Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
'low calorie' food
robs_ready
Posts: 1,488 Member
Just a simple point really.
a bowl of my porridge with milk is about 600 calories, a low fat yoghurt is about 150 calories.
One fills me up till 2pm, the other I'm hungry by the time I get to work.
Dont look at low calorie as a great thing, don't get me wrong, there are great low calorie foods. Foods that are high in calorie are not necessarily bad for you if they are nutrient dense, they will actually fill you up for longer and in fact, make you eat less.
And one more thing, fat is incredibly good and important for your brain especially, low fat = high sugar in most cases, better to choose fat over sugar, unless your doing high intensity.
a bowl of my porridge with milk is about 600 calories, a low fat yoghurt is about 150 calories.
One fills me up till 2pm, the other I'm hungry by the time I get to work.
Dont look at low calorie as a great thing, don't get me wrong, there are great low calorie foods. Foods that are high in calorie are not necessarily bad for you if they are nutrient dense, they will actually fill you up for longer and in fact, make you eat less.
And one more thing, fat is incredibly good and important for your brain especially, low fat = high sugar in most cases, better to choose fat over sugar, unless your doing high intensity.
0
Replies
-
Why do you think the diet industry is a billion dollar industry?
0 -
I agree with your thoughts entirely.
That said, 600 kcal of oatmeal and milk sounds like quite a large portion. How much is that? Yum.3 -
-
kommodevaran wrote: »Why do you think the diet industry is a billion dollar industry?
That's a great question, A sicker a nation the larger the profits.0 -
So a breakfast item which has 4 times the calories and is a larger portion keeps you filled up longer...?
9 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »So a breakfast item which has 4 times the calories and is a larger portion keeps you filled up longer...?
It is if you read it In the correct context, if you take it out of context it sounds a bit obvious doesn't it?0 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »So a breakfast item which has 4 times the calories and is a larger portion keeps you filled up longer...?
Ladies and gentlemen, the obligatory crapping on the original poster while not getting what is actually a good point.5 -
It's not really low calorie vs. high calorie, it's about how much satiety you get for the calories. Some low calorie foods are quite filling. Others aren't. Some high calorie foods are filling. Others aren't.
It's also a bit of an oversimplification to say fats as a whole are good. Some types of unsaturated fats are good. Others, plus all saturated fats, have no special biochemical significance beyond being a source of calories. They aren't bad, they just serve no other purpose than as fuel for your cells. It all depends on where on the carbon skeleton the double bonds lie.5 -
robs_ready wrote: »The_Enginerd wrote: »So a breakfast item which has 4 times the calories and is a larger portion keeps you filled up longer...?
It is if you read it In the correct context, if you take it out of context it sounds a bit obvious doesn't it?
I am honestly completely lost as to what context this should be taken in. You are making the claim that low calorie isn't necessarily better (which I agree with), but then offering anecdotal evidence based on the satiety of two breakfasts of COMPLETELY different portions, macros, and fiber. How satiated would you be on 600 calories of low fat yogurt, since it does probably contain quite a bit more protein, although less fiber and fat, and higher sugar given you are talking about the typical highly sweetened, low fat yogurts?9 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »So a breakfast item which has 4 times the calories and is a larger portion keeps you filled up longer...?
Ladies and gentlemen, the obligatory crapping on the original poster while not getting what is actually a good point.
I know what the point is. And actually agree with the OP (to a point, the last bit about choosing fats over sugar every as a universal is over the top and doesn't take the entire diet into context). However, the evidence provided does not support the conclusion.4 -
What leads to satiety varies, which the OP didn't seem to acknowledge. I don't find milk filling at all, and oatmeal only somewhat, since I do better with more protein. So I wouldn't say that the calories are irrelevant to the effect of those breakfasts.
I find that protein powder or adding some low fat (yes, low fat) dairy or smoked salmon to a breakfast of oats and vegetables does make it a lot more filling for the same calories than simply eating more oats (or adding even whole milk).
My favorite (and quite filling) breakfast is a 2 egg vegetable omelet with some other kind of protein (so it has a decent amount of fat), but I used to often eat leftover meat and vegetables or even a salad with protein (both pretty low fat), and found those equally filling.
I of course agree that more calories isn't bad or mean a choice is unhealthy. I sometimes eat avocado with breakfast, after all.2 -
robs_ready wrote: »
Have you tried almond milk? I prefer it with oatmeal specifically based solely on flavor. Delicious.0 -
How much is 1 serving of the porridge? It seems you're getting more than a single serving even using whole milk.
If you stuck to 1 serving would you still be held over until lunch? Or if you had a more comparable level of calories of yogurt? Either comparison would be a bit more useful.1 -
How much is 1 serving of the porridge? It seems you're getting more than a single serving even using whole milk.
If you stuck to 1 serving would you still be held over until lunch? Or if you had a more comparable level of calories of yogurt? Either comparison would be a bit more useful.
Based on what I have and guessing on what OP eats, 170 cals for the oats (44 g) and 160 cals for whole milk (250 mL). Guessing OP is eating at least 2 servings of steel-cut oats with a cup or so of whole milk and that's just if those 2 items are all that's in his oatmeal. Me, if I had 600 cals to play with for breakfast, I wouldn't "waste" them on cooked oatmeal with milk.4 -
mangamadayan wrote: »Low fat yogurt tastes like *kitten*
That depends on the brand and your personal taste.
This is my favourite yoghurt - I eat it on it's own as a snack and it tastes creamy and decadent for under 100 cals for 100g:
I wouldn't expect 100 cals of any yoghurt to keep me full all morning though, but then I don't think 100 cals of porridge would either
Regarding low calorie foods - I think the get the point of the original post.
It's easy to start seeing calories as the enemy and forget that a calorie is a measurement of energy, and something that is essential to staying alive. Looking for low cal foods at the expense of satiety and enjoyment is not something that's every going to be sustainable, and quite often not enjoyable.
2 -
I eat "low calorie" foods. But that's because high volume is filling to me. I purposely have to cut volume a bit so I can get enough fat.0
-
I agree to an extent. I prefer the low fat versions of some things as I'd rather spend my calories elsewhere. Low fat doesn't equal high sugar in all cases. Other than that, yep, agree with OP although his strategy is most certainly not the only strategy.1
-
How much is 1 serving of the porridge? It seems you're getting more than a single serving even using whole milk.
If you stuck to 1 serving would you still be held over until lunch? Or if you had a more comparable level of calories of yogurt? Either comparison would be a bit more useful.
Based on what I have and guessing on what OP eats, 170 cals for the oats (44 g) and 160 cals for whole milk (250 mL). Guessing OP is eating at least 2 servings of steel-cut oats with a cup or so of whole milk and that's just if those 2 items are all that's in his oatmeal. Me, if I had 600 cals to play with for breakfast, I wouldn't "waste" them on cooked oatmeal with milk.
I dunno.. I often have oatmeal, and 80g oats plus 300ml full cream milk comes to 474 calories.
OP enlighten us, how much of each are you having?
0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »How much is 1 serving of the porridge? It seems you're getting more than a single serving even using whole milk.
If you stuck to 1 serving would you still be held over until lunch? Or if you had a more comparable level of calories of yogurt? Either comparison would be a bit more useful.
Based on what I have and guessing on what OP eats, 170 cals for the oats (44 g) and 160 cals for whole milk (250 mL). Guessing OP is eating at least 2 servings of steel-cut oats with a cup or so of whole milk and that's just if those 2 items are all that's in his oatmeal. Me, if I had 600 cals to play with for breakfast, I wouldn't "waste" them on cooked oatmeal with milk.
I dunno.. I often have oatmeal, and 80g oats plus 300ml full cream milk comes to 474 calories.
OP enlighten us, how much of each are you having?
Plus a whole banana
1 -
I agree to an extent. I prefer the low fat versions of some things as I'd rather spend my calories elsewhere. Low fat doesn't equal high sugar in all cases. Other than that, yep, agree with OP although his strategy is most certainly not the only strategy.
This is also true, I was referring more to misleading producing thats that boast 'low fat'. A lot of these products are misleading as they often contain high sugar0 -
pebble4321 wrote: »mangamadayan wrote: »Low fat yogurt tastes like *kitten*
That depends on the brand and your personal taste.
This is my favourite yoghurt - I eat it on it's own as a snack and it tastes creamy and decadent for under 100 cals for 100g:
I wouldn't expect 100 cals of any yoghurt to keep me full all morning though, but then I don't think 100 cals of porridge would either
Regarding low calorie foods - I think the get the point of the original post.
It's easy to start seeing calories as the enemy and forget that a calorie is a measurement of energy, and something that is essential to staying alive. Looking for low cal foods at the expense of satiety and enjoyment is not something that's every going to be sustainable, and quite often not enjoyable.
I'm really glad someone got my post 100%1 -
How much is 1 serving of the porridge? It seems you're getting more than a single serving even using whole milk.
If you stuck to 1 serving would you still be held over until lunch? Or if you had a more comparable level of calories of yogurt? Either comparison would be a bit more useful.
Based on what I have and guessing on what OP eats, 170 cals for the oats (44 g) and 160 cals for whole milk (250 mL). Guessing OP is eating at least 2 servings of steel-cut oats with a cup or so of whole milk and that's just if those 2 items are all that's in his oatmeal. Me, if I had 600 cals to play with for breakfast, I wouldn't "waste" them on cooked oatmeal with milk.
That's because you're not bulking lol0 -
My porridge with soya milk, banana, pineapple & chia seeds 300 calories.0
-
robs_ready wrote: »I agree to an extent. I prefer the low fat versions of some things as I'd rather spend my calories elsewhere. Low fat doesn't equal high sugar in all cases. Other than that, yep, agree with OP although his strategy is most certainly not the only strategy.
This is also true, I was referring more to misleading producing thats that boast 'low fat'. A lot of these products are misleading as they often contain high sugar
How is a label of "low fat" misleading if the food contains high sugar? Seems like it would only be misleading if it said "low sugar" or it contained a lot of fat. I don't think we should hold food industry labeling accountable for our own laziness or ignorance if we choose not to read the label and see the sugar content.4 -
robs_ready wrote: »I agree to an extent. I prefer the low fat versions of some things as I'd rather spend my calories elsewhere. Low fat doesn't equal high sugar in all cases. Other than that, yep, agree with OP although his strategy is most certainly not the only strategy.
This is also true, I was referring more to misleading producing thats that boast 'low fat'. A lot of these products are misleading as they often contain high sugar
That's not the case with greek yogurt (your example). I recently posted this in another thread:
Taking the numbers from the Fage nutrition labels:
The non low fat version sold here is 200 g, 190 calories, 18 g protein, 8 g sugar.
The 2% is 200 g, 150 calories, 20 g protein, 8 g sugar.
The non fat is smaller by weight (same size container), so 170 g, 100 calories, 18 g protein, 7 g sugar. Even if you converted it to 200 g, you'd get 8.2 g of sugar (which would be 8 on the label here), so no more than in the whole milk variety.
100 g of 1% cottage cheese has less than 3 grams of sugar.
I don't personally drink milk or use it in oatmeal (and have experimented with full fat and don't find it any more filling than skim -- none of it is filling to me). However, relevant numbers:
USDA has both skim and whole milk with about 12 g of sugar in a cup. I checked the whole milk from a farm I used to buy, and it looks like a cup had about 11 g of sugar.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »robs_ready wrote: »I agree to an extent. I prefer the low fat versions of some things as I'd rather spend my calories elsewhere. Low fat doesn't equal high sugar in all cases. Other than that, yep, agree with OP although his strategy is most certainly not the only strategy.
This is also true, I was referring more to misleading producing thats that boast 'low fat'. A lot of these products are misleading as they often contain high sugar
How is a label of "low fat" misleading if the food contains high sugar? Seems like it would only be misleading if it said "low sugar" or it contained a lot of fat. I don't think we should hold food industry labeling accountable for our own laziness or ignorance if we choose not to read the label and see the sugar content.
Because the industry mislead the public into believing low fat is healthy, when in fact, it's not necessarily.0 -
robs_ready wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »robs_ready wrote: »I agree to an extent. I prefer the low fat versions of some things as I'd rather spend my calories elsewhere. Low fat doesn't equal high sugar in all cases. Other than that, yep, agree with OP although his strategy is most certainly not the only strategy.
This is also true, I was referring more to misleading producing thats that boast 'low fat'. A lot of these products are misleading as they often contain high sugar
How is a label of "low fat" misleading if the food contains high sugar? Seems like it would only be misleading if it said "low sugar" or it contained a lot of fat. I don't think we should hold food industry labeling accountable for our own laziness or ignorance if we choose not to read the label and see the sugar content.
Because the industry mislead the public into believing low fat is healthy, when in fact, it's not necessarily.
That... does not make the claim it's low fat misleading if it is indeed low fat.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »robs_ready wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »robs_ready wrote: »I agree to an extent. I prefer the low fat versions of some things as I'd rather spend my calories elsewhere. Low fat doesn't equal high sugar in all cases. Other than that, yep, agree with OP although his strategy is most certainly not the only strategy.
This is also true, I was referring more to misleading producing thats that boast 'low fat'. A lot of these products are misleading as they often contain high sugar
How is a label of "low fat" misleading if the food contains high sugar? Seems like it would only be misleading if it said "low sugar" or it contained a lot of fat. I don't think we should hold food industry labeling accountable for our own laziness or ignorance if we choose not to read the label and see the sugar content.
Because the industry mislead the public into believing low fat is healthy, when in fact, it's not necessarily.
That... does not make the claim it's low fat misleading if it is indeed low fat.
The claim is not misleading, thats not what I'm arguing. I can't argue that a product is low fat, what I'm arguing is that low fat = healthy.0 -
robs_ready wrote: »How much is 1 serving of the porridge? It seems you're getting more than a single serving even using whole milk.
If you stuck to 1 serving would you still be held over until lunch? Or if you had a more comparable level of calories of yogurt? Either comparison would be a bit more useful.
Based on what I have and guessing on what OP eats, 170 cals for the oats (44 g) and 160 cals for whole milk (250 mL). Guessing OP is eating at least 2 servings of steel-cut oats with a cup or so of whole milk and that's just if those 2 items are all that's in his oatmeal. Me, if I had 600 cals to play with for breakfast, I wouldn't "waste" them on cooked oatmeal with milk.
That's because you're not bulking lol
Oh my, I didn't realize a 600 calorie meal is only for those who bulk.
4 -
robs_ready wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »robs_ready wrote: »I agree to an extent. I prefer the low fat versions of some things as I'd rather spend my calories elsewhere. Low fat doesn't equal high sugar in all cases. Other than that, yep, agree with OP although his strategy is most certainly not the only strategy.
This is also true, I was referring more to misleading producing thats that boast 'low fat'. A lot of these products are misleading as they often contain high sugar
How is a label of "low fat" misleading if the food contains high sugar? Seems like it would only be misleading if it said "low sugar" or it contained a lot of fat. I don't think we should hold food industry labeling accountable for our own laziness or ignorance if we choose not to read the label and see the sugar content.
Because the industry mislead the public into believing low fat is healthy, when in fact, it's not necessarily.
High sugar in a single food isn't necessarily unhealthy either. But again, unless the label says "healthy" and there is some reason to believe it's not I don't see how it's misleading.
We have brains. We have no one to blame but ourselves if we choose not to use them.5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 432 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions