Does anyone HAVE to eat clean to lose the weight?
viglet
Posts: 299 Member
I was always of the impression that it was all math, calories in calories out. That's how I went from 240 to 160... just eating within my calories.
I'm almost 3 weeks into counting again and I haven't dropped a single lb. I'm starting to think that I need to eat clean to see progress, which really sucks because honestly I enjoy dark chocolate and junk within my calories.
Has anyone else been in this position?
I'm almost 3 weeks into counting again and I haven't dropped a single lb. I'm starting to think that I need to eat clean to see progress, which really sucks because honestly I enjoy dark chocolate and junk within my calories.
Has anyone else been in this position?
0
Replies
-
Three weeks is really too early to determine that your plan isn't working.
That said, if you weigh less now your margin for error is less and accuracy in measuring portions becomes more important. Using measurements like "1 leg," ".5 avocado," and "2.6 slices of bread" may not longer be accurate enough for you to meet your calorie goals.
Many people have found that using a food scale helps them meet their goals.21 -
No you don't have to eat clean to lose. Stay the course. If you aren't already weigh your food using a food scale. Be sure you are using accurate entries. Aim for an overall balanced meal then add the treats.10
-
You were right the first time.
This time, are you weighing all solids and semi solids and measuring all liquids? Your logging could be off and you are eating more than you think
Why would dark chocolate be dirty? It is food.8 -
A calorie deficit is all that matters for weight-loss. Hitting your macros and micros matters for health, but your body doesn't know or care whether you're getting the nutrients from 'clean' or 'dirty' sources.9
-
janejellyroll wrote: »Three weeks is really too early to determine that your plan isn't working.
That said, if you weigh less now your margin for error is less and accuracy in measuring portions becomes more important. Using measurements like "1 leg," ".5 avocado," and "2.6 slices of bread" may not longer be accurate enough for you to meet your calorie goals.
Many people have found that using a food scale helps them meet their goals.
I try and use my food scale when I'm at home but don't all the time. I usually also log more than I eat. So for example if I had two slices of bread but a bite of my daughter's bread, I would 2.6 slices of bread just to be safe.
But I assumed that my activity level would kind of counter balance any inaccurate logging. Hasn't so far.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Three weeks is really too early to determine that your plan isn't working.
That said, if you weigh less now your margin for error is less and accuracy in measuring portions becomes more important. Using measurements like "1 leg," ".5 avocado," and "2.6 slices of bread" may not longer be accurate enough for you to meet your calorie goals.
Many people have found that using a food scale helps them meet their goals.
I try and use my food scale when I'm at home but don't all the time. I usually also log more than I eat. So for example if I had two slices of bread but a bite of my daughter's bread, I would 2.6 slices of bread just to be safe.
But I assumed that my activity level would kind of counter balance any inaccurate logging. Hasn't so far.
Time to tighten up the logging! Give that a few weeks, and if you don't see a difference then explore other possible causes. How much of your calculated exercise calories are you eating back?
7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Three weeks is really too early to determine that your plan isn't working.
That said, if you weigh less now your margin for error is less and accuracy in measuring portions becomes more important. Using measurements like "1 leg," ".5 avocado," and "2.6 slices of bread" may not longer be accurate enough for you to meet your calorie goals.
Many people have found that using a food scale helps them meet their goals.
I try and use my food scale when I'm at home but don't all the time. I usually also log more than I eat. So for example if I had two slices of bread but a bite of my daughter's bread, I would 2.6 slices of bread just to be safe.
But I assumed that my activity level would kind of counter balance any inaccurate logging. Hasn't so far.
If you go another couple of weeks without losing, it may be worth considering being more accurate with your logging (at least for a time) to see if that makes a difference.6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Three weeks is really too early to determine that your plan isn't working.
That said, if you weigh less now your margin for error is less and accuracy in measuring portions becomes more important. Using measurements like "1 leg," ".5 avocado," and "2.6 slices of bread" may not longer be accurate enough for you to meet your calorie goals.
Many people have found that using a food scale helps them meet their goals.
I try and use my food scale when I'm at home but don't all the time. I usually also log more than I eat. So for example if I had two slices of bread but a bite of my daughter's bread, I would 2.6 slices of bread just to be safe.
But I assumed that my activity level would kind of counter balance any inaccurate logging. Hasn't so far.
Time to tighten up the logging! Give that a few weeks, and if you don't see a difference then explore other possible causes. How much of your calculated exercise calories are you eating back?
Typically none.
I have had a couple days in the last few weeks where I have overeaten on a weekend, but then I eat WAY below the next day to compensate. So my average over the week is still around 1200 a day.0 -
Did you reduce your calories to reflect the fact that you went from 240 to 160?6
-
You may need to give it more than 3 weeks. Though it won't hurt to make sure your logging is accurate. Food scale for all solid food, enter your own recipes, avoid quick adds/home made entries in the database.I was always of the impression that it was all math, calories in calories out. That's how I went from 240 to 160... just eating within my calories.
I'm almost 3 weeks into counting again and I haven't dropped a single lb. I'm starting to think that I need to eat clean to see progress, which really sucks because honestly I enjoy dark chocolate and junk within my calories.
Has anyone else been in this position?
1 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »A calorie deficit is all that matters for weight-loss. Hitting your macros and micros matters for health, but your body doesn't know or care whether you're getting the nutrients from 'clean' or 'dirty' sources.
The bolded is true, but the higher percentage of calories from less nutrient dense foods the less likely one will get appropriate macro/micros for health and stay within their calorie goal.0 -
Dark chocolate is "clean"...it's pretty rich in nutrition. But no, you don't have to eat "clean" to lose weight....you should know because you lost weight before so everything that applied then applies today.3
-
You don't have to eat clean to lose weight. However, the last half of your weight loss is usually going to be tougher than the first half, at least it was for me. I had to pay a little closer attention to my macros, and stay under my calorie goal, as well as adjust my calorie goal every 5 lbs lost, but I still ate what I wanted within reason. Now that I've been in maintenance for a little over a year I've been trying to slowly gain muscle, and that still means paying close attention to my protein macro, and my fat macros, carbs are always just whatever calories are left over. I still, within reason always, eat what I want. I do choose to eat more vegetables, both raw, steamed, and cooked with other things. I also choose to eat healthier (what does that term even mean?) versions of food, not because they are "healthier" but because something with less fat content has less calories and I can eat more of it and get more protein, fiber, etc. To me, eating "clean" is a myth. Choose what you want to eat based on the health and weight goals you seek. Otherwise eat what you want or need to eat to be happy.2
-
Eating clean is such a vague concept, one that differs from person to person and has so many interpretations that it is virtually a meaningless expression. Calories in, calories out - thats it (along with nutritional considerations of course. I would normally think that goes without saying but you never know....).
2 -
Yes and no. Not specifically "clean" but I do have to keep a specific diet though. Recent diagnosis of gastroparesis. In other words low fiber, low fat, and sometimes low protein. Nutritionally dense, high fiber slow digesting foods are actually my enemy unfortunately (with the exception of overripe bananas). As for you, just log your food (any food) and keep a deficit. Good luck!1
-
It's easier for me to eat less when the food is "clean" (is clean the right word?? I mean not highly processed, no added sugars, not "fat free" or "sugar free" via chemicals.) I get that a calorie is a calorie, but I am more likely to eat less when the foods I eat are high protein, lower carb, not processed, without added sugar.
A bowl of pasta and a sweet potato might have the same amount of calories, but a sweet potato fills me up more effectively and doesn't kick off any cravings the way pasta does.
So anyway, when you have less to lose (sounds like you do), you might want to try to go "cleanish" (not perfection, but try) and see if that helps. There are no side effects to giving it a shot.2 -
Eating clean means absolutely nothing without some context. A diet rich in kale is considered to be quite clean, but what about for someone suffering from clotting disorders? Kale is high in Vitamin K, which can cause the body to produce large amounts of thrombopoietin, clotting proteins. In this context, Kale is obviously a bad food, as it could kill someone. My advice? Drop the food labels and focus on getting enough fiber, micronutrients, and water. The rest is really just details. Ideally, however, if 80% of your diet comes from nutritious food, consuming 20% of your diet from foods you love should make no difference in health markers or fat loss. You should aim to make your diet as enjoyable as possible because why would you stick with something that you hate? Answer: you wouldn't.1
-
I did Weight Watchers for a while, and according to them, your body metabolizes calories from a carrot differently than calories from a Pop Tart. I don't buy it. I know that I can lose weight on 1,650 calories a week...and it doesn't matter where the calories come from. I am not a clean eater (and I am not a horrible eater). I eat what I want, only in smaller portions.2
-
You have 18 consecutive days that look complete, averaging 1,167 calories a day of logged consumption. 41% carb, 36% fat, 23% protein.
My guess from looking over your diary is that you're actually eating a lot more. Eyeballing restaurant / takeout portions is enormously difficult. If you're eyeballing your apples as medium (at 80 calories per), I think you're eyeballing your chicken fried rice as half a cup (with fewer total calories per cup than I log for plain rice!) when it's actually a larger portion than the database item creator used. When you log 2 cups of coleslaw, do you actually have two cups of plain undressed raw cabbage and carrots? Because the item you're logging as coleslaw is plain undressed raw cabbage and carrots.5 -
That's an eternal question I'd say.
I started at 240 pounds and lost 97 of them in 5 years. First four years I ate whatever, calories in calories out, and It worked. But then I plateaud for quite a while, until I started eating cleaner.
So I'd say, at first it might not be important as just counting calories is enough to reduce your food count for the day. But when arriving at a certain fat loss level, you need to take into account your macros as well.
Still, you have to get some pleasure in
. 1 -
I did Weight Watchers for a while, and according to them, your body metabolizes calories from a carrot differently than calories from a Pop Tart. I don't buy it. I know that I can lose weight on 1,650 calories a week...and it doesn't matter where the calories come from. I am not a clean eater (and I am not a horrible eater). I eat what I want, only in smaller portions.
Technically no but the fiber in the carrot will likely slow the digestion of the carbs. The carbs in the pop tart will hit your bloodstream quicker. It is not a clean food/junk food thing, it is the macro and micro makeup that makes difference. BTW: it is a slight difference that mostly diabetics will notice2 -
Nope. I fluctuate between 116 and 118 now, and I lose just fine while still eating some kind of dessert every night. It does get more difficult as you get lighter, though -- the margin of error is much smaller, so you have to be much tighter with your logging. That's the first place I would look if I were you. It may be time to invest in a food scale, especially for things like avocado and cheese.3
-
You have 18 consecutive days that look complete, averaging 1,167 calories a day of logged consumption. 41% carb, 36% fat, 23% protein.
My guess from looking over your diary is that you're actually eating a lot more. Eyeballing restaurant / takeout portions is enormously difficult. If you're eyeballing your apples as medium (at 80 calories per), I think you're eyeballing your chicken fried rice as half a cup (with fewer total calories per cup than I log for plain rice!) when it's actually a larger portion than the database item creator used. When you log 2 cups of coleslaw, do you actually have two cups of plain undressed raw cabbage and carrots? Because the item you're logging as coleslaw is plain undressed raw cabbage and carrots.
The coleslaw I eat is plain with salt heated up in the microwave (I know it is depressingly boring). The apples I eat are usually very small around 2- 2 1/2' inches in diameter which I would assume would be close to 80 calories. The chicken fried rice was most likely inaccurate but when serving I usually use a 1/4 cup measuring spoon and that day I didn't even eat a half a cup. Like I mentioned above, I usually log larger amounts to play it safe.
Either way, let's say that I am underlogging, I am still working out and not eating back my exercise calories. And I am logging my exercise calories with the use of an apple watch, which uses the active calories. So I would think over the 18 days I should have seen at least a small drop.
I really appreciate all the comments and feedback. It seems as though I really need to tighten up my logging and weigh everything... which I am sure you all can agree is pretty stressful. But clearly that is the only solution to this problem.
0 -
I did Weight Watchers for a while, and according to them, your body metabolizes calories from a carrot differently than calories from a Pop Tart. I don't buy it. I know that I can lose weight on 1,650 calories a week...and it doesn't matter where the calories come from. I am not a clean eater (and I am not a horrible eater). I eat what I want, only in smaller portions.
Technically no but the fiber in the carrot will likely slow the digestion of the carbs. The carbs in the pop tart will hit your bloodstream quicker. It is not a clean food/junk food thing, it is the macro and micro makeup that makes difference. BTW: it is a slight difference that mostly diabetics will notice
It's a really different experience for me to eat a PopTart vs. eating carrots. I've been starving after eating 275 calories worth of PopTarts, and full after eating 10 baby carrots with a tablespoon of hummus. Which is why if you're closer to goal weight where every gram of food you eat counts, what the food does to your body.2 -
I lose weight weekly and eat McDonalds daily. I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter what you eat.1
-
Weighing food may come with a learning curve, but personally I don't find it stressful or complicated. I have a small dry erase board in my kitchen, attached to the side of the fridge by magnets. I make notes as I'm cooking sometimes, such as the weight of food that goes on my plate. Or the weights of items that go into a recipe. I tend to prelog, so this way I can go back later and adjust the actual weights.
If you've been at this 18 days, it could be a matter of you are losing weight but water weight is masking the results. Such as you could now be retaining water due to TOM/hormones/ovulation. It won't hurt to improve accuracy, and get comfortable with a food scale, but tracking for a few more weeks might give a better picture of what is happening.1 -
You have 18 consecutive days that look complete, averaging 1,167 calories a day of logged consumption. 41% carb, 36% fat, 23% protein.
My guess from looking over your diary is that you're actually eating a lot more. Eyeballing restaurant / takeout portions is enormously difficult. If you're eyeballing your apples as medium (at 80 calories per), I think you're eyeballing your chicken fried rice as half a cup (with fewer total calories per cup than I log for plain rice!) when it's actually a larger portion than the database item creator used. When you log 2 cups of coleslaw, do you actually have two cups of plain undressed raw cabbage and carrots? Because the item you're logging as coleslaw is plain undressed raw cabbage and carrots.
The coleslaw I eat is plain with salt heated up in the microwave (I know it is depressingly boring). The apples I eat are usually very small around 2- 2 1/2' inches in diameter which I would assume would be close to 80 calories. The chicken fried rice was most likely inaccurate but when serving I usually use a 1/4 cup measuring spoon and that day I didn't even eat a half a cup. Like I mentioned above, I usually log larger amounts to play it safe.
Either way, let's say that I am underlogging, I am still working out and not eating back my exercise calories. And I am logging my exercise calories with the use of an apple watch, which uses the active calories. So I would think over the 18 days I should have seen at least a small drop.
I really appreciate all the comments and feedback. It seems as though I really need to tighten up my logging and weigh everything... which I am sure you all can agree is pretty stressful. But clearly that is the only solution to this problem.
I doubt you are underlogging, an apple that size can range in calories,as for rice you are supposed to weigh the raw weight, using spoons and cups is going to result in eating more calories most of the time. rice is one of those foods that can be high in calories because a cup of raw will be around 2 cups when cooked. if you are suing measuring cups then that 2 cups could end up being more like 2.5-3 cups or more.trust me I learned this the hard way which is why I weigh all solids and semi solids on a scale and use cups for liquids only.
even with exercise if you are eating more than you think you wont lose unless you are creating a deficit and if you arent eating calories back which is how MFP is designed,then you are eating too much,or you arent burning as much as you think you are.Id say its a combo of the 23 -
StaciMarie1974 wrote: »Weighing food may come with a learning curve, but personally I don't find it stressful or complicated. I have a small dry erase board in my kitchen, attached to the side of the fridge by magnets. I make notes as I'm cooking sometimes, such as the weight of food that goes on my plate. Or the weights of items that go into a recipe. I tend to prelog, so this way I can go back later and adjust the actual weights.
If you've been at this 18 days, it could be a matter of you are losing weight but water weight is masking the results. Such as you could now be retaining water due to TOM/hormones/ovulation. It won't hurt to improve accuracy, and get comfortable with a food scale, but tracking for a few more weeks might give a better picture of what is happening.
Well I already weigh all my cheese and most of my meat. So it won't be that bad, just a hassle. I felt like I could trust my eyeballing but clearly not the case.
I'm just feeling very emotional about the whole thing because I really feel like I have been trying. I am always surrounded by junk food and yummy stuff... and I have turned down so much of it. I am trying to stay active. I am drinking water. I really felt like I was working so hard and it is just such a sad sad bummer when you come to the realization you aren't working hard enough. Even if this is what worked for me the first time.0 -
It definitely does matter what you eat. If you only want to lose weight you could eat toilet paper and do that. If you want to be healthy, then your salt and fat and carbs and protein and fiber all need to be balanced. It is really hard to do that with processed and convenience foods.
You will also notice over time your body responds better when you eat clean and your systems function more efficiently than before. Fiber and protein fill you up, and vitamins and minerals grease the wheels and make your body function how it should. Less hunger, less cravings. Salt, refined sugar and fat are essential, but not in the proportions that convenience foods offer usually.
You are more likely to see the results you are after, and it becomes easier to make food decisions if you stick to a cleaner, simplified, "closest to nature" diet. The closer something is to how it is found in nature, the better it is for your body and less thought needs to be put into ingredients and additives.6 -
well, refined sugar is not essential, but it's not a death sentence to have some for the most part.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions