Your microwave dinner is making you obese...

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

blame it on the microwave, sure....

Thread should go places.

Blame it on the stouffers
blame it on the Jenny
blame it on the sugar
got you feeling dizzy
blame it on the mi mi mi mi mi microwave

down_ell_beez wrote: »

Gravy (Turkey Type Flavor [Monosodium Glutamate, Caramel Color, Flavors, Disodium Inosinate, Disodium Guanylate], Caramel Color, Mono and Diglycerides), Mashed Potatoes ([Mono and Diglycerides, Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate, Citric Acid], Margarine [TBHQ and Citric Acid as Preservatives, Mono and Diglycerides (BHT, Citric Acid)], Potato Flavor [Natural Flavors, Calcium Chloride]), Cooked White Meat Turkey (Carrageenan, Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate, Sodium Phosphate), Stuffing (Breading [Dough Conditioners (Ascorbic Acid, L-Cysteine Monohydrochloride, Azodicarbonamide), Yeast Nutrients (Ammonium Chloride, Calcium Sulfate)], TBHQ and Citric Acid as Preservatives, Turkey Flavor [Natural Flavors, Autolyzed Yeast Extract, Monosodium Glutamate, Disodium Guanylate, Disodium Inosinate, Caramel Color, Sodium Lactate), Sauce (Margarine [Mono and Diglycerides, Natural Flavor], Salt, TBHQ and Citric Acid as Preservatives).

Yum. This sounds very appetizing.

Honestly though, if you want to eat this, keep it in your calorie goal. Then I say go for it. As for me, I like to be able to pronounce my ingredient lists. Plus when I make real foods at home, the portion sizes are large enough to actually satisfy my hunger. Rather than taking 5 bites and already being at my calorie goal.

With that said, it is not the microwave dinner that makes people obese! It is overeating microwave dinners that make you obese. Really you can over eat any food (although it would be hard to overeat broccoli without your stomach exploding), but convenient, calories dense foods lend themselves to overeating.

It must be sad to never eat Solanum lycopersicum

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

auddii wrote: »

I could see microwaves contributing to weight gain because those things NEVER fill me up. I'm trying to figure out where all the calories go because the portions are tiny (and it's not like they taste that good).

This ^^

Any contribution to weight gain is most likely in their calorie to satiety ratio.

Exactly. Whether it is microwave dinners or artificial sweeteners or sugar or cholesterol or salt or starch or anything else, the effect on weight and health in general goes beyond just the calories in that particular item.

If you are trying to eat the appropriate amount of calories, and choose foods that either don't keep you full, or cause a lot of blood sugar fluctuations, or act in some other way to stimulate hunger (this can be different for different people)...it makes it much harder to resist the urge to eat more calories. A lot of people like to ignore that fact, but some foods make it easier to stick to an eating plan and others make it harder. We all have different genetics and personalities and triggers. It is grossly oversimplifying the matter to just constantly chant "a calorie is a calorie".

I totally agree with this, but isn't that the point.

If you eat microwave meals and aren't satisfied and thus eat more -- as I probably would -- it's not the microwave meals making you fat, but your whole diet, including all the excess that you eat. You can't claim the microwave meals (or the chemicals) made you fat, but have to take responsibility for not eating in a way that is satisfying for you.

If you are someone (and they do exist) who enjoys microwave meals or finds them satisfying, then they would not make you gain weight or make it harder for you to stick to a weight loss plan.

So I'd say it is calories, but how each person finds it easiest to eat appropriate calories will differ.

For example, I eat better (and less calories on average) if I make fitness an important part of my life, and if I structure my diet around foods that are (a) nutritious, (b) local and in-season where possible (eating seasonally makes me more interested in eating produce), and (c) when I make cooking an important part of my life (since it is a hobby that I enjoy and cooking satisfying low cal things can be as fun as cooking an apple pie). So that's what works for me. It's not true, however, to say that others need to exercise a lot to lose weight or eat seasonally or focus on home cooking. People are different.

Everyone needs to eat fewer calories than they burn to lose weight and to figure out what makes it easier for them to do that. The problem is when people claim that some answer (like low carb) is best for everyone.

kaseyr1505 wrote: »

This is why I only hunt my food wearing a loin cloth, like my ancestors. The people in the grocery store look at me like I'm crazy, but it's the only way to survive.

Wow, that's hard core. Grocery stores are so cold.

jkwolly wrote: »

LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

blame it on the microwave, sure....

Thread should go places.

Blame it on the stouffers
blame it on the Jenny
blame it on the sugar
got you feeling dizzy
blame it on the mi mi mi mi mi microwave

AHAHA

I'm pretty sure we should only blame it on the boogie.

lemurcat12 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

auddii wrote: »

I could see microwaves contributing to weight gain because those things NEVER fill me up. I'm trying to figure out where all the calories go because the portions are tiny (and it's not like they taste that good).

This ^^

Any contribution to weight gain is most likely in their calorie to satiety ratio.

Exactly. Whether it is microwave dinners or artificial sweeteners or sugar or cholesterol or salt or starch or anything else, the effect on weight and health in general goes beyond just the calories in that particular item.

If you are trying to eat the appropriate amount of calories, and choose foods that either don't keep you full, or cause a lot of blood sugar fluctuations, or act in some other way to stimulate hunger (this can be different for different people)...it makes it much harder to resist the urge to eat more calories. A lot of people like to ignore that fact, but some foods make it easier to stick to an eating plan and others make it harder. We all have different genetics and personalities and triggers. It is grossly oversimplifying the matter to just constantly chant "a calorie is a calorie".

I totally agree with this, but isn't that the point.

If you eat microwave meals and aren't satisfied and thus eat more -- as I probably would -- it's not the microwave meals making you fat, but your whole diet, including all the excess that you eat. You can't claim the microwave meals (or the chemicals) made you fat, but have to take responsibility for not eating in a way that is satisfying for you.

If you are someone (and they do exist) who enjoys microwave meals or finds them satisfying, then they would not make you gain weight or make it harder for you to stick to a weight loss plan.

So I'd say it is calories, but how each person finds it easiest to eat appropriate calories will differ.

For example, I eat better (and less calories on average) if I make fitness an important part of my life, and if I structure my diet around foods that are (a) nutritious, (b) local and in-season where possible (eating seasonally makes me more interested in eating produce), and (c) when I make cooking an important part of my life (since it is a hobby that I enjoy and cooking satisfying low cal things can be as fun as cooking an apple pie). So that's what works for me. It's not true, however, to say that others need to exercise a lot to lose weight or eat seasonally or focus on home cooking. People are different.

Everyone needs to eat fewer calories than they burn to lose weight and to figure out what makes it easier for them to do that. The problem is when people claim that some answer (like low carb) is best for everyone.

I agree with your point. I am just saying that when a study...and I am not referring specifically to this microwave article, I mean any study...suggests that certain foods might be associated in some way with some negative outcome (obesity, excess belly fat, high blood pressure, diabetes, cancer...whatever)...too many people are too quick to just dismiss it by saying "the "whatever food" didn't cause it. Eating too much of it did."

The real takeaway, to me, is that what that study might be indicating is that something about that food might cause some effect that makes achieving health goals (whether weight or something else) more difficult for at least some subset of the population.

Too many people instead say "I eat microwave dinners, drink diet soda, eat sugar, eat eggs, add salt to my food, eat potatoes AND rice with every meal...and lost weight, lowered my cholesterol, whatever...so my experience invalidates the results of trained scientists and this study is completely worthless."

Perhaps the reality is they don't have a genetic predisposition to be sensitive to salt, sugar, caffeine, simple carbs, dietary cholesterol or whatever, so these negative effects either don't affect them at all or are so minor they are completely undetectable.

Eggs are the perfect example. For most people, eating eggs does not increase cholesterol levels in any meaningful way. So great, eggs are fine for most of us. HOWEVER, there are some hyper responders for whom dietary cholesterol DOES result in a dramatic rise in blood cholesterol. They should avoid it. Why is it so difficult to believe that there may be similar individual differences among people for other foods as well?

And back to your point about taking responsibility for eating foods that are satisfying to you...I completely agree. However, eating in a way that is satisfying to you might necessitate not eating certain foods...whether microwave meals, or sugar, or too much fiber. So it just really is not helpful when people constantly tell people seeking advice that it is "bad" to eliminate something from their diet. It might not only not be bad for that person, it might actually be extremely helpful.

You were right when you said it is a problem when people claim that some answer (like low carb) is best for everyone. It's also bad to claim that eating ALL foods in moderation is best for everone. For some people, it's really not.

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

The real takeaway, to me, is that what that study might be indicating is that something about that food might cause some effect that makes achieving health goals (whether weight or something else) more difficult for at least some subset of the population.

I agree with this, but what I see as a problem in how some interpret these studies is they take some kind of minor different on average (people who eat low carb lose 6 lbs in 4 months vs. people who eat low fat lose 4 lbs, say) and then assume that means that you must or it's best to eat low carb, even to the point of ignoring that many people here (and maybe even them) lost much more in the same amount of time, following any number of eating plans.

My biggest pet peeve are the ones about meal timing--there are studies that suggest that on average people lose more eating 6 mini meals or eating half their calories in the morning. I certainly believe that on average these things might help people--in other words that some significant subset of people do better (although usually the differences are slight) eating lots of little meals or eating more for breakfast than dinner. However, that does not mean that they help everyone or that any positive effects wouldn't be outweighed by the negatives. (For example, I would be miserable under a 6 mini meal plan and would quit, so even if perfect adherence would make me lose an extra .5 lb/month, which I doubt, it would make adherence impossible.)

But too many people assume that there are numerous complex rules that we must follow (eat mini meals, get rid of "processed" foods, etc.) to lose weight, independent of how they actually feel or react. That's what I think the value is of people saying "I eat microwave meals or drink diet coke and it didn't hurt me."

And back to your point about taking responsibility for eating foods that are satisfying to you...I completely agree. However, eating in a way that is satisfying to you might necessitate not eating certain foods...whether microwave meals, or sugar, or too much fiber. So it just really is not helpful when people constantly tell people seeking advice that it is "bad" to eliminate something from their diet. It might not only not be bad for that person, it might actually be extremely helpful.

I agree with this. I don't think people should assume they have to do something to lose weight, especially something that could make it harder for them (like giving up a food they love or eating 6 mini meals). But I always say if they are interested in trying whether something helps (including giving up a food or going low carb or eating breakfast or whatever), that they should try it. I have given up foods for a time and found that helpful, and I say that too. But that doesn't mean I can't eat those foods and lose, that's the other point I'd want to make. Sometimes people think dieting is way more complicated than it is and that makes it harder for them--majoring in the minors.

I lost 24 lbs a few years ago eating Weightwatchers microwave meals and salad every night for my dinner. Was boring as f**k don't get me wrong, but it worked

lemurcat12 wrote: »

MoiAussi93 wrote: »

The real takeaway, to me, is that what that study might be indicating is that something about that food might cause some effect that makes achieving health goals (whether weight or something else) more difficult for at least some subset of the population.

I agree with this, but what I see as a problem in how some interpret these studies is they take some kind of minor different on average (people who eat low carb lose 6 lbs in 4 months vs. people who eat low fat lose 4 lbs, say) and then assume that means that you must or it's best to eat low carb, even to the point of ignoring that many people here (and maybe even them) lost much more in the same amount of time, following any number of eating plans.

My biggest pet peeve are the ones about meal timing--there are studies that suggest that on average people lose more eating 6 mini meals or eating half their calories in the morning. I certainly believe that on average these things might help people--in other words that some significant subset of people do better (although usually the differences are slight) eating lots of little meals or eating more for breakfast than dinner. However, that does not mean that they help everyone or that any positive effects wouldn't be outweighed by the negatives. (For example, I would be miserable under a 6 mini meal plan and would quit, so even if perfect adherence would make me lose an extra .5 lb/month, which I doubt, it would make adherence impossible.)

But too many people assume that there are numerous complex rules that we must follow (eat mini meals, get rid of "processed" foods, etc.) to lose weight, independent of how they actually feel or react. That's what I think the value is of people saying "I eat microwave meals or drink diet coke and it didn't hurt me."

And back to your point about taking responsibility for eating foods that are satisfying to you...I completely agree. However, eating in a way that is satisfying to you might necessitate not eating certain foods...whether microwave meals, or sugar, or too much fiber. So it just really is not helpful when people constantly tell people seeking advice that it is "bad" to eliminate something from their diet. It might not only not be bad for that person, it might actually be extremely helpful.

I agree with this. I don't think people should assume they have to do something to lose weight, especially something that could make it harder for them (like giving up a food they love or eating 6 mini meals). But I always say if they are interested in trying whether something helps (including giving up a food or going low carb or eating breakfast or whatever), that they should try it. I have given up foods for a time and found that helpful, and I say that too. But that doesn't mean I can't eat those foods and lose, that's the other point I'd want to make. Sometimes people think dieting is way more complicated than it is and that makes it harder for them--majoring in the minors.

I think we're basically on the same page. We seem to agree on the major points and differ mostly on the emphasis. It makes sense that different things will resonate more or less depending on individual experiences.

JoRocka wrote: »

BusyRaeNOTBusty wrote: »

AngryViking1970 wrote: »

And if you eat your microwave meal with a diet soda, you'll get SUPER fat.

That is actually exactly what I am doing right now. Some kind of Elov meal and a Fresca.

I thought i was the only one who still drank Fresca LOL

I agree with whoever said they were satiating.

I can easily eat two and put down a third if I was bored. They just are NOT that filling for 300-500 calories. Pretty much the only reason I won't eat them.

I die for Fresca, SO good!

I'm just going to point out that just because you cannot pronounce a chemical, does not mean it is bad.
Lets not be Food Babe here.

Fiction, the new fact.

999tigger wrote: »

My only concern with them is whats in them, especually high salt content. the second aspect is that they just dont contain enough food to give me satiety. I prefer to cook my own, but I cna see how they are handy assuming the calorie counts are accurate and ofc convenient. Each to their own, but I dont demonise food. No problem eating a good quality chilled/ microwaveable meal.

All valid concerns with most microwave meals, but none of that would make you obese as the article/OP seem to be saying.