Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Calorie Counting

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Kepler
    replied
    Re: Calorie Counting

    Originally posted by FadeToBlack&Gold View Post
    Good for some vitamins, but a bit too high in sugar and lacking fiber. Still, considerably better for you than a Snickers' bar.

    https://diabetes.ucsf.edu/sites/diab...ic%20Index.pdf
    W T F, boiled carrots???

    Leave a comment:


  • FadeToBlack&Gold
    replied
    Re: Calorie Counting

    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
    Bananas? I like bananas...
    Good for some vitamins, but a bit too high in sugar and lacking fiber. Still, considerably better for you than a Snickers' bar.

    https://diabetes.ucsf.edu/sites/diab...ic%20Index.pdf

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Re: Calorie Counting

    Originally posted by FadeToBlack&Gold View Post
    Fruit is OK if you pick a high fiber one, like apples or blueberries.
    Bananas? I like bananas...

    Leave a comment:


  • FadeToBlack&Gold
    replied
    Re: Calorie Counting

    Fruit is OK if you pick a high fiber one, like apples or blueberries.

    Leave a comment:


  • trixR4kids
    replied
    Re: Calorie Counting

    Fruit just tends to have a lot of calories and isn't very filling so I mostly tend to avoid it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Re: Calorie Counting

    Originally posted by Drew S. View Post
    I’d add a piece of fruit and maybe a small bag of chips or crackers to your lunch.
    Hmm. I could do that. I like fruit a lot. It's probably something I could use for sweetness.

    Leave a comment:


  • Drew S.
    replied
    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
    I brought my own breakfast and lunch today rather than going out for it.

    May 2

    Breakfast: one largish-hotdog sized bratwurst (200) and Diet Dr. Pepper (0): 200

    Lunch: turkey and cheese on a hamburger bun (180) and flavored selzer (0): 180

    380 and counting.
    I’d add a piece of fruit and maybe a small bag of chips or crackers to your lunch.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Re: Calorie Counting

    Originally posted by trixR4kids View Post
    Unless you absolutely hate all veggies you could add a bunch of those on the side (or on your sandwich) as they're filling and low calorie (if you pick the right ones like spinach or Broccoli). I usually eat a salad with spinach as the base with most meals.
    Some vegetables are tolerable when cooked, but I thought that defeated the purpose of them?

    Leave a comment:


  • trixR4kids
    replied
    Re: Calorie Counting

    Unless you absolutely hate all veggies you could add a bunch of those on the side (or on your sandwich) as they're filling and low calorie (if you pick the right ones like spinach or Broccoli). I usually eat a salad with spinach as the base with most meals.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Re: Calorie Counting

    I brought my own breakfast and lunch today rather than going out for it.

    May 2

    Breakfast: one largish-hotdog sized bratwurst (200) and Diet Dr. Pepper (0): 200

    Lunch: turkey and cheese on a hamburger bun (180) and flavored selzer (0): 180

    380 and counting.

    Leave a comment:


  • jen
    replied
    Re: Calorie Counting

    Originally posted by FadeToBlack&Gold View Post
    My problem with food tracking apps for calorie counting is that if you do your own cooking, you have to enter each ingredient and hope it's both in the database and has the numbers entered accurately. It drives me insane trying to pick from the different brands, serving sizes, and nutrition counts of eggs, veggies, crackers, bread, etc. My Fitness Pal is particularly terrible at this, and I inevitably quit using it after a couple of days.
    If you cook from recipes, you can import and easily make changes to it. It's slightly time consuming (we're talking maybe 5 minutes), but my type A self doesn't mind. I find logging calories isn't a hardship. Sometimes following it is , but not logging. It helps force me to plan meals. I hate cooking during the week after I get home from work.

    I do wish they had a little more quality control over people adding things, such as adding minced garlic that is 1600 calories or spelling things incorrectly... but it doesn't annoy me enough to stop using it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Re: Calorie Counting

    Originally posted by WisconsinWildcard View Post
    I assume you mean good strategy as in weight loss strategy
    I meant theory as to why fasting might be effective/ineffective.

    But your whole response was very interesting. Thank you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Slap Shot
    replied
    Re: Calorie Counting

    Apparently every poster here (including myself) is losing weight.

    Leave a comment:


  • MinnesotaNorthStar
    replied
    Re: Calorie Counting

    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
    F-ck it. You good people are going to help me lose weight (5-9, 235) through shame, guilt, and relentless mockery (Catholicism has to be good for something) so I don't have to exercise. Because I hate exercise.

    Tuesday, 4/30
    Breakfast: Special K (120) with 1% milk (50) = 170. Good.
    Lunch: McDonald's quarter-pounder (520), large fries (500) and large Dr. Pepper (270) = 1290. Very bad.
    1460 cumulative, leaving me 540 for the next 12 hours. Considering that includes Trivia Night which means beer and tater tots that's not going to happen. One day plus a bit closer to death.
    Height
    Weight
    Notre Dame
    Mets (my favorite NL team)
    Being a UND fan I look down on the rest of the plebs of the college hockey world like an ivy grad would
    Redheads

    JFC, I'm the Kepler of the midwest.

    Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
    I've never really experienced that except with long-term changes. Short-term, your internal organs aren't going to change size drastically unless something like a spleen and liver are crushing it or you wrap a band around it. As you eat less over weeks and months, sure. Then I would certainly buy that the stomach can shrink.
    Not drastically, but they seem to. During my recent adverse reaction to an antibiotic (the one that kept me from going to the F4), I couldn't hold anything down for a few days and when I finally could I couldn't eat as much as I did for a week after that.

    I've lost about 20 lbs. in the last couple of years. The main changes I made were drinking less pop (I went from 3-4 20oz bottles a day to 1), and trying to eat at least a little better. I've eaten almost no fast food for the last couple of years and have limited myself to only eating pizza once a week (I could probably eat it every day and not get tired of it). My work schedule has also probably played a part. Right now I work from 4PM-2AM. The previous year it has been 2PM-midnight. For whatever reason I'm not hungry when I wake up (varies between noon and 2) and have no problems working my entire shift without eating. If some coworkers do go somewhere to get food, I might get something, depending on where they go, but other than that I will just eat when I get home.

    Leave a comment:


  • WisconsinWildcard
    replied
    Re: Calorie Counting

    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
    Assuming lack of formal experimental evidence either way, can you think of any credible theoretical reason why targeted fasting would be a good strategy?
    I assume you mean good strategy as in weight loss strategy. I think the data is quite limited in that aspect which is why I would not make that argument in the literature or to colleague without further study, especially clinically. I make a clear and specific distinction between things I actively recommend (FDA approved medication for its intended use, Mediterranean diet for stroke prevention) vs things there is no convincing evidence for but is likely safe in the right setting (where I think intermittent fasting in falls in). With few exceptions, I do not bring up the latter when talking to patients unless specifically asked.

    This review is an OK collection of some of the studies. There is a huge problem of validity and reproducibility in the diet/nutrition literature so all of this has to be taken with a grain of salt. To answer your question, they propose that intermittent fasting may lead to decreased caloric intake overall, although personally I have not been convinced with the data as of yet. There is also a paucity of long term data as previously mentioned by Deutsche Gopher Fan.
    https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/fu...r_pub%3Dpubmed

    I started to "accidentally" fast during the first year of residency. On an average day, I would get to work at 6 or 7, drink coffee, and work basically non-stop until I would leave around 7 or 8PM. I would have one large meal at home and go to sleep. Rinse and repeat. I ended up losing around 30 lbs which was nice and felt OK. I looked into the data at that time to make sure I wasn't actively hurting myself and now continue to do it basically when I feel like it. If I feel my thinking is slow or have other symptoms, I eat. I would not use this as evidence for anything. As most people have mentioned, you kind of have to find what works for you.

    Fasting is not my hill to die on. One well designed study could change my entire opinion on it.

    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
    Could fasting have a similar effect, exploiting a "market inefficiency" in how the body deals with lack of energy?
    In a way, yes. You are probably more likely to go into brief ketosis depending on your meal choice and duration of fast. That, however, is quite the can of worms and will probably bring out some diet cultists

    My experience with the ketogenic diet is mostly limited to epilepsy treatment. In those cases, I work closely with a dietician. Ketosis can be quite miserable, especially at the beginning.

    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
    I have a loose, quasi-crackpot opinion that processed foods create fats that are very hard to break down whereas natural foods create easy to break down fats.
    There are too many loaded words in this for me to comment in the exact spirit of the statement

    Chemically, fats are fats, carbs are carbs (yes there are differences within those categories). "Processed foods" as a whole are just more likely to have higher salt content, higher simple carb content, and less fruit/vegetable content. They are not, by themselves, "unhealthy" but will change the proportion of fats/carbs that you get compared other foods. You lose control over their content, whereas if you cook every meal yourself you know what is going into it and have more control. We can say a lot of bull**** from an evolutionary standpoint, but one truth I will stand by is we evolved to be efficient in processing and storing our calories.

    "Natural" is a word that comes close to rupturing an aneurysm for me. It is about as meaningless, individually defined, and inconsistent word that is put out there in health care discussions.

    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
    Any MDs or nutritionists out there want to take a swing at what the actual science is?
    Remember...a nutritionist is just someone who wants to call themselves a nutritionist

    There is a reason that a thread like this can have everyone come in telling a different thing that works. They probably all do.

    If you take the "Standard American Diet" and put it up against nearly any diet (especially ones that are restrictive in some way like Atkins, Mediterranean, gluten free, etc), the latter will likely show weight loss. There are hundreds of studies showing this which is why you can find support for whatever pet diet you have.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X