New to this...a question

danparamore
danparamore Posts: 15 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Hi,

Today I had a mcdonalds for lunch and counted it etc. It was convenient as I am looking after my niece and we were in town.

I can’t help but feel guilty, is it certain no matter what you lose weight as long as you stick to your goal? What about ‘good calories and bad calories l’ etc?

If I am going to do this, I want to do it right.

Thanks

Replies

  • asellitti6523
    asellitti6523 Posts: 37 Member
    A calorie is just a unit of energy. Bottom line if you hit your deficit no matter what you eat you will lose weight. The issue with eating an abundance of fast food like McDonalds is that much of it is processed, lacks nutrients, and is filled with simple carbs and sugar. So if you are trying to build lean muscle while you cut weight these foods are sub optimal. Again it's not impossible to get lean eating fast food but you aren't going to get as much dietary support compared to eating lean proteins, good fats, and complex carbs. The other issue with fast food is that it is not going to fill a lot of people up for a very long time and it will pronounce cravings that make it difficult to stick to your planned calorie deficit. So I wouldn't say there are bad calories but some calories like the calories found in sodas are empty. The calories count against you but there is no nutritional benefit. You want to avoid calories like that as much as possible.
  • tinkerbellang83
    tinkerbellang83 Posts: 9,140 Member
    Weight loss will happen if you're in a calorie deficit, yes. See the Twinky Diet as an over the top example of this

    That said, there are other things to take into consideration in the long run - satiety and good nutrition.

    Can you fit a McDonalds meal into your day and maintain good nutrition, absolutely, can you do it regularly and feel full enough, maybe, maybe not.

    Taking the example of a UK Medium Big Mac Meal and comparing it with a homemade burger & fries:

    McDonalds
    Big Mac: 508 Cals/ 25g Fat (9.5g Saturated) / 43g Carbs (9g Sugar/Fibre 3.6g) / Protein 26g
    Med Fries: 337 Cals / 17g Fat (1.5 Saturated) / 42g Carbs (1.5g Sugar/Fibre 3.6g) / Protein 3.3g

    Overall: 845 Cals/ F: 42g (11g S) / C: 85g (11.5g Su/ 7.2g Fi) /P: 29.3g

    That's a pretty reasonable contribution to your daily protein and fibre. It does have a pretty high amount of Saturated fat for one meal, but if you're eating relatively low Sat. fat the rest of the day, not the end of the world.

    Homemade Burger & Fries

    Brioche Bun - 164 Cals / 4.1g Fat (1g Sat.) / 26.7g Carbs (5.5g Sugar/Fibre 1.3g / Protein 4.5g
    Burger (5% Fat Mince, Egg, Seasoning) 157.5 Cals / 4.5g Fat (1.95g Sat.) / 0g Carbs (0 Sugar/0 Fibre) / Protein 27.7g
    Oven Baked Fries (250g Rooster Potato, UK 1 Cal Spray, Seasoning) 225 cals / 1.5g Fat (0.4g Sat.) / 43g Carbs (1.5g Sugar/ Fibre 3.25g) / Protein 5.25g

    I have a homemade burger sauce similar to McDonalds that comes in at around 35 cals a portion and then you have whatever salad you'd want at minimal calories/additional fibre.

    Overall: 547 Cals/ F: 10.1g (4.5g S) / C: 70g (7g Su/ 4.55g Fi) /P: 37.5g

    Lower cals, lower saturated fat, higher protein. Lower Fibre, but that's also without adding any salad.

    I occasionally go to McDonalds myself but if anything I don't find it as filling as my homemade version and often end up wanting more food later, which leads to overeating. I find I am more satiated by a higher protein diet.

    I lost 35lbs 2016-17 and maintained that loss for a year, during that time I'd occasionally eat McDonalds, Dominos and local takeaway stuff, it didn't hinder my loss at all, but I didn't eat it as often as I previously might have and I made more conservative choices when I did go.

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    I've found it useful to focus on things like calories and macronutrients instead of the source of the food. Food isn't bad because it comes from a particular place, it's just a collection of various macronutrients. There may be times when I choose to prepare a meal at home that is really high calorie and contains levels of some macronutrients that make it hard for me to meet my goals for the day. There may be times when I eat a meal out that fits really well into my goals. The source of the food isn't really a factor, although it's true that some restaurants do specialize in food that can be more difficult to fit in.

    I don't believe in a "good" or "bad" calorie, there's just some things I choose to eat more rarely because it makes it harder to meet my goals for the day.
  • nighthawk584
    nighthawk584 Posts: 2,024 Member
    although I rarely eat fast food anymore (have had it once since April 2019), I had to "reprogram" my way of thinking about good and bad calories. A calorie is a calorie.... My main problem with fast food is, it doesn't stay with me as long as other nutritionally dense food choices and usually makes me feel horrible.. I look for the most bang for my buck in calories, nutrition and satiety.
  • danparamore
    danparamore Posts: 15 Member
    Thanks guys.

    What type of foods are filling and low in calories?
  • tinkerbellang83
    tinkerbellang83 Posts: 9,140 Member
    danparamore wrote: »
    Thanks guys.

    What type of foods are filling and low in calories?

    Very tough question, what's filling for me, may not be filling for you. Experimenting is your best bet.

    I found making small changes to what I already ate worked well for me.

    Example 1: Instead of having half a plate of chips with a meal, I weigh out my potatoes usually have around 250-300g and fill the rest of the plate with steamed veg. The fibre from the veg is more filling to me but I don't have to forego the chips altogether.

    Example 2: I stopped using low fat dairy products like Yoghurt & Milk, I find full fat versions more filling (though not lower calorie) in the bigger picture, if I am feeling full I am less likely to overeat. I have to mindful of dairy anyway for acid reflux so it's only small portions and usually in a recipe rather than on it's own.

    Example 3: Switching to Water/Diet Soda rather than juices/full fat soda.

    Example 4: Pre-weighed portions of snack foods like nuts/crackers/crisps/etc, half a protein bar or fruit for snacks instead of grab bags of crisps/bars of chocolate.




  • amtyrell
    amtyrell Posts: 1,447 Member
    One awesome thing about tracking food is you can figure that out for you.
    For me it is volume and fiber and protein. Fats don't work
    But track what you eat and they occasionally ask yourself how things made you feel.
  • withinthemargin
    withinthemargin Posts: 15 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    And, other than calories, nutrient is about what you DO eat, not what you do not, so people who claim to know about nutrition and make it all about what you MUST NOT eat and not about what you do don't actually know what they are talking about.

    I agree with your comments and other peoples' as well, but I take issue with this. There are certainly certain foods which, the ingestion of which, can affect nutrition in that they inhibit the ability of the body to efficiently digest other nutrients. As a very broad overview, if a particular chemical reduces an individual's ability to metabolize Vitamin C, then that individual would have to ingest more Vitamin C than someone who did not ingest that particular chemical.

    It generally isn't particularly relevant because most of those chemicals are known and limited in food supply, and even if they aren't, as long as someone isn't eating the same thing every day, it probably doesn't have much of an effect as you point out in saying that it's not really a daily test. But to say that nutrition has nothing to do with what you don't eat is not correct.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    edited February 2020
    withinthemargin wrote: »
    It generally isn't particularly relevant because most of those chemicals are known and limited in food supply, and even if they aren't, as long as someone isn't eating the same thing every day, it probably doesn't have much of an effect as you point out in saying that it's not really a daily test. But to say that nutrition has nothing to do with what you don't eat is not correct.

    Yes, it's not really relevant, especially since we are talking general advice, not the details for people interested in the weeds. (For example, Vit C with sources of iron is helpful, calcium with those sources can reduce absorption. It's still would not be true that someone should avoid calcium, obviously, and most don't have to worry about this level of detail in terms of pairings, especially when they are first focusing on eating healthfully.)

    My point is way too often I see people whose approach to nutrition is "I'm not eating white carbs" and then if you look at the diary it's got almost no veg or fruit or some such.

    If you want to plan a sensible diet, it makes sense to focus on what foods you want to include within it, not cutting out whatever.

    Saying a healthy diet can never include a specific food item (especially now that artificial transfats are no longer permitted) without regard to what the diet already includes and included over the course of the week and dosage and so on is almost always based on a lack of understanding of nutrition, unless it's a specific person talking about avoiding something personally due to allergy or the like.
  • withinthemargin
    withinthemargin Posts: 15 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    withinthemargin wrote: »
    It generally isn't particularly relevant because most of those chemicals are known and limited in food supply, and even if they aren't, as long as someone isn't eating the same thing every day, it probably doesn't have much of an effect as you point out in saying that it's not really a daily test. But to say that nutrition has nothing to do with what you don't eat is not correct.

    Yes, it's not really relevant, especially since we are talking general advice, not the details for people interested in the weeds. (For example, Vit C with sources of iron is helpful, calcium with those sources can reduce absorption. It's still would not be true that someone should avoid calcium, obviously, and most don't have to worry about this level of detail in terms of pairings, especially when they are first focusing on eating healthfully.)

    My point is way too often I see people whose approach to nutrition is "I'm not eating white carbs" and then if you look at the diary it's got almost no veg or fruit or some such.

    If you want to plan a sensible diet, it makes sense to focus on what foods you want to include within it, not cutting out whatever.

    Saying a healthy diet can never include a specific food item (especially now that artificial transfats are no longer permitted) without regard to what the diet already includes and included over the course of the week and dosage and so on is almost always based on a lack of understanding of nutrition, unless it's a specific person talking about avoiding something personally due to allergy or the like.

    Right, but you were using that as a litmus test to determine whether someone knows something about nutrition, and that's why I was disagreeing. I wasn't disagreeing with telling the OP to pay more attention to what they do eat rather than what they don't/can't.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    edited February 2020
    withinthemargin wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    withinthemargin wrote: »
    It generally isn't particularly relevant because most of those chemicals are known and limited in food supply, and even if they aren't, as long as someone isn't eating the same thing every day, it probably doesn't have much of an effect as you point out in saying that it's not really a daily test. But to say that nutrition has nothing to do with what you don't eat is not correct.

    Yes, it's not really relevant, especially since we are talking general advice, not the details for people interested in the weeds. (For example, Vit C with sources of iron is helpful, calcium with those sources can reduce absorption. It's still would not be true that someone should avoid calcium, obviously, and most don't have to worry about this level of detail in terms of pairings, especially when they are first focusing on eating healthfully.)

    My point is way too often I see people whose approach to nutrition is "I'm not eating white carbs" and then if you look at the diary it's got almost no veg or fruit or some such.

    If you want to plan a sensible diet, it makes sense to focus on what foods you want to include within it, not cutting out whatever.

    Saying a healthy diet can never include a specific food item (especially now that artificial transfats are no longer permitted) without regard to what the diet already includes and included over the course of the week and dosage and so on is almost always based on a lack of understanding of nutrition, unless it's a specific person talking about avoiding something personally due to allergy or the like.

    Right, but you were using that as a litmus test to determine whether someone knows something about nutrition, and that's why I was disagreeing. I wasn't disagreeing with telling the OP to pay more attention to what they do eat rather than what they don't/can't.

    I think you are reading way too much into what I said or just trying to find something to disagree with, as I really don't see any meaningful disagreement here.

    Yes, as I said before, if someone claims that nutrition is all about not eating specific foods vs. what you actually do include in your diet, I see that as evidence that person doesn't know much about nutrition. You haven't said anything that would contradict this, btw.

Categories