Hound needs new home!

Options
2»

Replies

  • shabaity
    shabaity Posts: 792 Member
    Options
    I've always eaten a single pouch being well aware it's 2 servings even now but usually I use em to make a cheap spaghetti or boil in leftover chicken and some veggies. Made a nice cube steak parm thing today out of em.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    Back in the day I used to eat the heck out of Vigo black bean and rice. One serving was 190 calories, and there were 4 servings per bag, and I'd eat half a bag (or 380 cals), but since it would be my whole meal (sometimes I would add non starchy veg or a little feta), I figured that was quite reasonable.
  • blankiefinder
    blankiefinder Posts: 3,599 Member
    Options
    Kalikel wrote: »
    Do you think you should've gained more?

    What I don't get is that many people overeat and don't gain more than they do. If the math is accurate, I know someone who should be gaining a pound a day.

    She's 5'5" and 350. She's is FAT. But she's not as fat as the math says she should be. I didn't get as fat as the math would suggest I should've, either.

    Anorexics don't lose as much as the math would suggest they should. They get very skinny and sometimes die. They LOSE. But they don't lose as much as the math would suggest they should. It takes much longer for them to die than one would think, doing math.

    I am convinced there is more to it than X number of calories = X number of pounds.

    Obviously BMR is at play. It is very well known that if the body is starving, your metabolism will slow down. This is where the often referenced (usually wrongly) starvation mode comes from. Your metabolism slows down and lowers your BMR but you still continue to lose until you die. That doesn't mean that the number of calories deficit needed to lose a pound changes, it means that the BMR part of the equation has changed so the deficit is not as large as it would be for a normal person.

    As to your 'FAT' friend, obviously you are either overestimating her intake, or underestimating her BMR (which could be affected by either her activity level or her muscle mass). Lots of people guess other people's equations (or their own) wrong. I certainly know people who insisted they shouldn't be as big as they are, because they 'eat way less than me' but then when we are together, they are having donuts, pops, etc, while I have water and fruit. I can eat a whole lot of fruit for that one donut. PS I have no issue with someone choosing to eat a donut if it fits their macros, but don't eat a steady diet of them without logging, and then complain that you're gaining.

    TL/DR CICO is accurate, it's the human error of estimating BMR part of equation as well as the CI and CO that can be an issue.
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    Options
    Kalikel wrote: »
    Do you think you should've gained more?

    What I don't get is that many people overeat and don't gain more than they do. If the math is accurate, I know someone who should be gaining a pound a day.

    She's 5'5" and 350. She's is FAT. But she's not as fat as the math says she should be. I didn't get as fat as the math would suggest I should've, either.

    Anorexics don't lose as much as the math would suggest they should. They get very skinny and sometimes die. They LOSE. But they don't lose as much as the math would suggest they should. It takes much longer for them to die than one would think, doing math.

    I am convinced there is more to it than X number of calories = X number of pounds.

    I don't understand what you're saying here.
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    Options
    jsmestflowers wrote: »
    So one of my favorite things to do was cook up 2 packages of Ramen noodles and cut some sausage up in it. I am telling you that I had this particular dish for lunch a lot. So despite the fact that I knew it was gluttony and I was not going to do it again I looked it up. Of course it was way off the hook in the amount of cals it had, I expected that. But what came as a surprise to me was that one package of Ramen noodles is actually considered 2 servings! That was shocking to me, cause I can tell you honestly I have never halved a package of Ramen noodles in my life. :)
    So in actuality I was totally eating 4 helpings of Ramen and a big ol sausage everyday for lunch..LOL no wonder I gained a lot of weight, that is more calories than I am allowed now all day! Well my 2 Ramen days are in the past now, as glorious as they may have been. One of the things that I have really been discovering is how damn much I really was eating...man...I was a regular chow hound. But like they say every dog has its day, guess I will have to kennel that hound and let the picky kitty out :)
    So it anyone is looking for a chow hound you can have mine, I promise he will eat well.

    To your success!
    J

    I like your attitude.

    I remember being shocked as well with other foods and learning the package was two servings and not just one. :)
  • hortensehildegarde
    hortensehildegarde Posts: 592 Member
    Options
    Kalikel wrote: »

    She's 5'5" and 350. She's is FAT. But she's not as fat as the math says she should be. I didn't get as fat as the math would suggest I should've, either.

    .

    I think this just means we don't realize how many calories it takes to lug around 100-200 extra lbs of weight for Every. Single. Activity. of every day. The calculators are known crap. Fact is it's a lot of work to carry around that much extra weight to do everything.

    OP kudos to you for having the benefit of a life where you ever didn't know that ramen was 2 serving per package. I don't remember ever not knowing that. (Oh the joys of having a mother with weight issues!) Seriously though- appreciate your ignorance, it's a gift to be able to realize you just had zero clue how many calories you were eating, versus knowing full well you were eating 6k calories a day and still doing it anyway :)

    Glad you have released your hound!
  • Machka9
    Machka9 Posts: 25,180 Member
    edited September 2015
    Options
    When you say ramen noodles ... are you talking about these things?

    http://www.indomie.co.nz/products
    http://www.indomie.co.nz/getattachment/d36c7915-721e-4b43-b48e-1de060e7aafe/.aspx

    Oriental instant noodles?

    Because their packaging says: "Servings per package: 1" and gives a calorie count of 420 cal.


    .aspx
  • VykkDraygoVPR
    VykkDraygoVPR Posts: 465 Member
    Options
    Machka9 wrote: »
    When you say ramen noodles ... are you talking about these things?

    http://www.indomie.co.nz/products

    Oriental instant noodles?

    Because their packaging says: "Servings per package: 1" and gives a calorie count of 420 cal.

    Assuming he's in the US, probably Maruchan, or Top Ramen.
  • Venus_Red
    Venus_Red Posts: 209 Member
    Options
    Machka9 wrote: »
    When you say ramen noodles ... are you talking about these things?

    http://www.indomie.co.nz/products
    http://www.indomie.co.nz/getattachment/d36c7915-721e-4b43-b48e-1de060e7aafe/.aspx

    Oriental instant noodles?

    Because their packaging says: "Servings per package: 1" and gives a calorie count of 420 cal.


    .aspx

    It is Ramen but I also think he totally realizes it said Serving Size - 1....now. He just didn't at the time.
  • jsmestflowers
    jsmestflowers Posts: 52 Member
    Options
    LOL thanks all! Especially to the kind person that send me a substitute Ramen recipe. Am in the US, it gave calorie count and for one serving and them said the package contained 2 servings (a lot of thing do that). I especially appreciate the ignorance is bliss comment, thanks for that as well I totally get what you are saying.

Categories