What food group is a salad dressing?

2»

Replies

  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited June 2016
    Some dressing could be dairy, I guess (like blue cheese). Most would be none of the above. It is striking that you lack a fat category, which is the main source of calories in dressing if it has it. (For example, I like balsamic vinegar + a little olive oil.)

    Obviously depends on the dressing.

    If you eat any oils or nuts [not actually high in protein vs. fat] you could not categorize them either in that chart. I'm sure same for some other things.

    I also do object to the misuse of the term "carbs," but whatever.

    Corn is a grain, btw.
  • 5n0wbal1
    5n0wbal1 Posts: 429 Member
    Sounds like you're talking about your food like you're looking at the old food guide pyramid. In that case, the top of the pyramid was "fats, oils, and sweets", which is where salad dressing would go.
  • Debbie_Ferr
    Debbie_Ferr Posts: 582 Member
    edited June 2016
    lemurcat12 wrote: »

    I also do object to the misuse of the term "carbs," but whatever.

    Corn is a grain, btw.

    Per
    http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/cereal-grains-and-pasta/5687/2
    Corn is :
    82 % carb
    11 % fat
    7 % protein
    ( Per the caloric ratio triangle in the middle of the page)
  • Debbie_Ferr
    Debbie_Ferr Posts: 582 Member
    next time you're stumped on a particular food, check out this database.
    It's very 'visual', so you might like it...

    http://nutritiondata.self.com

    wishing you best :)
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,331 Member
    Food groups are not a very neat way of doing things. Where would you put a pizza for example? It has carbs, fat, and often meat and vegetables. Also, nuts are not a protein. They have all macros but significantly more calories (and grams) from fat than protein. In fact, many of them have more carbs than protein too. Food grouping is not an elegant way to classify things.
  • Debbie_Ferr
    Debbie_Ferr Posts: 582 Member
    Food groups are not a very neat way of doing things. Where would you put a pizza for example? It has carbs, fat, and often meat and vegetables. Also, nuts are not a protein.

    since you're asking...

    Pizza - Domino's Classic Hand Tossed Pepperoni Feast Pizza
    http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/foods-from-dominos/7139/2
    40 % carb
    42 % fats
    18 % protein

    and you're right about the nuts. more fat than protein




  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,331 Member
    Food groups are not a very neat way of doing things. Where would you put a pizza for example? It has carbs, fat, and often meat and vegetables. Also, nuts are not a protein.

    since you're asking...

    Pizza - Domino's Classic Hand Tossed Pepperoni Feast Pizza
    http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/foods-from-dominos/7139/2
    40 % carb
    42 % fats
    18 % protein

    and you're right about the nuts. more fat than protein




    So this pizza would be a fat if going by calories and a carb if going by grams, a thin crust loaded with grilled chicken would be a protein.. it's just not a very neat way of classifying food.
  • extra_medium
    extra_medium Posts: 1,525 Member
    Instead of breaking everything up into little sub categories, why not just track your protein fat and carbs?
    For any weight loss to occur, you still need a calorie deficit. Cutting down on bread won't cause weight loss unless you are eating at a calorie deficit.
    It just seems like this chart that your making could be over complicating things. Just remember -Weight loss comes from a calorie deficit.

    Because I've done ALL of that, tracking calorie deficits at 1800 cals, going to the gym regularly, keeping track of fat and protein and carb macros, all of that, and in six months still haven't lost weight. I've lost a lot of weight before doing myfitnesspal, about 4 years ago, and have slowly put it back on. At the beginning of the year I decided to try and lose it all again... But wasn't. So... Here I am, trying a new strategy that seems to be paying off better, honestly.

    That's why.

    You are either overestimating your burn or underestimating your intake. If you're really at -1800 cal everyday you will lose weight, it's impossible not to.