Do you think healthy eating determines 80% of your results? Yes/No?

Depends on how you define results. And depends on how you define healthy eating.

Pro'ly not.

Looked up some of your past posts. Don't know why this one's so short, but you probably mean, "if you eat right and log carefully 80% of the time, will you still lose weight?" And as you know, there are so many variables in that equation that there can be no definitive answer.

But do I believe you should give yourself a little latitude on a "diet"? You bet!
Everyone's different, and their story is different. When I first started my "diet" it was exactly that. Foods I would never eat on a regular basis because I heard they were low calorie, healthy, etc. (Think cabbage soup diet). But I learned. And I'm still learning.

Do I subscribe to 80/20? Not really. Maybe. I do believe you can eat mostly healthy, with an occasional not so healthy treat and maintain a healthy weight. I do believe that it's better to move your body in a way that makes you happy 😊 with some thought to healthy exercise than to try to force yourself to do the perfect exercise and fail.

As others have said, not really clear on what you define as results, but you can eat "healthy" and still be eating at or over maintenance calories, and not lose weight, so if that's the result you're looking for, then calorie intake it what will define success. If you're looking to bulk, well, that's completely different results again, and again, calories and macros are what's going to inform that.

Really, it's hard to answer because what you mean by results, and what you mean by healthy eating, are undefined.

Healthy eating matters but i don't think if it it determines 80% of one's health. There're lots, lots of other factors playing their role.

age_is_just_a_number wrote: »

I believe 95% of weight loss results are determined by how many calories you put in you mouth.
I do not believe those calories need to be ‘healthy’ but that you’ll feel better the healthier those calories are.

And it's been proven by the "Twinkie Diet".

https://huffpost.com/entry/chewing-on-the-twinkie-di_b_782678

neanderthin wrote: »

Depends on what the factors were of what and why something might have improved their health and then, and only then, can they make that determination.

If your talking weight loss, then, all you really need to do is eat less food (some people refer to food as calories) and it really doesn't matter what food your eating, you'll lose weight, so the answer is no.

If you changed your diet and saw improvement in your blood glucose levels for example and reversed your insulin resistance, then that could be interpreted as eating to improve ones health, so basically a yes.

Reportedly, it is the case that some of the party-stunt dieters, like the Twinkie diet and only-McDonald's diet, have improved their health markers post-diet compared to pre-diet.

I'm not boosting those approaches, and at least some of the people who used them don't endorse them as a good approach, either. The Twinkie diet guy, Mark Haub, is a nutrition professor, even - a guy who conducts clinical research on diet/lifestyle improvements and their effect on health markers. Reportedly, not only did his blood lipid profile improve, his blood sugar level dropped by 17%. He didn't eat only Twinkies, but he ate a lot of them, some reasonable foods, and some other foods most would characterize as junk food. If a drop in blood sugar and improvement in lipid profile can be interpreted as improving health, he improved his health.

Kevin Maginnis, the McDonald's diet guy, also reported an improvement in lipids, plus an improvement from pre-diabetic to normal blood sugar levels. He ate at McDonald's 3 times a day for 100 days, lost 58.5 pounds.

These are - like I said - party-trick diets, things no sensible person would suggest as optimal. They also aren't mostly well-monitored, objectively-monitored formal experiments (though I'm betting Haub did a decent job monitoring and documenting his n=1).

Clearly, n=1 is severely limited, those approaches aren't the best way to promote health, blah blah blah. But there is a hint in there that weight loss alone potentially has health benefits, even with some objectively kind of stupid food choices in the mix.

I'd never tell someone to eat that way. But if someone can be compliant with eating in that way, and can't manage compliance on a more nutrient-dense, sensible way of eating, IMO the weight loss impact on health would probably be worth going that route rather than staying fat and eating those same foods.

neanderthin wrote: »

Ann, blood markers always improve when weight is lost regardless of the diet, which I'd imagine was very much the impetus for him to get people to scratch their heads and think he's a genius, yeah and it worked very well, I mean you just brought it up after all this time. Unfortunately it doesn't work the other way around but I would imagine many believe it does, people aren't very inquisitive about nutrition, present company excluded.

I don't think that a guy with Marc Haub's vita is likely to think he's a genius for a party-trick diet. Suggesting he is can be a good diss, though, I guess. He doesn't mention the party trick in his vita, unsurprisingly. But party tricks can get attention, sometimes for people, sometimes for relevant concepts.

Party trick or not, there does seem to exist support that weight loss (and even more so rapid weight loss from a position of obesity) leads to improved health markers.

I am not going to diss healthy eating but I don't know that healthy eating without weight loss has as much success as "simple" weight loss.

I would assume that successfully going lower carb will improve blood sugars regardless of weight change.

Similarity will health be improved by adding movement and exercise there none might have previously existed.

These are continuums and individual experience and ability to adhere to the plan matter more than the particular method chosen to implement it.

To the question? Because of the concept of calories over time, Calories In, so food eaten, will determine the majority of your results.

Calories over time: how long does it take to eat 4000 Cal.... how long does it take to spend 4000 Cal... one, clearly, can overwhelm the other

A Doctor should have known that having something with sugar, like a coffee with cream and sugar and a donut will raise triglycerides in the blood immediately after and for over 4 hours and why clinics want people to fast at least 8 hours or more. This only confirms that most Doctors haven't been well trained in nutrition even for something relatively simple like blood work which most Doctors do on a daily basis, quite pathetic really.