Does anybody else find that eating too clean prevents them from losing weight?

Something about this dietary change is affecting the amount of water your body retains, it seems to me.

Interesting effect noted by Lyle McDonald in one of his articles. Posting here for interest: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html/

How's your sleep? Too low carb for women in particular can affect sleep, which affects cortisol, which affects fat storage, etc.

zyprexa17 wrote: »

There is also quite a bit of interesting research regarding calories and how your body responds to them. An interesting one is "The poor, misunderstood calorie" by William Lagakos. A calorie is not simply a calorie. Everybody has a different metabolism and as a result will use up that calorie at a different rate.

He's talking about stuff like satiety and is a big fan of changes that lead to ad lib calorie reduction. He doesn't mean that you will lose weight on 1200 with one diet and not another. (He also thinks protein is important for muscle preservation.) I've read a lot of his stuff and listened to him interviewed on podcasts.

He'd also probably assume that unmeasured super clean (whatever that means, but assuming it means the usual) would lead to a lower cal diet. If super clean includes lots of added fat, cheese, bacon, perhaps not, though. I can't think of anything he's said that suggests that liking your food less (if you don't then go eat others things to excess) would magically make your body hold onto weight. I DO think that's a bad idea and to have a sustainable diet you SHOULD eat food you enjoy.

Anyway, I've done what some would consider a clean diet, and I lost really easily. I've also done less clean and lost equally fine when calories were the same. And I gained weight on "clean" if you include butter and so on, since I convinced myself that so long as I was focusing on cooking from whole foods I'd naturally regulate calories (I did not).

It's easy for many people to have trouble counting accurately, and that might be more the case with extra home cooking for some, as others suggested. I actually found it easier, but that's because my alternative was including more baked goods that others baked (no labels) and of course more local restaurants with no calories given.

My best guess is that you aren't weighing and measuring your home cooking diligently when you're eating clean. It's a pain, I know. If I make a soup with 7 different ingredients, I have to weigh each one, use the recipe tool, measure the total volume of the finished product and determine what a serving is. It's time consuming.

I've been surprised by the calorie content of my veggie soups though. Very worth the effort.

When I make a very conscious effort to eat "clean" I lose weight. When I eat foods that are not prepackaged or prepared, but fresh fruits, veggies, and protein such as chicken breast I am able to measure my intake more accurately. It is so much easier to be accurate when there are less ingredients and single foods.

fbchick51 wrote: »

Nope. For me, I find the cleaner I eat the better I lose weight (calorie counts staying consistent). 1800 cals of fast food or pre packaged foods for a week would leave me losing between 0-.5lbs. 1800 calories of cooking my own meals using fresh fruits, veggies, herbs and low cal, high protein sources (Eggs, chicken, pork mostly) for a week usually my weight loss bumps up to 1 - 1.5 pounds.

While I don't think there it's actually the choice of foods causing the higher loss. Rather, I feel better overall when I eat healthier, so I'm more apt to move more. Less sitting around watching TV or goofing on the computer. Probably why I've gotten so many projects around the house done and seem to be enjoying my hobbies more often. Not to mention... all that cooking burns far more calories then sitting in a McDonald's drive thru.

I also feel better and am more active when I eat better.

I also find these foods more filling so I eat less overall. 400 calories of chicken, potato, and broccoli keeps me full just as long as 800 calories of pizza.

zyprexa17 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

zyprexa17 wrote: »

There is also quite a bit of interesting research regarding calories and how your body responds to them. An interesting one is "The poor, misunderstood calorie" by William Lagakos. A calorie is not simply a calorie. Everybody has a different metabolism and as a result will use up that calorie at a different rate.

He's talking about stuff like satiety and is a big fan of changes that lead to ad lib calorie reduction. He doesn't mean that you will lose weight on 1200 with one diet and not another. (He also thinks protein is important for muscle preservation.) I've read a lot of his stuff and listened to him interviewed on podcasts.

He'd also probably assume that unmeasured super clean (whatever that means, but assuming it means the usual) would lead to a lower cal diet. If super clean includes lots of added fat, cheese, bacon, perhaps not, though. I can't think of anything he's said that suggests that liking your food less (if you don't then go eat others things to excess) would magically make your body hold onto weight. I DO think that's a bad idea and to have a sustainable diet you SHOULD eat food you enjoy.

Anyway, I've done what some would consider a clean diet, and I lost really easily. I've also done less clean and lost equally fine when calories were the same. And I gained weight on "clean" if you include butter and so on, since I convinced myself that so long as I was focusing on cooking from whole foods I'd naturally regulate calories (I did not).

It's easy for many people to have trouble counting accurately, and that might be more the case with extra home cooking for some, as others suggested. I actually found it easier, but that's because my alternative was including more baked goods that others baked (no labels) and of course more local restaurants with no calories given.

You may have the ideal metabolism.

Seems unlikely.

lemurcat12 wrote: »

kshama2001 wrote: »

fbchick51 wrote: »

Nope. For me, I find the cleaner I eat the better I lose weight (calorie counts staying consistent). 1800 cals of fast food or pre packaged foods for a week would leave me losing between 0-.5lbs. 1800 calories of cooking my own meals using fresh fruits, veggies, herbs and low cal, high protein sources (Eggs, chicken, pork mostly) for a week usually my weight loss bumps up to 1 - 1.5 pounds.

While I don't think there it's actually the choice of foods causing the higher loss. Rather, I feel better overall when I eat healthier, so I'm more apt to move more. Less sitting around watching TV or goofing on the computer. Probably why I've gotten so many projects around the house done and seem to be enjoying my hobbies more often. Not to mention... all that cooking burns far more calories then sitting in a McDonald's drive thru.

I also feel better and am more active when I eat better.

I'd modify this some. If I eat very poorly, I am likely to feel more tired and lethargic, yes. It's a big reason I recall I dislike not eating well if I have a particularly bad day for some reason. However, so long as I am eating well (what I consider well -- not overeating, eating adequate protein and lots of vegetables and some fruit), I will feel more energetic (all else even, of course there are other things that affect energy and mood). I don't find that getting extra obsessive about eating clean makes one whit of difference to my mood or energy.

So I'd say I feel better and am more active when I do not eat poorly.

Absolutely. Not eating obsessively "clean" does not mean eating only junk or completely neglecting nutrition. Eating well does have benefits and eating poorly can really make you feel bad.

But treats make up an important part of your diet. And I'm a great believer that if you feel deprived, in any way, you're more likely to experience portion creep and selective amnesia when logging. My belief is that this is behind most cases of "eat more to lose more".