Almond milk in recipes

Options
logancsmama
logancsmama Posts: 31 Member
in Food and Nutrition
Last night I made my "Diet banana pudding" I use sugar free vanilla pudding mix, 20g of sliced banana (not too much as to keep the sugar down) and 3 reduced fat Nilla Wafers in the bottom. As I was making it, I thought that I should be doing something to improve the flavor. I used skim milk, and thought about adding a tsp of vanilla or butter extract, maybe banana. When I was all done, I saw the carton of almond milk in the fridge. When I compared the calories, 40 calories for it vs the 90 calories in skim milk. I think next time, I will do myself a huge favor and use the almond milk. I haven't been able to get used to the idea of drinking it, but I bet that would have been really good in my pudding concoction. I've had a tendency to be under on calories a lot lately because I started a new job; so much to do I forget to stop and eat which starts another thread.... body goes to starvation mode, and I begin to store, not lose.

Replies

  • CyberTone
    CyberTone Posts: 7,337 Member
    Options
    If you are using instant pudding mix (and most mixes requiring cooking), almond milk will not allow the pudding to set. The instant pudding mixes require the casein proteins found in dairy (milk, yogurt, kefir) to thicken properly. I tend to use half almond milk and half nonfat unsweetened Greek yogurt to make instant puddings.

    Also, the human body does not go into "starvation mode" in the way you describe it.
    community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/761810/the-starvation-mode-myth-again/p1
  • crystalewhite
    crystalewhite Posts: 422 Member
    Options
    CyberTone wrote: »
    If you are using instant pudding mix (and most mixes requiring cooking), almond milk will not allow the pudding to set. The instant pudding mixes require the casein proteins found in dairy (milk, yogurt, kefir) to thicken properly. I tend to use half almond milk and half nonfat unsweetened Greek yogurt to make instant puddings.



    Thank you, science side of MFP! Good to know.
  • logancsmama
    logancsmama Posts: 31 Member
    Options
    Yes, you are a100% right! (Wish I saw your post before I made my chocolate pudding....soup) I will try that though I am not a greek yogurt fan in the slightest, maybe I can handle it mixed in? Thank you for the great tip!
  • bclarke1990
    bclarke1990 Posts: 287 Member
    edited August 2015
    Options
    logancsmama wrote: »
    Last night I made my "Diet banana pudding" I use sugar free vanilla pudding mix, 20g of sliced banana (not too much as to keep the sugar down) and 3 reduced fat Nilla Wafers in the bottom. As I was making it, I thought that I should be doing something to improve the flavor. I used skim milk, and thought about adding a tsp of vanilla or butter extract, maybe banana. When I was all done, I saw the carton of almond milk in the fridge. When I compared the calories, 40 calories for it vs the 90 calories in skim milk. I think next time, I will do myself a huge favor and use the almond milk. I haven't been able to get used to the idea of drinking it, but I bet that would have been really good in my pudding concoction. I've had a tendency to be under on calories a lot lately because I started a new job; so much to do I forget to stop and eat which starts another thread.... body goes to starvation mode, and I begin to store, not lose.

    Surprised nobody has caught this yet, lol.

    There is no starvation mode. If you're gaining weight you're not eating at a caloric deficit (or holding some water weight)
  • logancsmama
    logancsmama Posts: 31 Member
    Options
    Hmmmm.... well, last year I lost 27 lbs, and then nothing, for 7 weeks, no cheating no nothing and didn't lose one ounce... that couldn't have been water....just relaying to you how my body sometimes betrays me even though I am really trying super hard to keep the faith and not give up. I didn't gain.... I just didn't lose for nearly 2 months. I've stopped losing this week and my calories are under most days by quite a bit....today under by 393. I'm a bit over on fat, but under on everything else. When I don't lose, I start to panic and remember last year and the 7 week no loss. I don't know what happens to me.
  • LKArgh
    LKArgh Posts: 5,179 Member
    Options
    Are you eating like 500 calories on average? Can you see your ribs sticking out? Do you have hair falling off? Do you look like the concentration camp survivors, or the seriously anorexic girls you might have seen in news stories? If no, you are not starving, relax.
  • logancsmama
    logancsmama Posts: 31 Member
    Options
    aggelikik wrote: »
    Are you eating like 500 calories on average? Can you see your ribs sticking out? Do you have hair falling off? Do you look like the concentration camp survivors, or the seriously anorexic girls you might have seen in news stories? If no, you are not starving, relax.
    I didn't mean I was starving, I meant when your body doesn't take enough in, it begins to store what you actually do take in. I'm not sure what the motivation was in your post, but... wow..... I was just talking about plateaus and really trying to avoid one. I'm on 1200 calories a day, and yesterday took in just over 800....I've done that many times over the last couple of weeks because of my new job and many days, took in less than that. One chicken salad per day does not add up to much. Have a great day.
  • logancsmama
    logancsmama Posts: 31 Member
    Options
    I have had a couple of replies to my comment about starvation mode. This is not a myth, I have done my research and have known this for MANY years, thus why I have managed to maintain a comfortable weight for most of my 52 years until health problems began about 3-4 years ago. Please view this article and read several others out there like it that does a better job of what apparently I failed to explain well. http://www.everydayhealth.com/weight/fewer-calories-stalls-metabolism.aspx
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
    Options
    CyberTone wrote: »
    If you are using instant pudding mix (and most mixes requiring cooking), almond milk will not allow the pudding to set. The instant pudding mixes require the casein proteins found in dairy (milk, yogurt, kefir) to thicken properly. I tend to use half almond milk and half nonfat unsweetened Greek yogurt to make instant puddings.

    Also, the human body does not go into "starvation mode" in the way you describe it.
    community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/761810/the-starvation-mode-myth-again/p1

    This ^^

    It should say on the package that milk substitutes should not be used. I don't like the taste of milk but I keep those nifty shelf stable single serving packs of milk around for things such as pudding that require milk.
  • logancsmama
    logancsmama Posts: 31 Member
    Options
    logancsmama wrote: »
    I have had a couple of replies to my comment about starvation mode. This is not a myth, I have done my research and have known this for MANY years, thus why I have managed to maintain a comfortable weight for most of my 52 years until health problems began about 3-4 years ago. Please view this article and read several others out there like it that does a better job of what apparently I failed to explain well. http://www.everydayhealth.com/weight/fewer-calories-stalls-metabolism.aspx
    Here is another article I just read that might explain better what I could not... http://www.everydayhealth.com/weight/can-more-calories-equal-more-weight-loss.aspx

  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
    Options
    logancsmama wrote: »
    logancsmama wrote: »
    I have had a couple of replies to my comment about starvation mode. This is not a myth, I have done my research and have known this for MANY years, thus why I have managed to maintain a comfortable weight for most of my 52 years until health problems began about 3-4 years ago. Please view this article and read several others out there like it that does a better job of what apparently I failed to explain well. http://www.everydayhealth.com/weight/fewer-calories-stalls-metabolism.aspx
    Here is another article I just read that might explain better what I could not... http://www.everydayhealth.com/weight/can-more-calories-equal-more-weight-loss.aspx

    I think most people would agree with the concept but many don't like the term "starvation mode", and because they don't like it, no one should use it.
  • M30834134
    M30834134 Posts: 411 Member
    Options
    bclarke1990 wrote: »
    Surprised nobody has caught this yet, lol.

    There is no starvation mode.

    I beg to differ. "Starvation mode" or "Adaptive Thermogenesis" - call it either way you like, I'm not fan of the labels, but the function does exist.

    Many years ago I tried to lose weight without knowing anything about nutrition, BMR, TDEE, macros and other stuff. I'm 6' tall male was hoping to drop from 230 lb to 200. I ate 1000-1200 calories per day AND run 7 miles 5 times a week, it was so damn hard and exhausting but I did it. I got to 200 in about 7 months, but after that I could NOT lose a single pound. And, anytime I ate over 1400-1500 calories - I gained weight. Eventually, I gave up.
    bclarke1990 wrote: »
    If you're gaining weight you're not eating at a caloric deficit (or holding some water weight)

    So, based on your statement I couldn't lose because I did not eat at a deficit? Hell, No. You could sabotage your weight loss by underfeeding your body.

    So, the function does exist.
  • logancsmama
    logancsmama Posts: 31 Member
    Options
    Need2Exerc1se and MasterVal, Thank you for your responses. When bclarke wrote "there is no starvation mode" I didn't want anyone else who read this thread to actually believe that because I truly know better and obviously the two of you do too. People should do some reading, research, etc before they say something like that and derail people...aggeelikik and those hateful comments were over the top! I thought we were all here to support each other and learn from each other...at least that's why I'm here and so far I'm losing well. Both my sons are personal trainers, and though we live far apart, my oldest is VERY good about checking in every Sunday on my progress and he makes the adjustments based on how I feel and how I'm losing. People who are uncomfortable with the term "starvation mode" (just a layman's term) are more than welcome to use ""Adaptive Thermogenesis" If there is someone who doesn't like my description of what my body does when I take in too few calories for too long, well, I'm sorry...it's just how "MY" body reacts, which may not be the way yours does. Please feel free to look at my food diary and then my progress so you can see exactly what I'm saying....the truth is in the stats in black and white. My posts are meant to help others and gather information when I might need a little help. I lost this morning.... its all good!! :)
  • logancsmama
    logancsmama Posts: 31 Member
    Options
    CyberTone wrote: »
    If you are using instant pudding mix (and most mixes requiring cooking), almond milk will not allow the pudding to set. The instant pudding mixes require the casein proteins found in dairy (milk, yogurt, kefir) to thicken properly. I tend to use half almond milk and half nonfat unsweetened Greek yogurt to make instant puddings.

    Also, the human body does not go into "starvation mode" in the way you describe it.
    community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/761810/the-starvation-mode-myth-again/p1
    I actually read the article you posted. I understand peer reviewed articles and statistics (very well) and the conditions she describes are not what I'm saying.... although, she does in a way support my point. If you look at my food diary and at the bottom my caloric intake for the last month... it's been between 593 & on rare days just over 900...most days fall somewhere in the middle of that. Every day I try to do a little better, and most days it says "You are likely not taking in enough calories." My "bad" has been logging every calorie only to see a deficit at the end of the day and try to cram those in and .....that's not working! :) Balance is what I seek! Few enough calories to lose, but enough calories to lose in a healthy, maintainable way without losing muscle mass. My son said something many years ago that really stuck with me, "Lean muscle mass is to fat as sandpaper is to wood." I REALLY need to work on the lean muscle mass. My job many days is VERY physical, and on those days, I'm so tired I don't force myself to exercise but I'm finding my balance. I've been at this about 2 1/2 months with 90 lbs to lose and I'm 34 lbs down, so I'm just trying to "work the bugs out" of my plan in order to be successful, which is how this thread started....trying to find a way to lower calories on pudding so I got calories, but didn't go over on fat, sodium, or sugar.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    logancsmama wrote: »
    logancsmama wrote: »
    I have had a couple of replies to my comment about starvation mode. This is not a myth, I have done my research and have known this for MANY years, thus why I have managed to maintain a comfortable weight for most of my 52 years until health problems began about 3-4 years ago. Please view this article and read several others out there like it that does a better job of what apparently I failed to explain well. http://www.everydayhealth.com/weight/fewer-calories-stalls-metabolism.aspx
    Here is another article I just read that might explain better what I could not... http://www.everydayhealth.com/weight/can-more-calories-equal-more-weight-loss.aspx

    I think most people would agree with the concept but many don't like the term "starvation mode", and because they don't like it, no one should use it.

    I don't think it's the term so much as the fact that people who use it invariably claim that if you eat too few calories the body begins to "store" or "put on" fat and you don't lose. That's not the same as metabolic adaptation, which means that your metabolism slows somewhat so that your maintenance calories go down. The result of metabolic adaptation is that you would lose at a slower rate, not that you lose down to, say, 1200 and then magically start putting on weight if you eat less.

    It's bad to eat too few calories for lots of reasons, but not because your body starts storing fat.
  • logancsmama
    logancsmama Posts: 31 Member
    Options
    Wow! I can see there are certainly 2 sides to the starvation mode debate! I agree with it because by whatever name, my body has done it....for like, oh, over 30 years? (Had my first child at 21...been battling every since) I really have enjoyed all the view points and great information everyone has shared. This is a really smart group! Hope you all are losing and maintaining well... I"m still a bit...stuck... what have I changed? Well... um.... Red meat... otherwise... nothing... I'm so SICK of chicken and salads I could just die! :) lol I did actually buy some slim fast last night, so at least I would take in something to keep my metabolism going throughout the day, and keep my protein up so I'm not sluggish. Dr. Oz did a show one day that illustrated so beautifully the body as a furnace and how it works with food to create our metabolism...wish I could post it here.... as I write this, I only have 15 sugar grams left to use, am over on fat, and under by over 400 calories... it's the balancing the levels that is giving me such a hard time.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    logancsmama wrote: »
    logancsmama wrote: »
    I have had a couple of replies to my comment about starvation mode. This is not a myth, I have done my research and have known this for MANY years, thus why I have managed to maintain a comfortable weight for most of my 52 years until health problems began about 3-4 years ago. Please view this article and read several others out there like it that does a better job of what apparently I failed to explain well. http://www.everydayhealth.com/weight/fewer-calories-stalls-metabolism.aspx
    Here is another article I just read that might explain better what I could not... http://www.everydayhealth.com/weight/can-more-calories-equal-more-weight-loss.aspx

    I think most people would agree with the concept but many don't like the term "starvation mode", and because they don't like it, no one should use it.

    I don't think it's the term so much as the fact that people who use it invariably claim that if you eat too few calories the body begins to "store" or "put on" fat and you don't lose. That's not the same as metabolic adaptation, which means that your metabolism slows somewhat so that your maintenance calories go down. The result of metabolic adaptation is that you would lose at a slower rate, not that you lose down to, say, 1200 and then magically start putting on weight if you eat less.

    It's bad to eat too few calories for lots of reasons, but not because your body starts storing fat.

    I am aware some people misunderstand the concept. I choose not to assume that everyone misunderstands it.

Categories