9 Reasons Fat Loss is Always Slower Than You’d Like
Options
Replies
-
For read later0
-
7. You're a woman
Solution: Be a man
:drinker:0 -
I'm stuck here:
"2.Many people don’t account for how the weight or volume of food changes after it’s been cooked. For instance, baked sweet potatoes can lose half of their weight in water after cooking. If you calculate your calorie intake based on the weight of raw sweet potatoes, you’ll be eating 100% more calories than you thought."
But if I weigh a potato and it was 300g before baking it, and I eat that same potato, how am I now eating more? The only way I can think he means is that if I log 300g of sweet potato AFTER I cooked it, but logged it using the raw sweet potato entry in the database. Is that what he mean?
Otherwise, I can see all o' it! thanks for the article
I'm stuck here too. I *think* any water cooking out of something wouldn't affect the calories of the individual item because, well, it's water. But cooking water out of something would make it lighter, and maybe smaller in volume. Like, one strawberry will have the same calories as one dried strawberry, but one cup or ounce of dried strawberries will have a bajillion more calories than one cup of raw strawberries just because you can cram more in there.
I'd like to hear from someone who knows more, though.0 -
Bump for the great article :drinker:0
-
7. You're a woman
Solution: Be a man
:drinker:
I lift heavy arsed weights so apparently I am already working on rectifying that issue!0 -
Awesome read and tagging for others on my FL.
I freakin' loved the Snowflake one. Laughed so hard :laugh:0 -
I'm stuck here:
"2.Many people don’t account for how the weight or volume of food changes after it’s been cooked. For instance, baked sweet potatoes can lose half of their weight in water after cooking. If you calculate your calorie intake based on the weight of raw sweet potatoes, you’ll be eating 100% more calories than you thought."
But if I weigh a potato and it was 300g before baking it, and I eat that same potato, how am I now eating more? The only way I can think he means is that if I log 300g of sweet potato AFTER I cooked it, but logged it using the raw sweet potato entry in the database. Is that what he mean?
Otherwise, I can see all o' it! thanks for the article
I'm stuck here too. I *think* any water cooking out of something wouldn't affect the calories of the individual item because, well, it's water. But cooking water out of something would make it lighter, and maybe smaller in volume. Like, one strawberry will have the same calories as one dried strawberry, but one cup or ounce of dried strawberries will have a bajillion more calories than one cup of raw strawberries just because you can cram more in there.
I'd like to hear from someone who knows more, though.
Yeah, that was worded funny for me, too. I thought you always weigh/log raw, and don't pay attention the weight after cooking.0 -
7. You're a woman
Solution: Be a man
:drinker:
I lift heavy arsed weights so apparently I am already working on rectifying that issue!
Oh no, I think this lady beat you to it:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2471523/Steroids-turned-man--The-female-bodybuilder-drug-habit-left-penis-facial-hair.html0 -
Subconciously, I think we all want to stay fat. LOL!
Ummm. NO!
Sure, there are SOME who look for any excuse they can but I think MOST here have absolutely no desire, subconsciously, unconsciously, semi-consciously, consciously or otherwise, to stay fat.0 -
Subconciously, I think we all want to stay fat. LOL!
Ummm. NO!
Sure, there are SOME who look for any excuse they can but I think MOST here have absolutely no desire, subconsciously, unconsciously, semi-consciously, consciously or otherwise, to stay fat.
^This0 -
I'm stuck here:
"2.Many people don’t account for how the weight or volume of food changes after it’s been cooked. For instance, baked sweet potatoes can lose half of their weight in water after cooking. If you calculate your calorie intake based on the weight of raw sweet potatoes, you’ll be eating 100% more calories than you thought."
But if I weigh a potato and it was 300g before baking it, and I eat that same potato, how am I now eating more? The only way I can think he means is that if I log 300g of sweet potato AFTER I cooked it, but logged it using the raw sweet potato entry in the database. Is that what he mean?
Otherwise, I can see all o' it! thanks for the article
I'm stuck here too. I *think* any water cooking out of something wouldn't affect the calories of the individual item because, well, it's water. But cooking water out of something would make it lighter, and maybe smaller in volume. Like, one strawberry will have the same calories as one dried strawberry, but one cup or ounce of dried strawberries will have a bajillion more calories than one cup of raw strawberries just because you can cram more in there.
I'd like to hear from someone who knows more, though.
He was describing where you would get your weight and calories for an uncooked item.
Say potato, so many calories per 300 g.
Now you cook it. You come up with wow, 300 g exactly when finished. So you log that calorie amount.
Problem was you used an entry for raw potato, but you measured a cooked potato. Your uncooked potato was actually say 600 g.
Same problem comes up with many packaged meals you might cook, like for emergency.
So you cook the whole dish that has say 2 servings.
When finish, and you zero out your plate on the scale, and proceed to scoop out the exact serving weight on to your plate.
The next night you scoop out the other serving, and it takes up less than half the plate.
You weighed the cooked food to match the uncooked serving size you based calories on.
Now, no problem except you ate more yesterday than today and might still be hungry, but log each as a serving and you balanced out OK (if the package size was correct anyway) between the 2 days.
So this goes to weighing the final cooked meal, minus the weight of the container, and then divide that equally in to however many servings were really in the package ("about 2 servings" is not to be relied on).0 -
bump for later0
-
Tagging to read later.0
-
I'm stuck here:
"2.Many people don’t account for how the weight or volume of food changes after it’s been cooked. For instance, baked sweet potatoes can lose half of their weight in water after cooking. If you calculate your calorie intake based on the weight of raw sweet potatoes, you’ll be eating 100% more calories than you thought."
But if I weigh a potato and it was 300g before baking it, and I eat that same potato, how am I now eating more? The only way I can think he means is that if I log 300g of sweet potato AFTER I cooked it, but logged it using the raw sweet potato entry in the database. Is that what he mean?
Otherwise, I can see all o' it! thanks for the article
I agree, this part isn't worded very clearly at all. I thought he'd got it the wrong way around but now I read it again I see what he was trying to say (i.e. don't use the calorie data for 'raw sweet potato' to determine the calories for a baked sweet potato you just weighed)0 -
Good read.0
-
7. You're a woman
Solution: Be a man
:drinker:
I lift heavy arsed weights so apparently I am already working on rectifying that issue!
If you believe Engineering the Alpha it's a testostorone vs. estrogen thing. You're eating and training to maximize your T vs. your E. "Being a man"...in a totally womanly way.0 -
Excellent article! Thanks for sharing!0
-
great article0
-
He was describing where you would get your weight and calories for an uncooked item.
Say potato, so many calories per 300 g.
Now you cook it. You come up with wow, 300 g exactly when finished. So you log that calorie amount.
Problem was you used an entry for raw potato, but you measured a cooked potato. Your uncooked potato was actually say 600 g.
Where I get quite stuck is, say, a stew.
I weight 300g stew meat raw for husband and myself. Pop into a stew with seasonings, water, etc.
Now that thing cooks, and it's challenging on a mixed dish to give us equal portions of the meat.
In that case, should I pull out the cooked meat, weigh it, split into two portions, and still go record the raw value for my portion (150g)?0 -
He was describing where you would get your weight and calories for an uncooked item.
Say potato, so many calories per 300 g.
Now you cook it. You come up with wow, 300 g exactly when finished. So you log that calorie amount.
Problem was you used an entry for raw potato, but you measured a cooked potato. Your uncooked potato was actually say 600 g.
Where I get quite stuck is, say, a stew.
I weight 300g stew meat raw for husband and myself. Pop into a stew with seasonings, water, etc.
Now that thing cooks, and it's challenging on a mixed dish to give us equal portions of the meat.
In that case, should I pull out the cooked meat, weigh it, split into two portions, and still go record the raw value for my portion (150g)?
It is a PITA, but you could weigh all the meat raw to get a calorie value, then weigh all the meat cooked - then work out what % you have v your husband. However, assuming its only every now and again, I would not bother TBH - I would just eyeball the portion and use the percentage to apply to the meal/stew as a whole. There is a point where accuracy becomes unwieldy - it really depends on how much you have meals like that and whether you are seeing progress.0
