Eating 3 Oreos per day instead of 2

Options
2

Replies

  • ddsb1111
    ddsb1111 Posts: 840 Member
    Options
    xbowhunter wrote: »
    I find Oreos gross with all kinds of nasty chemicals so that would be zero in my opinion... lol

    I vividly remember the days where if I bought oreo's the box would not survive the night, now I look at them in the store and look down the cereal and cookie row and wonder how many UPF make up the totality of calories in a supermarket and there's actually numbers from research for that and they vary from around 55% to 70%. Add heavily processed not quite UFP and humans are ill equipped to make the right choices, especially with all the health banners telling us how healthy they are and all the pretty and delicious looking food, lol, crazy times really.

    Same. Weird how taste buds and cravings change once you adapt to a new lifestyle. Everything I felt manic obsessed with before means nothing to me now. It took time but thankfully I’m on the other side of it now.

    Btw, nice updated pic 😊
  • ddsb1111
    ddsb1111 Posts: 840 Member
    edited March 26
    Options
    I'd probably still eat them if they didn't taste like dried-out rounds of brown fiberboard with denatured dollar store toothpaste in between.

    5f0r8s3fakv5.gif

    I’m trying to decide if products are just getting worse over time or if I’ve changed. Can’t touch fast food and most restaurant dishes anymore. It’s bitter sweet. Has McDonalds always sucked this bad or did they recently change to amoxicillin mystery meat? It tastes so weird to me.

    OP- if I had 150 calories I would likely go towards something delicious and satiating. Only you can decide how important that specific treat is for you.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,007 Member
    Options
    ddsb1111 wrote: »
    xbowhunter wrote: »
    I find Oreos gross with all kinds of nasty chemicals so that would be zero in my opinion... lol

    I vividly remember the days where if I bought oreo's the box would not survive the night, now I look at them in the store and look down the cereal and cookie row and wonder how many UPF make up the totality of calories in a supermarket and there's actually numbers from research for that and they vary from around 55% to 70%. Add heavily processed not quite UFP and humans are ill equipped to make the right choices, especially with all the health banners telling us how healthy they are and all the pretty and delicious looking food, lol, crazy times really.

    Same. Weird how taste buds and cravings change once you adapt to a new lifestyle. Everything I felt manic obsessed with before means nothing to me now. It took time but thankfully I’m on the other side of it now.

    Btw, nice updated pic 😊

    Yeah, thanks. It's difficult for people to understand if they don't have problems with sugar cravings, and trust me it doesn't have anything to do with how good they look or taste, that's a none factor but I was a little more picky and generally picked home made or pastry level but in a pinch Oreo or other cookies and cakes were it. lol.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,697 Member
    Options
    ddsb1111 wrote: »
    I'd probably still eat them if they didn't taste like dried-out rounds of brown fiberboard with denatured dollar store toothpaste in between.

    5f0r8s3fakv5.gif

    I’m trying to decide if products are just getting worse over time or if I’ve changed. Can’t touch fast food and most restaurant dishes anymore. It’s bitter sweet. Has McDonalds always sucked this bad or did they recently change to amoxicillin mystery meat? It tastes so weird to me.

    OP- if I had 150 calories I would likely go towards something delicious and satiating. Only you can decide how important that specific treat is for you.

    They've always been poor, IMO. Full of the button-pushers (sugar, fat, salt), no subtlety or nuance in flavors, engineered to be non-sating, buttressed by intense marketing that suggests all the happy, pretty people eat these things . . . so we should eat them if we want to be happy and pretty, too. Quick. Convenient. (Cooking is hard. Veggies are yucky.) Social influence is powerful: Everyone says these foods are good, right?

    Unfortunately, it's also possible to become/stay fat eating mostly whole foods, too
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,988 Member
    edited March 26
    Options
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    xbowhunter wrote: »
    I find Oreos gross with all kinds of nasty chemicals so that would be zero in my opinion... lol

    I'd probably still eat them if they didn't taste like dried-out rounds of brown fiberboard with denatured dollar store toothpaste in between. I just don't get the "Oreos are irresistible" thing, personally, though I believe other people when they say they enjoy them. It remains a conundrum: So many "hyperpalatable" foods don't even taste good (to me).

    I'd go with zero, too.

    P.S. Ingredients aren't all that horrible, IMO: Unbleached enriched flour, sugar, oil (palm, soybean or canola), cocoa, corn syrup (HFCS), baking soda or calcium phosphate leavening, salt, lecithin, chocolate.

    I'd put most of those things into cookies if I was making the cookies myself. And they'd taste way better than an Oreo (to me).

    I have often had the experience of eating a "hyperpalatable" food that I didn't particularly enjoy yet still have a problem stopping. As intended, I'm triggered to eat and eat and eat.

    For example, there is free low quality candy at work. I can eat a lot and not feel satisfied, yet if I have 50 calories worth of high quality chocolate, I am satisfied.

    (Now I just ignore it and keep good stuff in my desk.)

    I can moderate desserts I make myself; I cannot moderate Oreos, and so I do not buy them.
  • Adventurista
    Adventurista Posts: 641 Member
    Options
    Interesting thoughts about taste preferences changing. I was surprised when i was drooling over some veggies, shocked! When kale with colored stalk i stumbled across was so exciting to find, i just had to buy some to experiment with.

    Not in my wildest dreams would i have imagined, back in the day when i craved specific hpfs.
    --and further found it offensive when people sneer about foods that are widely available and advertised, that i enjoyed eating.
    -- you can not shame/bully people into choosing different foods.
    --it is the choice of the eater to make.

    So, for a place like here, a question like 2 or 3 oreos ok? Do we have someone who does not actually know and is trying to sort it?
    -- or someone who is yanking chains?

    The idea that someone can't/shouldn't eat 3 oreos or no oreos is perhaps a different answer depending where they are in the process of making food choices...
    If I typically was eating mostly sweets and treats, 3 oreos might be impossibly not enough of the childhood dunk in milk treat... and be imfathomable to imagine I could ever feel otherwise
    -- but i never would have guessed I would get excited to explore a new freggie either.

    Imho, think a good guideline is that it is ok to eat if it fits within calorie budget. Anything healthier than that is bonus.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,061 Member
    Options
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    It's OK to spend some calories on things just because you enjoy them as long as your overall diet is reasonably nutrionally sound.

    159 calories ( 3 oreos at 53 calories each) is easy enough to fit into any calorie allowance leaving plenty of room for higher nutrition items as well.

    If someone is on a 1200-1500 calorie a day plan, the 3 Oreos is over 10% of their caloric intake. Not much wiggle room to get optimum nutrition with the 3 Oreos on a daily basis.

    I disagree.

    If one uses 10% of one's allowance on Oreos that leaves plenty of wiggle room for good nutrition. 90% good nutrition diet would be fine

    I see thread has now morphed into whether we like taste of Oreos ourselves - but that wasn't the question.
  • Adventurista
    Adventurista Posts: 641 Member
    Options
    Oreos is the question in op.... relevant.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,061 Member
    Options
    ^^^ no, not really - fitting Oreos into your calories while dieting was OP's question - not whether we like them ourselves
  • Adventurista
    Adventurista Posts: 641 Member
    Options
    ^^^ no, not really - fitting Oreos into your calories while dieting was OP's question - not whether we like them ourselves

    I don't understand constraining the nature of other posters reply, who include how they use or think about oreos anecdotally to illustrate their thoughts and points.

    Of interest and Relevant, imho, or i would not have included in my post.
    Do not need to be word policed. .
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,061 Member
    Options
    just trying to stick on topic, not drift into tangents.

    You seem to be taking that very personally - it wasnt addressed at you in particular.

    threads can just drift away from original question - which of course then doesnt answer the question asked

    I'm not saying any more on that - or will cause a thread drift into who says what. ;)

    this was OP's question: I want to eat 3 instead of 2

    Will this make a huge difference for dieting. I’m actually thin right now but I don’t really want to gain weight
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,007 Member
    edited March 27
    Options
    just trying to stick on topic, not drift into tangents.

    You seem to be taking that very personally - it wasnt addressed at you in particular.

    threads can just drift away from original question - which of course then doesnt answer the question asked

    I'm not saying any more on that - or will cause a thread drift into who says what. ;)

    this was OP's question: I want to eat 3 instead of 2

    Will this make a huge difference for dieting. I’m actually thin right now but I don’t really want to gain weight

    Taste, food preferences, personal experiences, the effects from UPF on overall health etc, etc, etc do address "will this make a huge difference for dieting" You may not recognize the distinction, but does that really matter, no not in my opinion. Personally I think since you decided this was no longer conducive to the OP's original question it actually has gone off topic.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,988 Member
    Options
    ^^^ no, not really - fitting Oreos into your calories while dieting was OP's question - not whether we like them ourselves

    When has any thread longer than a page ever stayed on topic? :D
  • Theoldguy1
    Theoldguy1 Posts: 2,475 Member
    Options
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    It's OK to spend some calories on things just because you enjoy them as long as your overall diet is reasonably nutrionally sound.

    159 calories ( 3 oreos at 53 calories each) is easy enough to fit into any calorie allowance leaving plenty of room for higher nutrition items as well.

    If someone is on a 1200-1500 calorie a day plan, the 3 Oreos is over 10% of their caloric intake. Not much wiggle room to get optimum nutrition with the 3 Oreos on a daily basis.

    I disagree.

    If one uses 10% of one's allowance on Oreos that leaves plenty of wiggle room for good nutrition. 90% good nutrition diet would be fine

    I see thread has now morphed into whether we like taste of Oreos ourselves - but that wasn't the question.

    So you think someone on 1200 calories a day eating 160 calories daily isn't shortchanging themselves nutritionally? I don't agree.



  • ahoy_m8
    ahoy_m8 Posts: 3,053 Member
    edited March 27
    Options
    It's OK to spend some calories on things just because you enjoy them as long as your overall diet is reasonably nutrionally sound.

    159 calories ( 3 oreos at 53 calories each) is easy enough to fit into any calorie allowance leaving plenty of room for higher nutrition items as well.

    QFT with added emphasis that it's not just OK to eat for enjoyment, but we SHOULD eat for enjoyment, with the proviso as @Paperpudding has stated - as long as overall nutrition is ok and within appropriate calorie range.

    @Theoldguy1 OP is maintaining, so likely has more than 1200-1500 cal to work with. Nonetheless, I'm small and when I cut, I eat 1500 and routinely have 150cal treats for enjoyment (not nutrition) while hitting my nutrition minimums. Your point about proportions is well taken, yet I agree with Paperpudding: it's realistic.

    ETA: To everyone dissing oreos, I agree with you but don't yuck OP's yum!
  • MargaretYakoda
    MargaretYakoda Posts: 2,791 Member
    Options
    While 50 Cals seem minor these things add up. Stick with zero Oreos. It’s too hard to jut eat 2 so out of sight, out of mind. If you’re in fat loss mode don’t buy these things if they’re a problem.

    I buy my gluten free Oreos in single serve packs with two Oreos in each pack.

    Problem solved. ivdx04gerlv1.jpeg
  • Wynterbourne
    Wynterbourne Posts: 2,220 Member
    Options
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    I note that the OP has not participated much in the discussion. And I also seem to be in the minority in terms of being more concerned with the OP's apparent mental outlook as opposed to the mechanics of fitting oreos.

    "I want to eat 3 instead of 2 Will this make a huge difference for dieting. I’m actually thin right now but I don’t really want to gain weight"

    -- Screen name and presumed maintenance status indicate 2 to 2500 Cal days. Not 12 to 1500 Cal and not even 15 to 2000. Yet 50 Cal worth of cookies is up for discussion, i.e. 2% of calories for the day.

    -- why are you "DIETING" if you are "THIN RIGHT NOW"?

    -- if you are "thin right now" -- why is the word "really" injected into the sentence "I don't really want to gain weight"?

    Why is my first reaction to think that when someone says they don't "really want to" it is not exactly the same as "I don't want to". i.e. I don't "really want to" sounds as if you've been TOLD you're supposed to.

    -- why are you self describing as "thin right now"? Do most people who maintain after dieting say "I am thin right now"? Or do they say: "I am at goal/maintaining/I've lost enough".

    Dunno, but "don't really want to gain weight" is a bit of an eye brow raiser for me, especially in the context of a single cookie.

    THIS. All of this is why I 100% agreed with neanderthin's reply to the OP and why I disagreed with the opinion by someone else that neanderthin was being rude or trying to be funny. Many red flags.

  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,061 Member
    Options
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    It's OK to spend some calories on things just because you enjoy them as long as your overall diet is reasonably nutrionally sound.

    159 calories ( 3 oreos at 53 calories each) is easy enough to fit into any calorie allowance leaving plenty of room for higher nutrition items as well.

    If someone is on a 1200-1500 calorie a day plan, the 3 Oreos is over 10% of their caloric intake. Not much wiggle room to get optimum nutrition with the 3 Oreos on a daily basis.

    I disagree.

    If one uses 10% of one's allowance on Oreos that leaves plenty of wiggle room for good nutrition. 90% good nutrition diet would be fine

    I see thread has now morphed into whether we like taste of Oreos ourselves - but that wasn't the question.

    So you think someone on 1200 calories a day eating 160 calories daily isn't shortchanging themselves nutritionally? I don't agree.



    Correct - I think someone on 1200 calories ( although nothing to suggest OP is on 1200 calories) can fit in 160 calories of ' just because I enjoy it' food without short-changing themselves nutritionally.