250 calories per day on chocolate?

Is it acceptable to eat 250 calories worth of chocolate per day when you are trying to lose weight, as long as you are still in your calorie limit? I have tried to have just one small piece or swap it for dark but it just isnt working and i keep failing! I was reading somewhere that eating chocolate or other junk food is really bad for weight loss as a calorie is not just a calorie, but i always thought it didn't matter in terms of weight loss as long as you are at a calorie deficit. Have any of you had chocolate daily and managed to use a significant amount of weight? I have 100 pounds to lose and chocolate is my nemesis

250 calories worth of chocolate a day? Not worth it to me. I think that's a bit excessive.

You have a lot of weight to lose and are going to need to have strong will-power and the ability to say no when the time calls for it.

I'd suggest buying Skinny Cow chocolate. I personally like the caramel filled chocolates. One pouch has 130 calories, 7 g fat, 18 g carbs, and 15 g sugar. Much better option than 250 calories and it is still delicious and satisfying.

If you can control it to that 250 and stay within your calorie goals for the day, it's perfectly fine. Just be sure that you are able to stop at 250 calories worth of chocolate. For me, Reese's Peanut Butter Cups of any shape or size are my kryptonite. If I start, I can't stop, so unless I have a limited amount available, or a lot of extra calories, I can't even get started with eating them.

Have you tried buying the single cup servings they sell around holidays and storing them in the freezer? Having them wrapped individually can help with teaching your brain to note portions, and that can help with control. It migth not work now, but you can use it as a tool.

This is kind of what I meant by "limited amount available." I only eat them if what is available to me is a single serving size. Unfortunately right now, waiting for them to thaw is not going to stop me. But if I don't have access to more than a serving size, I can eat it.

Summary of thread: everyone says "eat it if it fits your macros and calories." Someone comes in and says "BUT YOU HAVE TO WATCH YOUR MACROS!" Fight ensues.

Only on MFP.

I set aside 20% of my calories for 'bad foods' I think this is a good way to sustainably lose weiight as you are not depriving yourself every day which leads to binges. Since I decided to do this I have stopped binging and I have lost weight more predictably and positively than ever before

Yep, she is.

Well, personally I am trying very hard to not eat chocolate everyday. I love Jersey Milk Chocolate... the only way this is going to work is if I can have what I want once in a while for the rest of my life. I don't mind slowing the weight loss in the name of favorite food every so often. My lifestyle has to include healthy food and exercise... and a tiny bit crap. I submit most of the time.

Actually, this one was refreshingly different. A kind sir noted the correct order in which energy sources are utilized by the body and folks defended that a calorie deficit causes weght loss. It actually made less sense.

I hope there's at least nice weather in whatever world you're in.

Oh, reality is not nearly as fantastical as that magical place where folks need to pretend 250 calories of chocolate furthers fitness the same as 250 calories of beef, but at least I don't have to look ignorant and rationalize - or completely fabricate a disagreement over nothing.

This poster gets it, and without deluded thinking. She's making a conscious choice. Go figure.

Well, personally I am trying very hard to not eat chocolate everyday. I love Jersey Milk Chocolate... the only way this is going to work is if I can have what I want once in a while for the rest of my life. I don't mind slowing the weight loss in the name of favorite food every so often. My lifestyle has to include healthy food and exercise... and a tiny bit crap. I submit most of the time.

Actually, this one was refreshingly different. A kind sir noted the correct order in which energy sources are utilized by the body and folks defended that a calorie deficit causes weght loss. It actually made less sense.

I hope there's at least nice weather in whatever world you're in.

Oh, reality is not nearly as fantastical as that magical place where folks need to pretend 250 calories of chocolate furthers fitness the same as 250 calories of beef, but at least I don't have to look ignorant and rationalize - or completely fabricate a disagreement over nothing.

I guess it depends on your fitness goals. Personally, 250 calories of beef aren't going to put me that far ahead of 250 calories of anything else. I get enough protein and fat.

Oh, reality is not nearly as fantastical as that magical place where folks need to pretend 250 calories of chocolate furthers fitness the same as 250 calories of beef, but at least I don't have to look ignorant and rationalize - or completely fabricate a disagreement over nothing.

I guess it depends on your fitness goals. Personally, 250 calories of beef aren't going to put me that far ahead of 250 calories of anything else. I get enough protein and fat.

Actually 250 cals of nearly pure simple sugars *does* put me ahead. Miles ahead. I hit my macros most days, but before a big endurance event, I (modestly) carb load. Endurance athletes often suck down mixtures & gels of glucose during events - cuz the body metabolizes - and then utilizes - glucose very rapidly. And if you are dragging *kitten*, that's the jolt you might need. Believe it or not, sometimes sugar is a good thing. I wish people would please quit demonizing sugar. It ain't the Beelzebub of the food pyramid.

I'm stocking up on Dove chocolate eggs at Easter. One or two fit nicely in my goal and they are delicious.

Chocolate is necessary for survival. Not mine, everyone else's...

Eat it, savor it, log it, carry no shame about it.

^^^^I love this response. YES! This, lol. ^^^^

Oh, reality is not nearly as fantastical as that magical place where folks need to pretend 250 calories of chocolate furthers fitness the same as 250 calories of beef, but at least I don't have to look ignorant and rationalize - or completely fabricate a disagreement over nothing.

I guess it depends on your fitness goals. Personally, 250 calories of beef aren't going to put me that far ahead of 250 calories of anything else. I get enough protein and fat.

Actually 250 cals of nearly pure simple sugars *does* put me ahead. Miles ahead. I hit my macros most days, but before a big endurance event, I (modestly) carb load. Endurance athletes often suck down mixtures & gels of glucose during events - cuz the body metabolizes - and then utilizes - glucose very rapidly. And if you are dragging *kitten*, that's the jolt you might need. Believe it or not, sometimes sugar is a good thing. I wish people would please quit demonizing sugar. It ain't the Beelzebub of the food pyramid.

No one demonized sugar - at least not in this discussion. I've made the point repeatedly that simple sugars have a place, especially for endurance athletes. I've also made the point that started the "You're not taking away my sugar" crazies on their Defense of Sugar, that the body burns fuels in a basic ranking of order. Ergo, if you're fueling with sugars because you'll be engaging in eactivity long enough to go well beyond your glycogen stores, you are not burning body fat unless and until you've run through the dietary sugars. You can fuel for endurance with sugars or you can burn significant fat for fuel, but you cannot do both simultanously.

I go through plenty of gels in races. I go through fewer during training (because if you're fueling with gels you're not training the body to store maximum glycogen). I do not consume the same amount of sugars in rest periods or breaks in training. Why? Because I don't need it for fuel and it will use that before it uses body fat.

Although, if you're fueling with glucose rather than maltodextrin, you're missing out.

calories are calories as long as you are within your goal

Dear God...

Oh, reality is not nearly as fantastical as that magical place where folks need to pretend 250 calories of chocolate furthers fitness the same as 250 calories of beef, but at least I don't have to look ignorant and rationalize - or completely fabricate a disagreement over nothing.

I guess it depends on your fitness goals. Personally, 250 calories of beef aren't going to put me that far ahead of 250 calories of anything else. I get enough protein and fat.

Actually 250 cals of nearly pure simple sugars *does* put me ahead. Miles ahead. I hit my macros most days, but before a big endurance event, I (modestly) carb load. Endurance athletes often suck down mixtures & gels of glucose during events - cuz the body metabolizes - and then utilizes - glucose very rapidly. And if you are dragging *kitten*, that's the jolt you might need. Believe it or not, sometimes sugar is a good thing. I wish people would please quit demonizing sugar. It ain't the Beelzebub of the food pyramid.

No one demonized sugar - at least not in this discussion. I've made the point repeatedly that simple sugars have a place, especially for endurance athletes. I've also made the point that started the "You're not taking away my sugar" crazies on their Defense of Sugar, that the body burns fuels in a basic ranking of order. Ergo, if you're fueling with sugars because you'll be engaging in eactivity long enough to go well beyond your glycogen stores, you are not burning body fat unless and until you've run through the dietary sugars. You can fuel for endurance with sugars or you can burn significant fat for fuel, but you cannot do both simultanously.

I go through plenty of gels in races. I go through fewer during training (because if you're fueling with gels you're not training the body to store maximum glycogen). I do not consume the same amount of sugars in rest periods or breaks in training. Why? Because I don't need it for fuel and it will use that before it uses body fat.

Although, if you're fueling with glucose rather than maltodextrin, you're missing out.

Okay, true. I kinda jumped the fence with the "demonizing sugar" statement. I think I/we lost track of the whole point of this tread anyway (a common demise of most threads.) I guess the roundabout point I'm trying to get to (rather aimlessly) is that 250 cals from a high sugar and fat food (most chocolates) isn't going to upset most folk's catabolic processes. And I could see that even folks who only run at the gym can easily metabolize the extra sugar, along with their other macronutrients over the course of an average day.

Generally speaking, we aren't dealing with elite athletes here on MFP. We're dealing with normal folks who - with or without chocolate - will do just fine in the long term with mild fluctuations in their macro distributions… Okay, many will fail completely. But it won't be because they chose 250 cals of chocolate vs 250 cals of wild Atlantic salmon. It's because of gross dietary indiscretion leading to failure.

And speaking of replenishing glycogen during events… I detest gels myself. I'm more of a Shot Bloks girl. Plus some Accelerade in the bottles for good measure (yes, it contains protein - hush.) Bloks are mostly brown rice syrup, which is 45% maltose, 3% glucose, and 52% maltotriose. I think I might suffer from dumping syndrome (egads) if I mainlined glucose. So, no pure glucose is not recommended (except for diabetics having an episode).