Perspective - Not all calories created equal
Replies
-
I feel really great after having a black bean salad or Greek yogurt and berries or grilled salmon or ahi tuna. I don't feel so good after eating a poor quality hamburger.
Psychological or physiological?
Don't know, don't care, I prefer to feel great.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »How is this first study relevant - most of us here haven't had an ilesotomy.
3-4% between high and low? I'd assume that most people fall in the middle quintiles and see then only a variance of +\- 1-2%. Insignificant. Erased by homeostasis.
1. The ileostomy subject study is relevant as its data and conclusions confirm other fibre impact on excreted energy in subjects who don't have colon or rectal issues.
2. You are making an assumption that is incorrect, illustrating you didn't read the study or my comment on it very carefully.
Enjoy your doughnut.
Walk me through this.
Exactly how does a study on people with an ileostomy confirm normal intestinal energy absorption? (Ileostomy patients tend to have intestinal absorption issues...)
How is my assumption incorrect? (And let's avoid the subtle ad hom on my reading skills, what next? My ESL level?).
Donut? Not even once. Can't get them here.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »I love this discussion of the subjective "feels" after eating "crap".
I used to think l felt that way too.
You know what the real problem was? I feel that way when I eat too much, no matter what type of food I'm eating. The light bulb went off over my head one day a few years back when I noticed that I felt awful after gorging myself on hummus and carrots.
If I eat a normal portion, like one brownie or one cupcake? I feel perfectly fine.
Agreed. I much prefer to not define foods as good or bad and avoid the psychological component that often goes with it. This way, I can feel awesome eating both yummy spring rolls and yummy donuts!
It's pretty much the ultimate win.
0 -
biggsterjackster wrote: »Read the OP's question: What kind of...... so my comparison was eggs which much more volume for 300 cal to a tiny bowl of sugary cereal for 300 ca. That's all. Sorry for the confusion, lol. And yes, I eat every day 4 eggs for breakfast.
Oh, okay.
I don't think that's a great example of the volume point, really. 4 eggs and 2 servings of oatmeal (a kind of cereal) have about the same calories, and are probably about the same volume, neither of which is particularly high.
I don't find just eggs especially filling (I find them about as filling as oatmeal on their own), but obviously if you do that's great. I think one important part of this is that people differ somewhat on what's filling.0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »JenniferIsLosingIt wrote: »
Then why do you feel physically better when you eat the better food if a calories is a claroie? I mean absolutely no disrespect. To ME food is fuel, and the better fuel you use in your body the better it performs. So does that mean if I eat 1500 calories of crap it is just as good to my body fuel or energy wise as nutrient packed food?
Once again I am not being snarky or anything. I just need to understand this better.
I feel no different after eating my lunch of salmon, cottage cheese and asparagus, vs when I head to McDonalds later today for ice cream and fries (dipping McDs fries into their ice cream is pure awesome). At the end of the day I'm hitting my calorie and macro targets and go to bed feeling great
I do. I feel like crap when I eat crap food. For me, the quality of the food is just as important as the number of calories.
If I eat an overall good diet eating a particular food item is unlikely to make me feel better or worse unless I have a psychological reaction to it. If I am regularly eating a poor diet, then yes I tend to feel worse.
I think some people are more sensitive to stuff like foods affecting blood sugar, but that's really a separate issue from food quality.
I'm never sure what people mean by "crap food," though. I try not to eat foods that strike me as "crap," but that doesn't mean that everything I eat is nutrient dense. I am kind of skeptical that it's actually common for physically healthy people to feel physically bad from eating a cookie or piece of pie or higher fat meat or whatever it is that people are claiming is "crap food," to be honest--I don't think human bodies are typically that selective in the foods that work for us.0 -
On the subject of eating food and its quality making you feel awful, I will share my shame with you, MFP.
The absolute worst I have ever felt from eating something?
I was doing Atkins at the time and had roasted an absolutely beautiful chicken. It was resting on the board, waiting to be carved.
I had strained the pan drippings and the separated fat was sitting there. I tasted it. It was delicious. I kept tasting it. And tasting it. And more. And more. In and in my spoon went. I don't know what came over me. I put back a LOT of that chicken fat. I felt awful almost immediately.
It was absolutely horrendous. Worse than any reaction I'd ever thought I'd had to sugar.
Quite possibly the stupidest thing I ever did with food.0 -
I feel really great after having a black bean salad or Greek yogurt and berries or grilled salmon or ahi tuna. I don't feel so good after eating a poor quality hamburger.
If I eat a poor quality anything I feel bad, because I wasted calories on something that did not taste that good.
I make burgers at home not infrequently (I usually don't get them out, because I usually like the ones I can make at home for fewer calories just as well) and feel great after eating them.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »biggsterjackster wrote: »Read the OP's question: What kind of...... so my comparison was eggs which much more volume for 300 cal to a tiny bowl of sugary cereal for 300 ca. That's all. Sorry for the confusion, lol. And yes, I eat every day 4 eggs for breakfast.
Oh, okay.
I don't think that's a great example of the volume point, really. 4 eggs and 2 servings of oatmeal (a kind of cereal) have about the same calories, and are probably about the same volume, neither of which is particularly high.
I don't find just eggs especially filling (I find them about as filling as oatmeal on their own), but obviously if you do that's great. I think one important part of this is that people differ somewhat on what's filling.
I didn't really have ostmeal in mind. I was thinking about these sugary cereals like Frostie's or Krave and all that stuff. I do eat oatmeal and yes, it is also very filling. But I think maybe it's just all that protein in eggs that keeps me full so long.0 -
http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=138936702&privcapId=113534397&previousCapId=113534397&previousTitle=MRC%20Human%20Nutrition%20Research
Hmmmm. Not according to Susan Jebb:
So people SHOULDN'T pay as much attention to fiber filled foods calories? That the calories on their are overestimated?stevencloser wrote: »For those who actually care about science as opposed to arguing about whose right on the internet:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/2/296.abstract
As you can see, there can be a huge difference between calories listed and calories absorbed. So no, "300 calories" of a donut is not even remotely similar to "300 calories" of almonds.
39 calories is a huge difference now? When was the last time you filled half your day's calories with almonds to make it a significant amount?
You can argue all day about what defines a "huge difference." Over the course of a day, choosing a seemingly equally caloric amount of whole foods versus highly refined foods will lead a difference in calories absorbed that is significant over time.
Again, my understanding is that calories on labels are considered calories for metabolic use.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I'm sorry but your understanding is wrong. Calories on food lables are based on incineration with a small "across the board" correction factor for all types foods.But in fact, the losses are proportionately quite small. The calories that you see written on the back of a food pack have already had all of these adjustments made for the amount that will be digested and absorbed. And so, the calories you see on the packet is actually not the total calories in that food. It’s the so-called metabolisable energy, the amount of energy which is going to be available to the body.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/questions/question/2590/
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I don't know who Susan Jebb is but she's wrong. As I mentioned food calorie labels are based on the original Atwater incineration system with an "across the board" correction factor to it. The correction factor is 10% for all types of carbs, even though some should be 30% and some should be zero.
Dr. Susan Jebb serves as Head of Nutrition and Health at MRC Human Nutrition Research(HNR). Dr. Jebb leads the HNR Communications team who focus on the translation of nutrition science into policy and practice, working with policymakers, industry, health professionals, NGOs and the media across a broad range of activities. She serves as an Advisor to government on issues related to obesity and to nutrition. She serves on the FSA Food Policy Strategy Advisory Group. She was an Expert Advisor to the Cabinet Office Strategy Unit Review on Food.She serves as the Chairperson of the cross-government Expert Advisory Group on Obesity. She is a member of the Change4Life Board. Dr. Jebb trained in nutrition and dietetics. She holds her PhD at the MRC Dunn Nutrition Unit. Her research focuses on the role of dietary factors in the aetiology and treatment of obesity and its related metabolic diseases.
You should write to her and tell her she's wrong.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
I was shocked when I first saw a graphic representation of the volume of 400 calories worth of oil vs chicken, vs broccoli, in a human stomach. I still use oil, but I certainly measure it much more carefully than I did before.0
-
How you feel is subjective.JenniferIsLosingIt wrote: »Then why do you feel physically better when you eat the better food if a calories is a claroie? I mean absolutely no disrespect. To ME food is fuel, and the better fuel you use in your body the better it performs. So does that mean if I eat 1500 calories of crap it is just as good to my body fuel or energy wise as nutrient packed food?
Once again I am not being snarky or anything. I just need to understand this better.
If I eat a bowl of oatmeal before I workout (say an hour), I feel "weighed down". I exchange that with a bowl of Cinnamon toast crunch with some milk, I feel jacked and ready to workout.
All food has nutrient value. Some less than others. If one's macro/micronutrient profile is met, chances are they will always feel better. Is it easier to obtain through whole foods that are more nutrient dense? Of course. You could also say it's easier to get your protein through a processed whey shake (24 grams) than it would be to consume 24 cups of fresh spinach.
Point is that to say a calorie isn't a calorie is incorrect. And will always be incorrect when someone says it because all you're measuring is a unit of energy.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I would like to see this. Anyone know where I could find it?MakePeasNotWar wrote: »I was shocked when I first saw a graphic representation of the volume of 400 calories worth of oil vs chicken, vs broccoli, in a human stomach. I still use oil, but I certainly measure it much more carefully than I did before.
0 -
[/quote]A calorie is a calorie. Just like a inch is an inch and a centimeter is a centimeter. What material you're MEASURING may be different though.
Lots of foods offer more VOLUME and NUTRIENTS per calorie than others, but if you're going to compared 300 calories of a wrap and 300 calories of a donut, it's still 300 calories to the body in terms of energy.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I wouldn't totally agree to this. And here is Why.
I am making the assumption that there are some protein on that wrap. I am also then going to assume that the protein won't necessarily be used as an energy source. When carbs and protein are consumed together the body won't look to making those amino acids into glucose. Therefore the carbs will be used to elevate blood glucose levels while amino acids will be absorbed into muscle cells and be used to repair damaged tissue, produce hemoglobin, produce other harmones and etc. The donut pretty much will be turned into glucose which will spike blood sugar and be used as either energy or stored as fat.
Protein breakdown into amino acids for energy doesn't happen usually unless the body has insufficient amounts or carbs.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »biggsterjackster wrote: »Read the OP's question: What kind of...... so my comparison was eggs which much more volume for 300 cal to a tiny bowl of sugary cereal for 300 ca. That's all. Sorry for the confusion, lol. And yes, I eat every day 4 eggs for breakfast.
Oh, okay.
I don't think that's a great example of the volume point, really. 4 eggs and 2 servings of oatmeal (a kind of cereal) have about the same calories, and are probably about the same volume, neither of which is particularly high.
I don't find just eggs especially filling (I find them about as filling as oatmeal on their own), but obviously if you do that's great. I think one important part of this is that people differ somewhat on what's filling.
The eggs are protein and fat while oatmeal is a complex Carb. It's the same thing as what I say above when comparing a donut to a wrap.
The oatmeal will counter the egg calories. The oatmeal can be used for energy so that the protein in the eggs can be used for their primary purpose: muscle development and rebuilding, harmones production, etc.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
funkyfreaky wrote: »I would like to see this. Anyone know where I could find it?MakePeasNotWar wrote: »I was shocked when I first saw a graphic representation of the volume of 400 calories worth of oil vs chicken, vs broccoli, in a human stomach. I still use oil, but I certainly measure it much more carefully than I did before.
I am going to go on a limb and assume Why we care and argue points is because most people want to reduce stored fat and lose weight?
With that in mind.... Yes. The 400 calories has the same potential for energy as the 400 calories of chicken and the same potential for energy as the vegetables. But that is if you assume the body will actually use all 3 as an energy source. The protein will break down into amino acids and be used as It's primary purpose if sufficient carbs are present for energy. The oil also has another intended purpose in the body other than energy. Oils are used to help absorb certain vitamins and nutrients into cells for example. The vegetable calories will break down to glucose and well can only be used as an energy source or stored as fat.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »I was shocked when I first saw a graphic representation of the volume of 400 calories worth of oil vs chicken, vs broccoli, in a human stomach. I still use oil, but I certainly measure it much more carefully than I did before.
This is why the bulletproof coffee thing would never work for me.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »biggsterjackster wrote: »Read the OP's question: What kind of...... so my comparison was eggs which much more volume for 300 cal to a tiny bowl of sugary cereal for 300 ca. That's all. Sorry for the confusion, lol. And yes, I eat every day 4 eggs for breakfast.
Oh, okay.
I don't think that's a great example of the volume point, really. 4 eggs and 2 servings of oatmeal (a kind of cereal) have about the same calories, and are probably about the same volume, neither of which is particularly high.
I don't find just eggs especially filling (I find them about as filling as oatmeal on their own), but obviously if you do that's great. I think one important part of this is that people differ somewhat on what's filling.
The eggs are protein and fat while oatmeal is a complex Carb. It's the same thing as what I say above when comparing a donut to a wrap.
The oatmeal will counter the egg calories. The oatmeal can be used for energy so that the protein in the eggs can be used for their primary purpose: muscle development and rebuilding, harmones production, etc.
I'm not sure what you are saying, but perhaps it's similar to why neither plain oatmeal nor eggs are in my mind an ideal breakfast? I find I do best with a balanced breakfast with complex carbs and protein and fat. So when I have eggs I eat them with veggies and fruit and dairy and when I have oatmeal I eat it with protein powder and berries and veggies on the side. My main morning energy comes from my meal the night before which usually includes a starch, though.
For the record, I think about all this and yet eat ice cream too, as there is no problem fitting it in my diet regularly.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »biggsterjackster wrote: »Read the OP's question: What kind of...... so my comparison was eggs which much more volume for 300 cal to a tiny bowl of sugary cereal for 300 ca. That's all. Sorry for the confusion, lol. And yes, I eat every day 4 eggs for breakfast.
Oh, okay.
I don't think that's a great example of the volume point, really. 4 eggs and 2 servings of oatmeal (a kind of cereal) have about the same calories, and are probably about the same volume, neither of which is particularly high.
I don't find just eggs especially filling (I find them about as filling as oatmeal on their own), but obviously if you do that's great. I think one important part of this is that people differ somewhat on what's filling.
The eggs are protein and fat while oatmeal is a complex Carb. It's the same thing as what I say above when comparing a donut to a wrap.
The oatmeal will counter the egg calories. The oatmeal can be used for energy so that the protein in the eggs can be used for their primary purpose: muscle development and rebuilding, harmones production, etc.
I'm not sure what you are saying, but perhaps it's similar to why neither plain oatmeal nor eggs are in my mind an ideal breakfast? I find I do best with a balanced breakfast with complex carbs and protein and fat. So when I have eggs I eat them with veggies and fruit and dairy and when I have oatmeal I eat it with protein powder and berries and veggies on the side. My main morning energy comes from my meal the night before which usually includes a starch, though.
For the record, I think about all this and yet eat ice cream too, as there is no problem fitting it in my diet regularly.
The point I was trying to make in a few of my posts is that protein and fat won't automatically be used as an energy source. They have other intended purposes by the body. Carbs are pretty much used by the body as energy source only.
Unless the Carb is a fiber. Then the fiber goes through the digestive tract and into the toilet bowl.
I also believe in a balanced and holistic view. I also run a lot so I can eat my ice cream and drink my Dr. Pepper.
Edited for my bad grammar and phone mistyping.0 -
I made myself some giant veggie/chicken spring rolls for lunch today and it just amazed me the comparison of calories between them and some donuts my husband brought home this weekend. What are some calorie comparisons that you have discovered since using mfp that are pretty amazing?
where do you get that wrapper thingie?0 -
Correct me if I'm wrong, OP, but your point was NOT that you cannot eat a donut. The point was more that you were amazed that those two gigantic spring rolls have the same calories as a donut... and for you, the two spring rolls are much better than the donut.
.
This is what I was thinking too. But of course people here have to make the "duh" comments that "you can have both you know" ...
That is not the point with the op.
0 -
I present to you a "wo-nut" with bacon...
I can has internet wins for today!!!0 -
http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=138936702&privcapId=113534397&previousCapId=113534397&previousTitle=MRC%20Human%20Nutrition%20Research
Hmmmm. Not according to Susan Jebb:
So people SHOULDN'T pay as much attention to fiber filled foods calories? That the calories on their are overestimated?stevencloser wrote: »For those who actually care about science as opposed to arguing about whose right on the internet:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/2/296.abstract
As you can see, there can be a huge difference between calories listed and calories absorbed. So no, "300 calories" of a donut is not even remotely similar to "300 calories" of almonds.
39 calories is a huge difference now? When was the last time you filled half your day's calories with almonds to make it a significant amount?
You can argue all day about what defines a "huge difference." Over the course of a day, choosing a seemingly equally caloric amount of whole foods versus highly refined foods will lead a difference in calories absorbed that is significant over time.
Again, my understanding is that calories on labels are considered calories for metabolic use.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I'm sorry but your understanding is wrong. Calories on food lables are based on incineration with a small "across the board" correction factor for all types foods.But in fact, the losses are proportionately quite small. The calories that you see written on the back of a food pack have already had all of these adjustments made for the amount that will be digested and absorbed. And so, the calories you see on the packet is actually not the total calories in that food. It’s the so-called metabolisable energy, the amount of energy which is going to be available to the body.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/questions/question/2590/
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I don't know who Susan Jebb is but she's wrong. As I mentioned food calorie labels are based on the original Atwater incineration system with an "across the board" correction factor to it. The correction factor is 10% for all types of carbs, even though some should be 30% and some should be zero.
Dr. Susan Jebb serves as Head of Nutrition and Health at MRC Human Nutrition Research(HNR). Dr. Jebb leads the HNR Communications team who focus on the translation of nutrition science into policy and practice, working with policymakers, industry, health professionals, NGOs and the media across a broad range of activities. She serves as an Advisor to government on issues related to obesity and to nutrition. She serves on the FSA Food Policy Strategy Advisory Group. She was an Expert Advisor to the Cabinet Office Strategy Unit Review on Food.She serves as the Chairperson of the cross-government Expert Advisory Group on Obesity. She is a member of the Change4Life Board. Dr. Jebb trained in nutrition and dietetics. She holds her PhD at the MRC Dunn Nutrition Unit. Her research focuses on the role of dietary factors in the aetiology and treatment of obesity and its related metabolic diseases.
You should write to her and tell her she's wrong.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
There has been more recent research about absorption (since the article you posted), and debate about possibly changing the system.
http://www.livescience.com/26799-calorie-counts-inaccurate.html
0 -
http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=138936702&privcapId=113534397&previousCapId=113534397&previousTitle=MRC%20Human%20Nutrition%20Research
Hmmmm. Not according to Susan Jebb:
So people SHOULDN'T pay as much attention to fiber filled foods calories? That the calories on their are overestimated?stevencloser wrote: »For those who actually care about science as opposed to arguing about whose right on the internet:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/2/296.abstract
As you can see, there can be a huge difference between calories listed and calories absorbed. So no, "300 calories" of a donut is not even remotely similar to "300 calories" of almonds.
39 calories is a huge difference now? When was the last time you filled half your day's calories with almonds to make it a significant amount?
You can argue all day about what defines a "huge difference." Over the course of a day, choosing a seemingly equally caloric amount of whole foods versus highly refined foods will lead a difference in calories absorbed that is significant over time.
Again, my understanding is that calories on labels are considered calories for metabolic use.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I'm sorry but your understanding is wrong. Calories on food lables are based on incineration with a small "across the board" correction factor for all types foods.But in fact, the losses are proportionately quite small. The calories that you see written on the back of a food pack have already had all of these adjustments made for the amount that will be digested and absorbed. And so, the calories you see on the packet is actually not the total calories in that food. It’s the so-called metabolisable energy, the amount of energy which is going to be available to the body.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/questions/question/2590/
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I don't know who Susan Jebb is but she's wrong. As I mentioned food calorie labels are based on the original Atwater incineration system with an "across the board" correction factor to it. The correction factor is 10% for all types of carbs, even though some should be 30% and some should be zero.
Dr. Susan Jebb serves as Head of Nutrition and Health at MRC Human Nutrition Research(HNR). Dr. Jebb leads the HNR Communications team who focus on the translation of nutrition science into policy and practice, working with policymakers, industry, health professionals, NGOs and the media across a broad range of activities. She serves as an Advisor to government on issues related to obesity and to nutrition. She serves on the FSA Food Policy Strategy Advisory Group. She was an Expert Advisor to the Cabinet Office Strategy Unit Review on Food.She serves as the Chairperson of the cross-government Expert Advisory Group on Obesity. She is a member of the Change4Life Board. Dr. Jebb trained in nutrition and dietetics. She holds her PhD at the MRC Dunn Nutrition Unit. Her research focuses on the role of dietary factors in the aetiology and treatment of obesity and its related metabolic diseases.
You should write to her and tell her she's wrong.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Given that the quote you posted from her was from 5 years ago, she's probably already figured it out. Actually, it's hard to even call what she said a quote. It was more like some off-hand comment that she made. I take it you don't have any better evidence?
0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »JenniferIsLosingIt wrote: »
Then why do you feel physically better when you eat the better food if a calories is a claroie? I mean absolutely no disrespect. To ME food is fuel, and the better fuel you use in your body the better it performs. So does that mean if I eat 1500 calories of crap it is just as good to my body fuel or energy wise as nutrient packed food?
Once again I am not being snarky or anything. I just need to understand this better.
I feel no different after eating my lunch of salmon, cottage cheese and asparagus, vs when I head to McDonalds later today for ice cream and fries (dipping McDs fries into their ice cream is pure awesome). At the end of the day I'm hitting my calorie and macro targets and go to bed feeling great
Must be a YMMV situation. When I eat fast food or "junk food" I definitely feel the difference. I feel tired, bloated, sometimes nauseous, maybe get headaches, indigestion, heartburn, etc. Then again, I'm 35 years old. When I was 20? Yeah I could eat whatever. Didn't know what heartburn even felt like.
You know you're getting old the first time pizza gives you indigestion!0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »On the subject of eating food and its quality making you feel awful, I will share my shame with you, MFP.
The absolute worst I have ever felt from eating something?
I was doing Atkins at the time and had roasted an absolutely beautiful chicken. It was resting on the board, waiting to be carved.
I had strained the pan drippings and the separated fat was sitting there. I tasted it. It was delicious. I kept tasting it. And tasting it. And more. And more. In and in my spoon went. I don't know what came over me. I put back a LOT of that chicken fat. I felt awful almost immediately.
It was absolutely horrendous. Worse than any reaction I'd ever thought I'd had to sugar.
Quite possibly the stupidest thing I ever did with food.
Interesting. Whenever I roast a chicken (or any other larger cut of meat that leaves yummy yummy pan drippings!) if I don't make gravy from it I end up putting back an awful lot of the fat and "crispies". Never gave me a bad reaction. Had 2 slices of pizza hut pizza last week - felt bloated, nauseous, got a headache, packed on 3 lbs of water overnight.... bring on the pan drippings!!!
0 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »Sarasmaintaining wrote: »JenniferIsLosingIt wrote: »
Then why do you feel physically better when you eat the better food if a calories is a claroie? I mean absolutely no disrespect. To ME food is fuel, and the better fuel you use in your body the better it performs. So does that mean if I eat 1500 calories of crap it is just as good to my body fuel or energy wise as nutrient packed food?
Once again I am not being snarky or anything. I just need to understand this better.
I feel no different after eating my lunch of salmon, cottage cheese and asparagus, vs when I head to McDonalds later today for ice cream and fries (dipping McDs fries into their ice cream is pure awesome). At the end of the day I'm hitting my calorie and macro targets and go to bed feeling great
Must be a YMMV situation. When I eat fast food or "junk food" I definitely feel the difference. I feel tired, bloated, sometimes nauseous, maybe get headaches, indigestion, heartburn, etc. Then again, I'm 35 years old. When I was 20? Yeah I could eat whatever. Didn't know what heartburn even felt like.
You know you're getting old the first time pizza gives you indigestion!
I'm older than you I've actually never had heartburn, but I have a relative who eats super 'healthy', is a healthy weight, and gets heart burn all the time and is on prescription meds for it. She also has a lot of food allergies, IBS etc. It's crazy how we're all so different! 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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