Can you really eat a burger?
Replies
-
All the burger I have seen so far in this thread look bad. They would be good for like 1/4 or 1/2 of the burger but I'm guessing I would get sick of the meat cheese grease combo.
Here is a real burger, comes with chips, not fries.
No, that is not a burger. That is a chicken filet sandwich. Not a burger.
Its called a Bondi burger. Looks more like a burger than a sandwich.
If you replace the chicken with beef would it be a beef sandwich? No that would be ridiculous. So is the idea that chicken can't be a burger.
You guys and your crazy ideas.
Just because that restaurant has no idea of the difference between a burger, (which I would venture to guess most people understand to mean a patty of ground meat) and a filet, doesn't mean they are correct.
Unless that is ground chicken.
Burger: Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/burger
burg·er (bûr′gər)
n.
1. A sandwich consisting of a bun, a cooked beef patty, and often other ingredients such as cheese, onion slices, lettuce, or condiments. Often used in combination: a cheeseburger.
2. A similar sandwich with a nonbeef filling. Often used in combination: a crab burger; a tofu burger.
Patty: Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patty
A patty, in American, Australian and New Zealand English, is a flattened, usually round, serving of ground meat or meat alternatives. The meat is compacted and shaped, cooked, and served. Patties can be eaten with a knife and a fork in dishes like Salisbury steak, but are typically served in a sort of sandwich called a "burger", or a hamburger if the patty is made from ground beef. The patty itself can also be called a burger, whether or not it is served in a sandwich, especially in the United Kingdom and Ireland, where the term "patty" is rarely used.
Similar-shaped meat cakes not made from ground beef may also be called "burger": "turkey burgers" or "fishburgers" may be made from reshaped mechanically separated meat. Sometimes burgers are breaded. Veggie burger patties are made without animal products. In Ireland, traditional chippers often serve batter burger (a beef-based patty dipped in batter and deep fried) or spice burger (a savory patty made with a proprietary recipe of meats and spices).[1] These are served in a greaseproof paper bag and eaten with the hands.
Your definition seems to include chicken burgers too.
2. A similar sandwich with a nonbeef filling. Often used in combination: a crab burger; a tofu burger.
non beef as in a chicken fillet?
Just a guess here but your american, I'm Australian, seems perfectly reasonable that we have different definitions for a burger.
Your definition is narrow and mine isn't.
Burger to me is less about the meat and how it is processed and more about the type of bread it is encased in.
Take one of your burgers and replace it the meat with a chicken fillet, still a burger, still a burger to just about anyone I asked here. Replace it with a veggie patty, still a burger. Replace it with a minute steak, still a burger.
Did you read the also included definition of PATTY, that is acceptable in American, Australian, and New Zealand English? Oh, no, you just read the first line.
Mine is correct, yours is not...suck it up buttercup.
I didn't just read the first line, obviously since I copied the 2nd paragraph. Your definition said ground beef patty then said similiar sandwhich with non beef meat.
So a burger with chicken fillets sounds awe fully similar to a beef burger with non beef meat. So it makes it a burger.
Also I did say we're from different countries and that is probably the root of the argument.
Your definition sound correct for America and mine sounds correct for Australia.
So either we are both wrong or both right.
It's like arguing over whether coke is soda or fizzy drink or if chips are like fries or like Pringles.
You have your ideas and I have mine.
0 -
-
This content has been removed.
-
I always thought Hamburgler was a really dumb character. And why was he always talking about potato chips? ("Ruffle, ruffle!")
Now that we're on that same theme, I found every single one of those characters weird and somewhat cannibalistic, except for Grimace, who just looked like a purple poop.
0 -
All the burger I have seen so far in this thread look bad. They would be good for like 1/4 or 1/2 of the burger but I'm guessing I would get sick of the meat cheese grease combo.
Here is a real burger, comes with chips, not fries.
No, that is not a burger. That is a chicken filet sandwich. Not a burger.
Its called a Bondi burger. Looks more like a burger than a sandwich.
If you replace the chicken with beef would it be a beef sandwich? No that would be ridiculous. So is the idea that chicken can't be a burger.
You guys and your crazy ideas.
Just because that restaurant has no idea of the difference between a burger, (which I would venture to guess most people understand to mean a patty of ground meat) and a filet, doesn't mean they are correct.
Unless that is ground chicken.
Burger: Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/burger
burg·er (bûr′gər)
n.
1. A sandwich consisting of a bun, a cooked beef patty, and often other ingredients such as cheese, onion slices, lettuce, or condiments. Often used in combination: a cheeseburger.
2. A similar sandwich with a nonbeef filling. Often used in combination: a crab burger; a tofu burger.
Patty: Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patty
A patty, in American, Australian and New Zealand English, is a flattened, usually round, serving of ground meat or meat alternatives. The meat is compacted and shaped, cooked, and served. Patties can be eaten with a knife and a fork in dishes like Salisbury steak, but are typically served in a sort of sandwich called a "burger", or a hamburger if the patty is made from ground beef. The patty itself can also be called a burger, whether or not it is served in a sandwich, especially in the United Kingdom and Ireland, where the term "patty" is rarely used.
Similar-shaped meat cakes not made from ground beef may also be called "burger": "turkey burgers" or "fishburgers" may be made from reshaped mechanically separated meat. Sometimes burgers are breaded. Veggie burger patties are made without animal products. In Ireland, traditional chippers often serve batter burger (a beef-based patty dipped in batter and deep fried) or spice burger (a savory patty made with a proprietary recipe of meats and spices).[1] These are served in a greaseproof paper bag and eaten with the hands.
Your definition seems to include chicken burgers too.
2. A similar sandwich with a nonbeef filling. Often used in combination: a crab burger; a tofu burger.
non beef as in a chicken fillet?
Just a guess here but your american, I'm Australian, seems perfectly reasonable that we have different definitions for a burger.
Your definition is narrow and mine isn't.
Burger to me is less about the meat and how it is processed and more about the type of bread it is encased in.
Take one of your burgers and replace it the meat with a chicken fillet, still a burger, still a burger to just about anyone I asked here. Replace it with a veggie patty, still a burger. Replace it with a minute steak, still a burger.
Did you read the also included definition of PATTY, that is acceptable in American, Australian, and New Zealand English? Oh, no, you just read the first line.
Mine is correct, yours is not...suck it up buttercup.
I didn't just read the first line, obviously since I copied the 2nd paragraph. Your definition said ground beef patty then said similiar sandwhich with non beef meat.
So a burger with chicken fillets sounds awe fully similar to a beef burger with non beef meat. So it makes it a burger.
Also I did say we're from different countries and that is probably the root of the argument.
Your definition sound correct for America and mine sounds correct for Australia.
So either we are both wrong or both right.
It's like arguing over whether coke is soda or fizzy drink or if chips are like fries or like Pringles.
You have your ideas and I have mine.
However it said it was " ground meat". Fillets aren't ground. Thus all though a burger patty can be made of ground chicken, chicken fillets don't make a burger patty.A patty, in American, Australian and New Zealand English, is a flattened, usually round, serving of ground meat or meat alternatives.0 -
marissafit06 wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »GROUND meat...not a filet.
Chicken filet =/= Burger
Personally, I'm not sure I'd even allow anything besides Ground Beef to be TRULY called a burger - any more than I'd allow something with zucchini noodles to be called lasagne or cauliflower crust to be called pizza. But then again, I tend to take burgers pretty seriously.
You are missing out on the non beef burger deliciousness.
I didn't say I didn't eat and/or like them.
I just said they're not burgers0 -
-
I just looked it up...105 calories over my goal. So split it across three meals and do a bit more exercise...0 -
Na, I like big portions and my dinner is typically 1000+ calories, but I don't extrapolate that out to everyone else in the population.
OK I thought we were talking about being satisfied with Wendy's Singles and now we are up to 1000+ meals. Whatevevs mr. flip-flop.how is a grown mans maintenance level 1400 calories? I am a 35 year old male and my maintenance calories are about 2700 ....
I've always heard you typically you take your weight and multiply by 10 to get your maintenance calories. My goal weight is 150. So about 1500 calories. Factor in the permanent metabolic slowdown of 10-15% and you are looking at 1350-1500 calories maintenance. If it's more, great. Point is, a few handfuls of nuts are a days worth of calories. I could increase this with exercise, but I don't exercise.I'm going to assume his TDEE on Day 1 is 2914, then after 5 days as he claims he goes into starvation mode then BAM........TDEE of 1600. Or 1500. Or 1700. Or whatever he claims. Dreaded starvation mode.
It would be nice if you would read what I post, or even just watch the darn videos, but I suppose it's just too much to expect.
When you lose body fat, your leptin levels drop, among other unknown things. When that happens, your skeletal muscles become about 20% more efficient, reducing your metabolism. Your body burns fewer calories in response to body fat stores dropping in an attempt to restore them to their previous levels. This effect has been seen in every study participant in recent years (over 50) and seems to be permanent, though the scientists admit they cannot say it effects everyone. I've provided the links from world-renown scientists teaching and practicing at some of the worlds best hospitals in the fields of obesity, metabolism, and molecular genetics.
If you refuse to read and understand those things, I don't know what to tell you. It's not "starvation mode", it's your body fighting to protect fat stores.
Yes, I can feel this typically 5 days after starting calorie restriction. I'm feeling them right now (cold extremities) and if I were not on appetite suppressants I'm sure I would be hungry.
0 -
And it is still restrictive because those foods are cut out for no real logical reason. I don't eat gluten because it causes digestive issues for me (similar to IBS), but I eat all the alternatives (DIY or store-bought). Seems a bit silly to say "eating canned tomatoes is bad" when they are basically just tomatoes and salt, maybe another safe preservative. What if she goes to a family dinner and they make lasagna? Or god forbid someone buys a turkey that wasn't just killed on the farm 2 minutes prior to purchase? why would eating fresh from her own garden be any different than buying from a farmer's market or buying produce that are also grown on farms and sold in supermarkets; are the latter type somehow infested with dangerous additives that will kill only her (since no one has yet died from eating store-bought produce, from my knowledge)? what if she ends up in a situation where she can ONLY eat the things she avoids, will she just go hungry and risk death? Like what if the apocalypse happened, would she rather die than eat some cereal because she didn't grow it herself?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tmauck4472 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »tmauck4472 wrote: »Yes
That's not to say eat nothing but Frosted Flakes, pizza, cookies, and cheeseburgers all day every day. A lot of people who tout "clean eating" think those of us who don't only do this. We still focus on nutrients, but a treat in moderation that fits your calories/macros is also good.
Clean eating isn't so much about the nutrients as it is about the lack of chemicals in the food. We know that we are still going to get some chemicals in foods but the less you consume we feel the better your body will feel. I know I've slacked off the clean eating and I'm struggling to control my weight and the cravings. Clean eaters get the same amt. of nutrients that everyone else does we just get less chemicals with them.
What do you mean by "chemical"? All food is made of chemical substances.
SMH....chemicals as in the ones put in there to keep things from going bad, the ones that are in there to enhance the flavor. The red dyes and yellow dyes, the ones that keep your meat from turning grey. If I can have it fresh from the farmers market instead of fresh from a can I'd rather have that. If I can have it fresh from the butchers shop with grass fed animals then I'd rather have that (not that I can afford it) If I can have it fresh from MY garden then I'd rather have that. I hate the taste of anything that comes from a can. Even before I started on losing weight I refused to have veggies from a can, taste just yucky if you ask me. Not that I've given up everything, I still eat tunafish in a can, I still have my bacon and ham (one day I'll learn to smoke my own and won't have to buy the store bought stuff) I try not to eat anything from a box as in boxed potatoes, boxed mac and cheese, boxed cereals. I'm back to eating some of that stuff and I'm wondering if it's the reason I don't sleep at night or why I'm craving so much sugar.
Seems pretty restrictive. I was able to live that way for about 4 years before my relationship with food became so bad that I literally would HATE my parents for buying potato chips for themselves, and I would hate the CHIPS for existing.
Your developing some type of food neurosis does not make eating whole natural foods restrictive. There are a lot of food options using only whole natural foods. There is nothing inherently wrong with avoiding prepackaged foods.
I don't see this kind of approach being sustainable in the long-term,as it certainly wasn't for me. It's both inconvenient AND caused me some very nasty food issues on a mental level. Not worth it.0 -
Yes. But I think its important to think of treats as treats. A cheeseburger is a treat and shouldn't be had every day. Same for other similar foods.
why not? it has fat and protein it...
I would get tired of eating burgers everyday anyway ..but once or twice a week in the context of hitting your calorie/micro/macro goal is not going to kill anyone....
I've had beef (taco, hamburger) like every day for the last few days. That stuff is GOOD, but damn it makes it harder to meet my protein since I don't have any poultry on hand. Greek yogurt and egg whites and protein powder for LIFe.. or well for at least a few more days when I make someone go buy me some meat.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Your developing some type of food neurosis does not make eating whole natural foods restrictive. There are a lot of food options using only whole natural foods. There is nothing inherently wrong with avoiding prepackaged foods.
But there is nothing inherently wrong with preserving food (such as canning) or enhancing the flavor of food either.
No, which is why I didn't suggest there was. It's a personal choice.
You didn't, but the person upthread was specifically talking about preservation and flavor-enhancing making foods "unclean," as well as touting the benefits of never eating canned foods.
If someone makes the choice to avoid certain foods, that's their business. However, promoting rhetoric about certain methods/ingredients making food "unclean" has a wider impact than the individual.
How? Did the poster suggest everyone should eat that way? Or were they just sharing their personal preference in answer to question?
The poster made specific statements about "your body" feeling better if one eats fewer chemicals (which is a completely impossible goal,by the way).
I went back and read a few posts and all I saw were a lot of "I", but perhaps I missed it. But I still don't see how her saying your body would feel something would affect how restrictive a diet of whole foods would inherently be. All weight loss diets are restrictive.
actually, all weight loss diets restrict calories..
slight difference between restricting something because one views it as "bad" and realizing that one need to restrict ALL calories because one has become over weight.
And taking this out of the context of weight loss and just considering dietary lifestyle, how is it not restrictive to say you can eat something in a box just because... it's in a box? What if someone packaged your fruit in a box? Are you going to question that now? What about my rice pasta, which is made of rice bran and water - which of these is the "bad chemical" that I should be avoiding in order to be healthy? How would me making the noodles myself, using the same two ingredients, be any different than buying what is already packaged in a bag in the store?0 -
You cannot eat a burger because they do not exist.
I really need to make some peanut butter and bacon burgers soon.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Your developing some type of food neurosis does not make eating whole natural foods restrictive. There are a lot of food options using only whole natural foods. There is nothing inherently wrong with avoiding prepackaged foods.
But there is nothing inherently wrong with preserving food (such as canning) or enhancing the flavor of food either.
No, which is why I didn't suggest there was. It's a personal choice.
You didn't, but the person upthread was specifically talking about preservation and flavor-enhancing making foods "unclean," as well as touting the benefits of never eating canned foods.
If someone makes the choice to avoid certain foods, that's their business. However, promoting rhetoric about certain methods/ingredients making food "unclean" has a wider impact than the individual.
How? Did the poster suggest everyone should eat that way? Or were they just sharing their personal preference in answer to question?
The poster made specific statements about "your body" feeling better if one eats fewer chemicals (which is a completely impossible goal,by the way).
I went back and read a few posts and all I saw were a lot of "I", but perhaps I missed it. But I still don't see how her saying your body would feel something would affect how restrictive a diet of whole foods would inherently be. All weight loss diets are restrictive.
I see a difference in the restriction of "I'd better not have the double cheeseburger because it doesn't fit my calorie goal for today (so maybe I'll just order a single or have the double next week)" and "Eating tomatoes from a can is unclean."
Not to mention that one is based on observable science (CICO) and the other is based on impossible goals (avoid chemicals), shaky science (gluten is bad for everyone), or vague generalities (preserved food is unclean).
Dividing the world into "clean" and "unclean" food may work well for some people (in that it may not make them feel restricted), but I also think it would have the potential to make things worse for some others. If there was a valid basis for the clean/unclean divide, it might be worth it. But there doesn't appear to be any foundation for it. We're talking about a way of thinking that will lead one to eliminate canned tomatoes or pickled vegetables (at least in some manifestations).
So what if they want to eliminate canned and pickled vegetables? If they are happy doing that, where is the harm?
I would eliminate those because I dislike those foods. So really, they aren't actually eliminated, I am just not consuming them. But if I did like them and chose not to eat them, I'd only do so if I had valid reasons: they cause too much bloating, they make me feel sick, they aren't worth the calories and I don't even eat them regularly anyway so why bother buying them, I buy the fresh version instead.... I am eating frozen fruit a lot lately because I love frozen raspberries. Not sure what would make them worse than fresh raspberries if all they contain are raspberries and a food-safe preservative.
I'm well familiar with eliminating things. I was super granola for a while - no skincare, facial, or hair care products. And for a while this worked great, but then my hair didn't respond well long-term because we have hard water (and the boar bristle brush was super damaging on my hair), not using any type of moisturizer was kind of painful because Canada is perpetual winter, and I missed the smell of body products. I still go without soap if I'm lazy or my skin is feeling drier, I am lazy with moisturizing, and I cowash my hair. I still don't use stuff on my face other than oil. None of these choices were based on thinking that the regular products were "bad" and that hte chemicals would kill me.. it was purely due to my face erupting in acne, so I stopped using all skincare products, and that resulted in a domino effect of me trying out other granola beauty care just for the fun of it. No arbitrary reasons for me not using stuff, it was based on actual experience. And I really doubt that most people can say that they have actual experience wtih chemicals in food causing them issues like weight gain or "addictions." Allergies, sure, but that's different.0 -
If you're on a roll, OP, which it sounds like you are, then maybe consider whether this would disrupt all the goodness you have going. Everyone is right about calories in and calories out, no doubt, but there is also a lot of good research out there supporting the idea that big changes are easier to make than small. For me personally, that is the case with some foods. Easier on my body and mind to just not eat them. To each their own, but that burger needs to fit more than just your calories - it needs to fit in with the healthy and motivated mindset you are clearly using. Best wishes!
It's... generally the other way around. Make small changes = learn lifestyle changes = sustainable. Slash your normal intake by 1000+ calories, suddenly start doing 6 hours of exercise every week, completely quit drinking and smoking, how long do you think all of this will last? Exercise lasted for me but my 6-7hrs of weekly cardio didn't, I replaced it with something more realistic and more enjoyable.0 -
Yes. But I think its important to think of treats as treats. A cheeseburger is a treat and shouldn't be had every day. Same for other similar foods.
A cheeseburger isn't a treat. It's just a piece of food. One that's composed of certain micro and macro-nutrients. That then contributes towards the micro/macro balance and calorific content of your overall diet.
Take the emotion out of it people. It's just food.
Just make it tasty, that's all I ask...
It's not emotion. I have no emotional issue with food. I tend to stick to whole foods, but moderation is my overall philosophy. Back to the burger.... It is a treat as much as a milkshake is, i.e., especially a fast food burger, is high in calories. Most people cannot have one every day and lose or maintain their weight. They just don't have the calories for it, at least not if they want to maintain good nutrition. I wish folks on here would recognize that not everyone has a 3000 calorie TDEE to play with.
who said that everyone has a 3000 calorie TDEE?
you can get a Wendy's single and it come in at 400 calories, that is hardly "breaking the bank" ...OR just make your own and they come in at 300 calories depending on what kind of meat and toppings you choose...
so in your world a burger = a milkshake...?
totally legit...
How many people are going to eat a Wendy's single and be satisfied? 300 calorie burger at home is also very unlikely. I make burgers (albeit turkey) at home fairly regularly and by the time you add a bun and toppings....a lot of calories. And am I going to want just the burger for lunch? Nope. I don't think most people are that different.
I made burgers a few days ago, my single burger was around 400 calories. Only reason was because I used almost 600g of raw beef for 5 burgers, so they were larger than they normally would be. an extra 100 calories isn't all that much.
And yeah, I CAN eat just the burger for lunch. I did that for dinner I think the first night I made the burgers. Are we all supposed to only be full by eating 1000 calories every meal?0 -
As a male there's no reason you need to only eat 1500 calories though, so the burger being half your intake is really your own fault for choosing a steep weight loss goal. I get an individual GF pizza, it's about 750 calories. I sometimes do have the room for it, other times I don't... so I will have 1-2 slices instead and then eat a large low-cal salad wtih it for volume. Then have pizza for 2-3 more meals.maillemaker wrote: »How many people are going to eat a Wendy's single and be satisfied? 300 calorie burger at home is also very unlikely. I make burgers (albeit turkey) at home fairly regularly and by the time you add a bun and toppings....a lot of calories. And am I going to want just the burger for lunch? Nope. I don't think most people are that different.
Exactly.
There's burgers, and then there's burgers.
A burger to me is a Little Bacon Cheesburger "All The Way" from Five Guys. That's 783 calories.
Can you eat it? Of course you can. It's about half my daily allotment of calories. So yeah, you can eat it - if you want to eat nothing else for half the day.
The sad reality of weight loss is that this kind of eating that we have grown accustomed to as normal is preposterous and absurd. It's heartbreaking to realize that in the future my entire maintenance allotment of calories is going to be the equivalent of a few handfuls of nuts. A Wendy's single is going to be an extravagance.0 -
You can eat anything you want as long as you stay within your calorie goal.
Weight loss is simply calories in versus calories out.0 -
So oil, nuts, peanut butter? I eat oil and PB practically daily. I'm not eating a jar of PB or a whole cup of oil every day so, you know. I could also wind up with a high-calorie bowl of grapes... that ain't a treat to me.janejellyroll wrote: »
The turkey sandwich can also be a treat, if its a 700 calorie turkey sandwich (e.g., 1-2x a year we go to this place after rides that serves a turkey club as big as 1 large plate. I don't want to even think about how many calories are in that thing. Yeah, that's a treat). That's the point. Most burgers are not 240-300 calories.
That's the point -- a turkey sandwich can be a treat or it can be a food that easily fits into everyday plans. A burger can be the same way. The existence of that turkey sandwich shouldn't cause you to conclude that nobody can regularly eat a turkey sandwich without gaining weight.
Most burgers may not be 240 calories (although I think McDonald's sells quite a few of those 240 calorie burgers, tbh), but to use that logic to say all burgers are therefore treats -- regardless of what burger it is or what you eat with it -- is like saying that because most Americans eat gigantic portions of pasta that means pasta can only be a treat for everyone.
We are perfectly capable of controlling our portion sizes and what accompanies certain foods. A 240-300 sandwich could easily be a part of someone's regular meal plan.
High calorie foods are (or should be) treats for the average person. Does that work better for you?
0 -
Liftng4Lis wrote: »It's not emotion. I have no emotional issue with food. I tend to stick to whole foods, but moderation is my overall philosophy. Back to the burger.... It is a treat as much as a milkshake is, i.e., especially a fast food burger, is high in calories. Most people cannot have one every day and lose or maintain their weight. They just don't have the calories for it, at least not if they want to maintain good nutrition. I wish folks on here would recognize that not everyone has a 3000 calorie TDEE to play with.
On a 1350-1400 calorie allotment, I have no trouble fitting in a burger and I do not consider it a treat, as it's food! I will be the first on here to say i often talk about cheesecake or chocolate. After my macros are met, if I have room, then I get to have these things. It's all about priorities. So I personally, don't drink my calories and exercise more that day to make a little bigger deficit.
You guys are missing the point. Can I fit a high calorie burger into my day everyday? Nope. And most people can't. On occasion, sure. And so can everyone. Good for you if you can fit it in every day. You are not in the majority. You guys are really arguing with the wrong person, just to argue. I'm not a food restricter or advocating restricting. Moderation means just that, not indulging in high calorie foods every single day. And it really isn't just calories. Those fast food burgers are high in everything and will likely throw off an average person's macros.
So 300-400 calories is high calorie? Because that's usually where my burgers stand re: calories.
Why are you assuming that we are all only eating fastfood burgers whenever we eat a burger? And even then, if the fast food burger is something you want every day, just eat half of it - your 800-cal burger just became a 400 cal burger again, and because of the high fat (and likely large patty) that half burger will still probably be quite filling. Add a salad to the side for maybe 50 more calories (100 max) and that's a pretty good meal.0 -
Liftng4Lis wrote: »It's not emotion. I have no emotional issue with food. I tend to stick to whole foods, but moderation is my overall philosophy. Back to the burger.... It is a treat as much as a milkshake is, i.e., especially a fast food burger, is high in calories. Most people cannot have one every day and lose or maintain their weight. They just don't have the calories for it, at least not if they want to maintain good nutrition. I wish folks on here would recognize that not everyone has a 3000 calorie TDEE to play with.
On a 1350-1400 calorie allotment, I have no trouble fitting in a burger and I do not consider it a treat, as it's food! I will be the first on here to say i often talk about cheesecake or chocolate. After my macros are met, if I have room, then I get to have these things. It's all about priorities. So I personally, don't drink my calories and exercise more that day to make a little bigger deficit.
You guys are missing the point. Can I fit a high calorie burger into my day everyday? Nope. And most people can't. On occasion, sure. And so can everyone. Good for you if you can fit it in every day. You are not in the majority. You guys are really arguing with the wrong person, just to argue. I'm not a food restricter or advocating restricting. Moderation means just that, not indulging in high calorie foods every single day. And it really isn't just calories. Those fast food burgers are high in everything and will likely throw off an average person's macros.
why do you assume that everyone has the same low calorie allotment that you do?
for the record, how low is this calorie allotment of yours? I am guessing 1200, but I don't want to assume...
Why are YOU assuming I have a low calorie allotment? I'm at maintenance and my maintenance calories are between 2300-2600. As I am hungry all day, I'm not blowing up to 1000 calories on a single burger every day.
Where did the extra 200 calories on that burger come from? I thought we had established that all burgers are 800 calories!
And ETA: I have made turkey burgers plenty of times. They are lower in calorie than my 400 calorie hamburgers, because leaner meat = fewer calories. How much cheese are you putting on your bun, like 60g?0 -
We eat in moderation... so why would we want to eat a burger EVERY single day? That gets boring. And better yet, why would we ONLY make high-calorie versions? I eat a lot of calorie-dense food every day. A serving of PB is 100 calories or so, and it's a tiny serving. But I'm actually used to it and generally don't grab larger servings unless I know I need more calories.Liftng4Lis wrote: »It's not emotion. I have no emotional issue with food. I tend to stick to whole foods, but moderation is my overall philosophy. Back to the burger.... It is a treat as much as a milkshake is, i.e., especially a fast food burger, is high in calories. Most people cannot have one every day and lose or maintain their weight. They just don't have the calories for it, at least not if they want to maintain good nutrition. I wish folks on here would recognize that not everyone has a 3000 calorie TDEE to play with.
On a 1350-1400 calorie allotment, I have no trouble fitting in a burger and I do not consider it a treat, as it's food! I will be the first on here to say i often talk about cheesecake or chocolate. After my macros are met, if I have room, then I get to have these things. It's all about priorities. So I personally, don't drink my calories and exercise more that day to make a little bigger deficit.
You guys are missing the point. Can I fit a high calorie burger into my day everyday? Nope. And most people can't. On occasion, sure. And so can everyone. Good for you if you can fit it in every day. You are not in the majority. You guys are really arguing with the wrong person, just to argue. I'm not a food restricter or advocating restricting. Moderation means just that, not indulging in high calorie foods every single day. And it really isn't just calories. Those fast food burgers are high in everything and will likely throw off an average person's macros.
why do you assume that everyone has the same low calorie allotment that you do?
for the record, how low is this calorie allotment of yours? I am guessing 1200, but I don't want to assume...
Why are YOU assuming I have a low calorie allotment? I'm at maintenance and my maintenance calories are between 2300-2600. As I am hungry all day, I'm not blowing up to 1000 calories on a single burger every day.
I'm sorry but I can't even remember the last time I had a 1000 calorie burger. Your arguments are extreme and weak. You need to apply more reality to them.
I use 95/5 ground beef and can make an 8oz burger with swiss and bacon for under 700 calories. And I don't even need an 8oz burger. 6 will do. You need to stop with the extreme arguments and trying to apply things to everyone.
You guys are the only ones applying things to everyone. And I am not making extreme arguments. It is a fact that most people can't eat high calorie foods every day. Most people can't afford that almost 700 calorie food (burger or whatever) every day. Stop making what I say extreme. Yippee that you can.
All things in moderation. Period.
0 -
maillemaker wrote: »Na, I like big portions and my dinner is typically 1000+ calories, but I don't extrapolate that out to everyone else in the population.
OK I thought we were talking about being satisfied with Wendy's Singles and now we are up to 1000+ meals. Whatevevs mr. flip-flop.how is a grown mans maintenance level 1400 calories? I am a 35 year old male and my maintenance calories are about 2700 ....
I've always heard you typically you take your weight and multiply by 10 to get your maintenance calories. My goal weight is 150. So about 1500 calories. Factor in the permanent metabolic slowdown of 10-15% and you are looking at 1350-1500 calories maintenance. If it's more, great. Point is, a few handfuls of nuts are a days worth of calories. I could increase this with exercise, but I don't exercise.I'm going to assume his TDEE on Day 1 is 2914, then after 5 days as he claims he goes into starvation mode then BAM........TDEE of 1600. Or 1500. Or 1700. Or whatever he claims. Dreaded starvation mode.
It would be nice if you would read what I post, or even just watch the darn videos, but I suppose it's just too much to expect.
When you lose body fat, your leptin levels drop, among other unknown things. When that happens, your skeletal muscles become about 20% more efficient, reducing your metabolism. Your body burns fewer calories in response to body fat stores dropping in an attempt to restore them to their previous levels. This effect has been seen in every study participant in recent years (over 50) and seems to be permanent, though the scientists admit they cannot say it effects everyone. I've provided the links from world-renown scientists teaching and practicing at some of the worlds best hospitals in the fields of obesity, metabolism, and molecular genetics.
If you refuse to read and understand those things, I don't know what to tell you. It's not "starvation mode", it's your body fighting to protect fat stores.
Yes, I can feel this typically 5 days after starting calorie restriction. I'm feeling them right now (cold extremities) and if I were not on appetite suppressants I'm sure I would be hungry.
I am only going to address what I bolded. I can eat a wendys single for lunch be totally satisfied and then have a 1000 calorie dinner in the same day. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Unlike you, my TDEE does not fluctuate based on what day of the week it is. If i eat around 2200 I lose a pound a week, if i eat 2700 I maintain if I eat 3200 I gain about a pound of week …its pretty simple once you have the numbers down.
what is "permanent metabolic slow down" ??? I went from 220 pounds to 175 pounds and have not experienced that. Yes, I had metabolic adaptation but when I started eating more I actually increased my maintenance level….
0 -
OH OH BURGER PICS!!
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Yes you can! I actually ate a bacon cheeseburger not that long ago, and it was AWESOME.
I just made sure it fit within my calories and I did a lot of exercise earlier in the week, so I felt like I had really earned it.0 -
maillemaker wrote: »Na, I like big portions and my dinner is typically 1000+ calories, but I don't extrapolate that out to everyone else in the population.
OK I thought we were talking about being satisfied with Wendy's Singles and now we are up to 1000+ meals. Whatevevs mr. flip-flop.how is a grown mans maintenance level 1400 calories? I am a 35 year old male and my maintenance calories are about 2700 ....
I've always heard you typically you take your weight and multiply by 10 to get your maintenance calories. My goal weight is 150. So about 1500 calories. Factor in the permanent metabolic slowdown of 10-15% and you are looking at 1350-1500 calories maintenance. If it's more, great. Point is, a few handfuls of nuts are a days worth of calories. I could increase this with exercise, but I don't exercise.I'm going to assume his TDEE on Day 1 is 2914, then after 5 days as he claims he goes into starvation mode then BAM........TDEE of 1600. Or 1500. Or 1700. Or whatever he claims. Dreaded starvation mode.
It would be nice if you would read what I post, or even just watch the darn videos, but I suppose it's just too much to expect.
When you lose body fat, your leptin levels drop, among other unknown things. When that happens, your skeletal muscles become about 20% more efficient, reducing your metabolism. Your body burns fewer calories in response to body fat stores dropping in an attempt to restore them to their previous levels. This effect has been seen in every study participant in recent years (over 50) and seems to be permanent, though the scientists admit they cannot say it effects everyone. I've provided the links from world-renown scientists teaching and practicing at some of the worlds best hospitals in the fields of obesity, metabolism, and molecular genetics.
If you refuse to read and understand those things, I don't know what to tell you. It's not "starvation mode", it's your body fighting to protect fat stores.
Yes, I can feel this typically 5 days after starting calorie restriction. I'm feeling them right now (cold extremities) and if I were not on appetite suppressants I'm sure I would be hungry.
Even if that were true, why even depress yourself thinking about that? If I were you I would set reasonable goal calories and enjoy the ride. As you get closer you'll make the necessary adjustments to fit fewer calories here and there, and hopefully ultimately realize that your estimated maintenance calories are way low
Why do you not exercise?
0 -
Liftng4Lis wrote: »
Your definition seems to include chicken burgers too.
2. A similar sandwich with a nonbeef filling. Often used in combination: a crab burger; a tofu burger.
non beef as in a chicken fillet?
Just a guess here but your american, I'm Australian, seems perfectly reasonable that we have different definitions for a burger.
Your definition is narrow and mine isn't.
Burger to me is less about the meat and how it is processed and more about the type of bread it is encased in.
Take one of your burgers and replace it the meat with a chicken fillet, still a burger, still a burger to just about anyone I asked here. Replace it with a veggie patty, still a burger. Replace it with a minute steak, still a burger.
NOPE, here in America, to be called a burger it must have "ground" meat or meat substitute (veggie people). What you are describing is called a sandwich.
It's an international website with participants from all over the world, though...
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