Whoa- I had no idea there were that many calories in X. Foods to avoid.
Options
Replies
-
kellyjellybellyjelly wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »I’m really interested in my initial query. What foods surprised you. X
For me, it would be restaurant foods more than anything. Trying to find a reasonably sized meal in a restaurant with a calorie amount that doesn't send me over is so difficult. It takes some serious planning, and eating very little for the rest of the day.
Also trying to find one that isn’t boring taste wise.
I’m shocked at times how high milkshakes are. I think the smallest Arby’s Andes Mint Shake is around 700+ calories?
Sonic Snicker's Blast is 500 calories for the mini (and that thing is tiny!) I used to get the large
No wonder I was fat.
But sooo good. Lol1 -
psychod787 wrote: »kellyjellybellyjelly wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »I’m really interested in my initial query. What foods surprised you. X
For me, it would be restaurant foods more than anything. Trying to find a reasonably sized meal in a restaurant with a calorie amount that doesn't send me over is so difficult. It takes some serious planning, and eating very little for the rest of the day.
Also trying to find one that isn’t boring taste wise.
I’m shocked at times how high milkshakes are. I think the smallest Arby’s Andes Mint Shake is around 700+ calories?
Sonic Snicker's Blast is 500 calories for the mini (and that thing is tiny!) I used to get the large No wonder I was fat.
But sooo good. Lol
The best
I would do questionable things... 0 -
psychod787 wrote: »kellyjellybellyjelly wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »I’m really interested in my initial query. What foods surprised you. X
For me, it would be restaurant foods more than anything. Trying to find a reasonably sized meal in a restaurant with a calorie amount that doesn't send me over is so difficult. It takes some serious planning, and eating very little for the rest of the day.
Also trying to find one that isn’t boring taste wise.
I’m shocked at times how high milkshakes are. I think the smallest Arby’s Andes Mint Shake is around 700+ calories?
Sonic Snicker's Blast is 500 calories for the mini (and that thing is tiny!) I used to get the large No wonder I was fat.
But sooo good. Lol
The best I would do questionable things...
I've seen the results of your search history.........0 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »kellyjellybellyjelly wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »I’m really interested in my initial query. What foods surprised you. X
For me, it would be restaurant foods more than anything. Trying to find a reasonably sized meal in a restaurant with a calorie amount that doesn't send me over is so difficult. It takes some serious planning, and eating very little for the rest of the day.
Also trying to find one that isn’t boring taste wise.
I’m shocked at times how high milkshakes are. I think the smallest Arby’s Andes Mint Shake is around 700+ calories?
Sonic Snicker's Blast is 500 calories for the mini (and that thing is tiny!) I used to get the large No wonder I was fat.
But sooo good. Lol
The best I would do questionable things...
I've seen the results of your search history.........
You'd think I'd learn to quit clicking on the links you send me...0 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »kellyjellybellyjelly wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »I’m really interested in my initial query. What foods surprised you. X
For me, it would be restaurant foods more than anything. Trying to find a reasonably sized meal in a restaurant with a calorie amount that doesn't send me over is so difficult. It takes some serious planning, and eating very little for the rest of the day.
Also trying to find one that isn’t boring taste wise.
I’m shocked at times how high milkshakes are. I think the smallest Arby’s Andes Mint Shake is around 700+ calories?
Sonic Snicker's Blast is 500 calories for the mini (and that thing is tiny!) I used to get the large No wonder I was fat.
But sooo good. Lol
The best I would do questionable things...
I've seen the results of your search history.........
You'd think I'd learn to quit clicking on the links you send me...
You mean the Dick Picks?
0 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »kellyjellybellyjelly wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »I’m really interested in my initial query. What foods surprised you. X
For me, it would be restaurant foods more than anything. Trying to find a reasonably sized meal in a restaurant with a calorie amount that doesn't send me over is so difficult. It takes some serious planning, and eating very little for the rest of the day.
Also trying to find one that isn’t boring taste wise.
I’m shocked at times how high milkshakes are. I think the smallest Arby’s Andes Mint Shake is around 700+ calories?
Sonic Snicker's Blast is 500 calories for the mini (and that thing is tiny!) I used to get the large No wonder I was fat.
But sooo good. Lol
The best I would do questionable things...
I've seen the results of your search history.........
You'd think I'd learn to quit clicking on the links you send me...
You mean the Dick Picks?
Bad @Tacklewasher We're supposed to be staying on topic!0 -
@Tacklewasher how did you create that?0
-
@Tacklewasher how did you create that?
Create what? Do you mean the spoiler tag?
If so, then spoiler and /spoiler in square brackets.0 -
@Tacklewasher yes, the spoiler. Thank you0
-
wilson10102018 wrote: »A big plate of pasta like one would get in an Italian restaurant has 400 calories. I don't think that's so bad. Add a tablespoon of butter, roasted garlic, some clam juice and a half dozen jumbo shrimp and you got 550 calories.
Lol 400 calories of pasta is definitely not 'a big plate'.
Wishful thinking lol
That big plate of pasta from proper italian restaurant with sauce and all the trimmings you are most likely looking at 1500cal.
It's clear the poster means before the sauce, as she goes on to describe what's added.
I think 200 cal of pasta is a reasonable amount (I weigh it out and am always satisfied), and that 400 cal would be a large amount. I tend to prefer to spend more cals on the sauce and less on the pasta, and always have a large volume of sauce including protein and vegetables.
IME, Italian restaurants vary a lot on portion size. There are some here that are known for huge amounts, and I think they are more like 3x normal serving, but there are also some (usually the higher end) that are closer to an actual portion size. Calories are still high, but because of high cal ingredients in the rest of the food, not enormous amounts of pasta.
You do realize that real pasta is usually 200cal for 50g or 2oz dry right? Also, that is soooooo small that why even bother using it at all???
I have 56g of pasta, mixed with beans, veggies, and sauce for lunch often. It's certainly not a mounded plate of pasta like I'd want, but it is a reasonable portion. I'll usually have a 1.5 servings "serving size" for dinner, along with a sausage and a buttered slice of Italian bread.
For some people, pasta is not filling for whatever reason, and they need to eat giant portions or not bother. I find pasta, along with rice and other grains, quite filling and reasonable for the calories.5 -
wilson10102018 wrote: »A big plate of pasta like one would get in an Italian restaurant has 400 calories. I don't think that's so bad. Add a tablespoon of butter, roasted garlic, some clam juice and a half dozen jumbo shrimp and you got 550 calories.
Lol 400 calories of pasta is definitely not 'a big plate'.
Wishful thinking lol
That big plate of pasta from proper italian restaurant with sauce and all the trimmings you are most likely looking at 1500cal.
It's clear the poster means before the sauce, as she goes on to describe what's added.
I think 200 cal of pasta is a reasonable amount (I weigh it out and am always satisfied), and that 400 cal would be a large amount. I tend to prefer to spend more cals on the sauce and less on the pasta, and always have a large volume of sauce including protein and vegetables.
IME, Italian restaurants vary a lot on portion size. There are some here that are known for huge amounts, and I think they are more like 3x normal serving, but there are also some (usually the higher end) that are closer to an actual portion size. Calories are still high, but because of high cal ingredients in the rest of the food, not enormous amounts of pasta.
You do realize that real pasta is usually 200cal for 50g or 2oz dry right? Also, that is soooooo small that why even bother using it at all???
I have 56g of pasta, mixed with beans, veggies, and sauce for lunch often. It's certainly not a mounded plate of pasta like I'd want, but it is a reasonable portion. I'll usually have a 1.5 servings "serving size" for dinner, along with a sausage and a buttered slice of Italian bread.
For some people, pasta is not filling for whatever reason, and they need to eat giant portions or not bother. I find pasta, along with rice and other grains, quite filling and reasonable for the calories.
Yep, my "standard" dinner portion size of pasta is 100 grams and I find it to be quite filling when I add protein, vegetables, and sauce.
2 -
psychod787 wrote: »kellyjellybellyjelly wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »I’m really interested in my initial query. What foods surprised you. X
For me, it would be restaurant foods more than anything. Trying to find a reasonably sized meal in a restaurant with a calorie amount that doesn't send me over is so difficult. It takes some serious planning, and eating very little for the rest of the day.
Also trying to find one that isn’t boring taste wise.
I’m shocked at times how high milkshakes are. I think the smallest Arby’s Andes Mint Shake is around 700+ calories?
Sonic Snicker's Blast is 500 calories for the mini (and that thing is tiny!) I used to get the large No wonder I was fat.
But sooo good. Lol
The best I would do questionable things...
You haven't already? Not saying I have or anything.... uhhhh 😉0 -
I don’t agree with “there are no bad foods” some calories are so high they shouldn’t be eaten, especially for overweight people - like me trying to reduce 40+ in my phase 1. During this phase Licorice (180 cals per 3 pieces is completely off) plus now the dip I identified. In an ideal state sure we can control everything we eat, but clearly that hasn’t happened, hence the reason a good amount of us are here. We may be thinking something is ok and it’s not, size certainly isn’t an indication always of calories. Oh - once I learned how holindaise was made, butter butter I never ate it again
- Keep those surprises coming.
Some people are moderators and some are abstainers. But I would say no one can abstain from everything they love that isn't traditionally considered 'healthy' (in quotes because I'm of the 'no bad foods, just bad quantities' ilk) indefinitely.
I'm not the longest maintainer here, by far, but am closing in on 2 years straight logged and am maintaining at the top of normal BMI currently. Just the sticky vanity pounds to go. This process is too long to give up everything you love.
Good points and good success report too.
For 4 years I have been eating only foods that I love. Like in all love relationships after giving it some thought I did end some relationships that were not loving me back in a positive way. I am not calling them all bad but only for me at this point in time. Relationships can be funny like that.
Now my cravings are stronger than ever but what I crave is what has help me maintain for the past three years.
1 -
wilson10102018 wrote: »A big plate of pasta like one would get in an Italian restaurant has 400 calories. I don't think that's so bad. Add a tablespoon of butter, roasted garlic, some clam juice and a half dozen jumbo shrimp and you got 550 calories.
Lol 400 calories of pasta is definitely not 'a big plate'.
Wishful thinking lol
That big plate of pasta from proper italian restaurant with sauce and all the trimmings you are most likely looking at 1500cal.
It's clear the poster means before the sauce, as she goes on to describe what's added.
I think 200 cal of pasta is a reasonable amount (I weigh it out and am always satisfied), and that 400 cal would be a large amount. I tend to prefer to spend more cals on the sauce and less on the pasta, and always have a large volume of sauce including protein and vegetables.
IME, Italian restaurants vary a lot on portion size. There are some here that are known for huge amounts, and I think they are more like 3x normal serving, but there are also some (usually the higher end) that are closer to an actual portion size. Calories are still high, but because of high cal ingredients in the rest of the food, not enormous amounts of pasta.
You do realize that real pasta is usually 200cal for 50g or 2oz dry right? Also, that is soooooo small that why even bother using it at all???
Yes, I realize, and I don't think that's all that small. It's about right for me, especially since I've always found what you put ON the pasta to be the most important thing.
I'm bad at eyeballing pasta when it's not cooked, so always weigh it out even when not logging, and it's one where I found I was perfectly happy with the serving size and would stick to it. I'll eat other foods with it, like a salad, perhaps.
When I was a kid I recall being told that Italians would only use a little sauce, and I shouldn't drown the pasta (not that anyone telling me that had been to Italy). Now, it works well that I like what I add to the pasta (lots of veg, some kind of protein, in various different formulations) best, although the pasta adds to it, which is why I eat pasta regularly, and always find my pasta meals extremely satisfying and filling.2 -
wilson10102018 wrote: »A big plate of pasta like one would get in an Italian restaurant has 400 calories. I don't think that's so bad. Add a tablespoon of butter, roasted garlic, some clam juice and a half dozen jumbo shrimp and you got 550 calories.
Lol 400 calories of pasta is definitely not 'a big plate'.
Wishful thinking lol
That big plate of pasta from proper italian restaurant with sauce and all the trimmings you are most likely looking at 1500cal.
It's clear the poster means before the sauce, as she goes on to describe what's added.
I think 200 cal of pasta is a reasonable amount (I weigh it out and am always satisfied), and that 400 cal would be a large amount. I tend to prefer to spend more cals on the sauce and less on the pasta, and always have a large volume of sauce including protein and vegetables.
IME, Italian restaurants vary a lot on portion size. There are some here that are known for huge amounts, and I think they are more like 3x normal serving, but there are also some (usually the higher end) that are closer to an actual portion size. Calories are still high, but because of high cal ingredients in the rest of the food, not enormous amounts of pasta.
You do realize that real pasta is usually 200cal for 50g or 2oz dry right? Also, that is soooooo small that why even bother using it at all???
I made an 8oz box of spaghetti that was split between 3 of my kids and my husband, so they each got roughly the 2oz dry portion. It looked like a goodly portion of pasta, and topped with a sauce thick with lean beef and peppers and onions, not one person went hungry (three kids are teens).
Compared to olive garden, sure its not a lot of pasta, but it's not tiny either.4 -
4 oz dry pasta is 400 calories. 4 oz is 2 servings per the box. Its more that I need for a big plate of pasta. What matters is that one does not ladle a bunch of olive oil loaded sauce onto it. Red or white. A half a cup of olive oil has 1000 calories.
As I said above, all it needs is a tsb of butter to lubricate the pasta, some seafood, and a calorie free liquid like clam juice or Better than Bouillon Lobster Base.
2 -
nicsflyingcircus wrote: »wilson10102018 wrote: »A big plate of pasta like one would get in an Italian restaurant has 400 calories. I don't think that's so bad. Add a tablespoon of butter, roasted garlic, some clam juice and a half dozen jumbo shrimp and you got 550 calories.
Lol 400 calories of pasta is definitely not 'a big plate'.
Wishful thinking lol
That big plate of pasta from proper italian restaurant with sauce and all the trimmings you are most likely looking at 1500cal.
It's clear the poster means before the sauce, as she goes on to describe what's added.
I think 200 cal of pasta is a reasonable amount (I weigh it out and am always satisfied), and that 400 cal would be a large amount. I tend to prefer to spend more cals on the sauce and less on the pasta, and always have a large volume of sauce including protein and vegetables.
IME, Italian restaurants vary a lot on portion size. There are some here that are known for huge amounts, and I think they are more like 3x normal serving, but there are also some (usually the higher end) that are closer to an actual portion size. Calories are still high, but because of high cal ingredients in the rest of the food, not enormous amounts of pasta.
You do realize that real pasta is usually 200cal for 50g or 2oz dry right? Also, that is soooooo small that why even bother using it at all???
I made an 8oz box of spaghetti that was split between 3 of my kids and my husband, so they each got roughly the 2oz dry portion. It looked like a goodly portion of pasta, and topped with a sauce thick with lean beef and peppers and onions, not one person went hungry (three kids are teens).
Compared to olive garden, sure its not a lot of pasta, but it's not tiny either.
IMHO it’s because we’ve conditioned ourselves over the years to larger plates/bowls of food - when I first started weighing food and I did pasta I was like nahhh 2oz isn’t enough - but with that and a measured out serving of sauce I was content3 -
deannalfisher wrote: »nicsflyingcircus wrote: »wilson10102018 wrote: »A big plate of pasta like one would get in an Italian restaurant has 400 calories. I don't think that's so bad. Add a tablespoon of butter, roasted garlic, some clam juice and a half dozen jumbo shrimp and you got 550 calories.
Lol 400 calories of pasta is definitely not 'a big plate'.
Wishful thinking lol
That big plate of pasta from proper italian restaurant with sauce and all the trimmings you are most likely looking at 1500cal.
It's clear the poster means before the sauce, as she goes on to describe what's added.
I think 200 cal of pasta is a reasonable amount (I weigh it out and am always satisfied), and that 400 cal would be a large amount. I tend to prefer to spend more cals on the sauce and less on the pasta, and always have a large volume of sauce including protein and vegetables.
IME, Italian restaurants vary a lot on portion size. There are some here that are known for huge amounts, and I think they are more like 3x normal serving, but there are also some (usually the higher end) that are closer to an actual portion size. Calories are still high, but because of high cal ingredients in the rest of the food, not enormous amounts of pasta.
You do realize that real pasta is usually 200cal for 50g or 2oz dry right? Also, that is soooooo small that why even bother using it at all???
I made an 8oz box of spaghetti that was split between 3 of my kids and my husband, so they each got roughly the 2oz dry portion. It looked like a goodly portion of pasta, and topped with a sauce thick with lean beef and peppers and onions, not one person went hungry (three kids are teens).
Compared to olive garden, sure its not a lot of pasta, but it's not tiny either.
IMHO it’s because we’ve conditioned ourselves over the years to larger plates/bowls of food - when I first started weighing food and I did pasta I was like nahhh 2oz isn’t enough - but with that and a measured out serving of sauce I was content
Pretty similar for me. Embarrassingly, before MFP I would make way too much pasta for myself, eat as much as I wanted, be full, but think "there's not enough left for a full dinner, it will go to waste" and so eat the rest. When I started MFP I decided to make it easy on myself I'd eat a serving of pasta (plus the logged homemade sauce), thought "that's not enough" but decided to try it, and found I wasn't hungry at all after.2 -
So true, lol
I have never been a big fan of pasta and don't think it is worth the calories. The best part of the meal is the sauce and veggies!
Sometimes I have a craving for a huge bowl of pasta so I get the super low calorie 60 cal per 2oz one to satisfy that craving "to eat a huge plate of pasta" for <300 calories. (below)
As a kid I used to have the 3+ serving portion of spaghetti, plus meatballs, and 2-3 dinner rolls with butter and parm cheese. Probably over 2000 calories easily. Amazing I was never overweight then lol.
2 -
deannalfisher wrote: »nicsflyingcircus wrote: »wilson10102018 wrote: »A big plate of pasta like one would get in an Italian restaurant has 400 calories. I don't think that's so bad. Add a tablespoon of butter, roasted garlic, some clam juice and a half dozen jumbo shrimp and you got 550 calories.
Lol 400 calories of pasta is definitely not 'a big plate'.
Wishful thinking lol
That big plate of pasta from proper italian restaurant with sauce and all the trimmings you are most likely looking at 1500cal.
It's clear the poster means before the sauce, as she goes on to describe what's added.
I think 200 cal of pasta is a reasonable amount (I weigh it out and am always satisfied), and that 400 cal would be a large amount. I tend to prefer to spend more cals on the sauce and less on the pasta, and always have a large volume of sauce including protein and vegetables.
IME, Italian restaurants vary a lot on portion size. There are some here that are known for huge amounts, and I think they are more like 3x normal serving, but there are also some (usually the higher end) that are closer to an actual portion size. Calories are still high, but because of high cal ingredients in the rest of the food, not enormous amounts of pasta.
You do realize that real pasta is usually 200cal for 50g or 2oz dry right? Also, that is soooooo small that why even bother using it at all???
I made an 8oz box of spaghetti that was split between 3 of my kids and my husband, so they each got roughly the 2oz dry portion. It looked like a goodly portion of pasta, and topped with a sauce thick with lean beef and peppers and onions, not one person went hungry (three kids are teens).
Compared to olive garden, sure its not a lot of pasta, but it's not tiny either.
IMHO it’s because we’ve conditioned ourselves over the years to larger plates/bowls of food - when I first started weighing food and I did pasta I was like nahhh 2oz isn’t enough - but with that and a measured out serving of sauce I was content
Pretty similar for me. Embarrassingly, before MFP I would make way too much pasta for myself, eat as much as I wanted, be full, but think "there's not enough left for a full dinner, it will go to waste" and so eat the rest. When I started MFP I decided to make it easy on myself I'd eat a serving of pasta (plus the logged homemade sauce), thought "that's not enough" but decided to try it, and found I wasn't hungry at all after.
I got mad at my mom last time she visited because she made my dad spaghetti one night and just dumped an entire box in the saucepan (she doesn’t get my weighing/measuring) and then he hardly ate any of it but it was horrible and ugh!
I figure if I want more than my initial serving I’ll made another batch - I mean it takes less than 10min to cook pasta1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions