Weight loss while eating badly
Options
Replies
-
I follow the 80/20 rule where possible, good 80% of the time. 20% of the time is for the less innocent snacking/drinking, though it is rarely fast food.0
-
It's all about lifestyle change right? No one can hope it will be permanent and life changing, if they are miserable.
Everything in moderation, and learning to listen to your body - it knows when *kitten* is up.
Some people can be heavy smokers and live to be 80+ years old... Some can cook with lard and inhale MSG and live to be a million. Maybe their bodies are built to handle things differently. I know that MY body says too much salt is terrible and so are too many fried foods. I know this because my body makes damn well sure I know it. o_o
This doesn't mean I don't have my popeyes fries every once in a while, or that slice of cake, or a piece of chocolate. But I know that it's not "aaallll ooooover, nooooooo" if I do these things, because the new me doesn't do it all the time and in large portions.
And the steady weight-loss and happy comments and positive lab results from my doctor tells me the same.
0 -
who cares....if it works and u feel good must be right0
-
I believe there is a big difference between changing your lifestyle to eat healthy most of the time and just eating 'less junk' (smaller portions, not less frequently) to lose weight.
Changing your lifestyle (be it becoming a 'clean' eater or a 'moderation' eater) will lead to weight loss AND better health.
Eating lesser amounts of junk (but not 'clean' or 'in moderation') will most likely lead to weight loss, but not necessarily better health (even the Twinkie guy took supplements and protein shakes during his experiment, which *could* have contributed to his 'better health').
The reality is that whatever you choose has to be sustainable, not just attainable. If not, you'll be right back to square one, but with a bigger square.0 -
I agree that it gets down to calories. I would not judge another for choosing to eat something that is considered "unclean" as part of their daily diet. For weight loss, it really gets down to calorie total (portion control). We can train our bodies to require less food by eating less food in the long term. After a month of eating calories totalling 1200 up to my BMR, I have noticed that my appetite has diminished somewhat, unless I engage in an intense workout. As for eating processed food, I choose not to because I detect a noticable negative physical reaction to it, i.e. headaches, loss of energy (lethargy), and even irritability. The preservatives and additives in some processed foods are not healthy for me, personally, but may not be a problem someone else.
We need to encourage people to achieve their weight loss goals, not nitpick on whether or not something is unclean. In the end, if someone loses 50 lbs (for ex.) and the result is also that their BP goes down, their good cholesterol goes up, and they no longer need medications for health conditions related to being overweight, that is success!!!! 0 -
All I know is, if I were to have eaten lots of junk food during my weightloss, it would use up a huge chunk of my daily calorie allowance. This, in turn, would mean less nutritious food - in short, I would be left feeling hungry.
MacDonalds is actually a good example for me, one burger does not fill me up, in fact, it goes nowhere near the mark and yet it would use up a huge part of my daily calories.
For me, personally, none of it would be worth it - continual hunger being one of those reasons.0 -
Just a comment on psychological side of dieting. I know I'm not alone in this. I've dieted on and off for years. Usually it's my expectation that "This time, I'm going to do it right!" that has driven me off the wagon. Wanting to eat perfectly and black and white thinking in terms of food is what causes so many of us to yo-yo. Allowing myself a couple of dietary breaks each week(without self recrimination) has been real breakthrough for me. I'm almost to goal and feel less scared about maintenance because I know I don't have to be a diet nazi to succeed.0
-
Did you even read the article? In addition to the weight loss, his health improved.
I read that article, but he said he missed salads.0 -
I don't eat "clean" by clean standards and I have maintained my weight for 7+ years.
However, I do eat 90% of my meals at home and I do count my calories. I also workout almost daily. Therefore, on the days I eat out, I eat what I want for the most part because I can.0 -
I'm gonna have to go ahead and beg to differ with a lot of you.
Take a look at this:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
That's a Nutrition professor that did this experiment.
Gotta stop listening to the pseudo scientists, and the people trying to sell you stuff folks.
FAKE EDIT: Go ahead, I know plenty of you are going to flame me, or tell me how it's bs, but I think I'll go ahead and believe a guy who has made it his life to study the effects of food on the human body.
Completely anecdotal and there are numerous other studies which refute this as well as plenty of psuedo-scientific experiments showing opposite results (McDonald's guy).
The fact is that in order to lose weight one must create a calorie deficit. Calories are nothing but a measure of the potential energy contained in food, so whether you create a deficit in a calorie pool filled with Twinkies or a pool filled with "clean" nutrients the result is the same. However, unless an endurance athlete has some sort of genetic predisposition toward being a garbage disposal (and some do), Twinkies and McDonald's will not properly fuel you. If you sole goal is to lose weight but not improve health then by all means eat away and you will die skinny and unhealthy instead of fat and unhealthy.
How were the Twinkie professors results completely anecdotal? Seems the opposite of that. And what studies have refuted his calories in-calories out theory? If McDonalds guy is referring to SuperSize Me, that guy was eating 1500-2500 calories above his daily requirement every day.
No doubt that in the long run it will be better to eat healthy than just eat less. But who's going to decide what healthy is? My doctor says eat whole wheat, but the gluten free people tell me that will make me sick. The Paleos tell me to each bacon cheeseburgers and the vegans say that will kill me. My nutritionist says eat chicken and rice, but the low carb people say that will kill me. You can't just tell people to "eat clean" when no one seems to agree on what that is.0 -
I'm gonna have to go ahead and beg to differ with a lot of you.
Take a look at this:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
That's a Nutrition professor that did this experiment.
Gotta stop listening to the pseudo scientists, and the people trying to sell you stuff folks.
FAKE EDIT: Go ahead, I know plenty of you are going to flame me, or tell me how it's bs, but I think I'll go ahead and believe a guy who has made it his life to study the effects of food on the human body.
Completely anecdotal and there are numerous other studies which refute this as well as plenty of psuedo-scientific experiments showing opposite results (McDonald's guy).
The fact is that in order to lose weight one must create a calorie deficit. Calories are nothing but a measure of the potential energy contained in food, so whether you create a deficit in a calorie pool filled with Twinkies or a pool filled with "clean" nutrients the result is the same. However, unless an endurance athlete has some sort of genetic predisposition toward being a garbage disposal (and some do), Twinkies and McDonald's will not properly fuel you. If you sole goal is to lose weight but not improve health then by all means eat away and you will die skinny and unhealthy instead of fat and unhealthy.
How were the Twinkie professors results completely anecdotal? Seems the opposite of that. And what studies have refuted his calories in-calories out theory? If McDonalds guy is referring to SuperSize Me, that guy was eating 1500-2500 calories above his daily requirement every day.
No doubt that in the long run it will be better to eat healthy than just eat less. But who's going to decide what healthy is? My doctor says eat whole wheat, but the gluten free people tell me that will make me sick. The Paleos tell me to each bacon cheeseburgers and the vegans say that will kill me. My nutritionist says eat chicken and rice, but the low carb people say that will kill me. You can't just tell people to "eat clean" when no one seems to agree on what that is.
I am saying that one study a proof does not make. Do not misunderstand me, I indulge a few times a week and I firmly believe that eating badly from time to time is ok, and even necessary for weight loss. What I am saying is that you cannot throw out the plethora of nutrition information because of one nutritionist and his Twinkies.0 -
Just a comment on psychological side of dieting. I know I'm not alone in this. I've dieted on and off for years. Usually it's my expectation that "This time, I'm going to do it right!" that has driven me off the wagon. Wanting to eat perfectly and black and white thinking in terms of food is what causes so many of us to yo-yo. Allowing myself a couple of dietary breaks each week(without self recrimination) has been real breakthrough for me. I'm almost to goal and feel less scared about maintenance because I know I don't have to be a diet nazi to succeed.
This has been really important to me! If I go for the all-or-nothing approach, I fail. Every time. This time, I'm eating less of the "bad" things, but still eating them. Focusing a lot on portion control and I am slowly adding in more fruits/veggies/cooking at home. It's a LIFESTYLE change. In order for me to sustain it, I have to be able to eat a cupcake or cookie or I won't sustain it. I'll fall of the wagon and eat every sweet I can find. It is a process. And it sucks when people on here are so militant about what one should or shouldn't eat.0 -
I'm gonna have to go ahead and beg to differ with a lot of you.
Take a look at this:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
That's a Nutrition professor that did this experiment.
Gotta stop listening to the pseudo scientists, and the people trying to sell you stuff folks.
FAKE EDIT: Go ahead, I know plenty of you are going to flame me, or tell me how it's bs, but I think I'll go ahead and believe a guy who has made it his life to study the effects of food on the human body.
Okay he lost weight... anyone can lose weight by limiting their calories.. however what you eat is not just important for weight loss but for your general health.. although eating sugary foods etc. made him lose weight, if your diet consists of these kinds of foods then in the long run you can wave goodbye to your health. It has been proven that by limiting calories and bumping up your exercise you will lose weight however, it has been scientifically shown that the kinds of food you eat are just as important. Lots of sugary foods etc. leads to diabetes etc.
I can't actually believe this has even been posted.. anyone that thinks sugary foods are good for you needs a brain check!!0 -
"Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent.
"That's where the head scratching comes," Haub said. "What does that mean? Does that mean I'm healthier? Or does it mean how we define health from a biology standpoint, that we're missing something?""
From the article.
Sugary foods are not bad for you. An excess of them is, but an excess of anything is bad for you.0 -
How were the Twinkie professors results completely anecdotal? Seems the opposite of that. And what studies have refuted his calories in-calories out theory? If McDonalds guy is referring to SuperSize Me, that guy was eating 1500-2500 calories above his daily requirement every day.
No doubt that in the long run it will be better to eat healthy than just eat less. But who's going to decide what healthy is? My doctor says eat whole wheat, but the gluten free people tell me that will make me sick. The Paleos tell me to each bacon cheeseburgers and the vegans say that will kill me. My nutritionist says eat chicken and rice, but the low carb people say that will kill me. You can't just tell people to "eat clean" when no one seems to agree on what that is.
Thank you! Everyone has a different definition of what is good, and what is bad for you.
Anyways, I'm not pushing the d@mn Twinkie diet.
The point is, is you go off your diet and eat junk food, it's not the friggin end of the world.0 -
Amen, say that again!0
-
How were the Twinkie professors results completely anecdotal? Seems the opposite of that. And what studies have refuted his calories in-calories out theory? If McDonalds guy is referring to SuperSize Me, that guy was eating 1500-2500 calories above his daily requirement every day.
No doubt that in the long run it will be better to eat healthy than just eat less. But who's going to decide what healthy is? My doctor says eat whole wheat, but the gluten free people tell me that will make me sick. The Paleos tell me to each bacon cheeseburgers and the vegans say that will kill me. My nutritionist says eat chicken and rice, but the low carb people say that will kill me. You can't just tell people to "eat clean" when no one seems to agree on what that is.
Thank you! Everyone has a different definition of what is good, and what is bad for you.
Anyways, I'm not pushing the d@mn Twinkie diet.
The point is, is you go off your diet and eat junk food, it's not the friggin end of the world.
I completely agree with this statement, in fact I just ate fried chicken. I do, however, believe that in the beginning, people need to treat junk food and simple carbs like any other addiction and detox.0 -
"Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent.
"That's where the head scratching comes," Haub said. "What does that mean? Does that mean I'm healthier? Or does it mean how we define health from a biology standpoint, that we're missing something?""
From the article.
Sugary foods are not bad for you. An excess of them is, but an excess of anything is bad for you.
His cholesterol and triglycerides improved b/c he lost excess weight. That's very important, and everybody already knew that before this study.
However: first, the blood markers likely would have been better if he was eating the same number of calories in healthy foods (eg almonds, vegetables, fruits, lean meats, whole fat dairy). Second, he was taking SUPPLEMENTS b/c his Twinkie diet had inadequate protein (strange way to eat in the long run, take protein supplements and eat Twinkies . . . ). Third, he only demonstrated something that we all already know: you can lose weight eating anything provided you have a caloric defecit and the proper motivation to maintain that caloric defecit. How long do you think your motivation to eat less would last with a bunch of Twinkies and doritos sitting 10 feet away?
Long term weight management is far more difficult. If you eat Twinkies and chips everyday and never exercise, then you'll probably end up failing. Sugar and simple carbs don't fill you up like solid protein, and the simple carbs and sugar will lead to food cravings. Sure there are people who can eat those kinds of foods reguarly and not gain weight. But those people generally never gain weight and therefore wouldn't need to be dieting in the first place.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of cheat meals. This weekend I was travelling and ate Wendy's, Domino's, and cheesecake factory (those thousand calorie slices of cheesecake are definitely worth every calorie!). That stuff's fine if you make it the exception, not the rule. But you can't eat that kind of food everyday and expect to maintain weight loss over the long term. Eventually you're motivation will wane and you'll start going over on your calories.0 -
Blah, you all can disagree that he needs to stop eating fast food all together, but really? No, he doesn't. I live in a family of 4 which basically....all we have is junk food and the occasional "healthy" foods.
I'm still losing weight.
Basically...it's something called MODERATION. 0 -
MacDonalds is actually a good example for me, one burger does not fill me up, in fact, it goes nowhere near the mark and yet it would use up a huge part of my daily calories.
Not only does one burger from McDonald's not fill me up, apparently an entire value meal doesn't! I forgot my lunch one day while I was rushing out the door and decided to indulge with another coworker and have some McD's. Had a Big Mac and medium fries and was still feeling like I could eat more afterwards. WTH? My normal lunch of turkey sandwich on whole wheat bread and side of fruit usually fills me up! I was perplexed.
I also like to second the other folks who have stated that they tend to fail with an 'all or nothing' attitude towards diet. Me too! My diet is definitely not the 'best' according to a large contingency on this site, but I'm doing what works for me, and that's better than not doing anything at all.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
- 394 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
- 939 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions