i have to have cookies and burgers and cakes or else i won't stick to my diet" .... lmao wtf
I don't HAVE to have anything, and with a good reason I'd cut something out (like health). I cut out added sugar for a while, because I had a reason to do so. After that experience I no longer think I have a reason to do so, so why arbitrarily make it harder for myself. I rarely eat cake because I'm picky about it and rarely have occasion to eat good cake -- it's a special treat for most people, after all -- but if I want to make cupcakes for Easter, why is a holiday treat somehow going to mean I can't maintain? That's just goofy IMO. Give a reason if you think there's a real reason. Similarly, if I like to make cookies and occasionally have 200 cal of cookies after dinner, within my calories and after covering all bases with a healthy diet, why does that make my diet worse? Say I have cheese instead of cookies -- again, what's wrong?
And we covered burgers, you said you eat burgers yourself. A meal with a burger is similar to one with any other source of protein and starch, and I do tend to eat whole wheat buns and lots of vegetables with my burgers, but the question is what makes the burger itself bad. Or you know, the steak I'm not supposed to eat because white fish is better.
You have not addressed any of this. The AN link you like does not either.2
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