Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
'low calorie' food
Replies
-
pebble4321 wrote: »mangamadayan wrote: »Low fat yogurt tastes like *kitten*
That depends on the brand and your personal taste.
This is my favourite yoghurt - I eat it on it's own as a snack and it tastes creamy and decadent for under 100 cals for 100g:
I wouldn't expect 100 cals of any yoghurt to keep me full all morning though, but then I don't think 100 cals of porridge would either
Regarding low calorie foods - I think the get the point of the original post.
It's easy to start seeing calories as the enemy and forget that a calorie is a measurement of energy, and something that is essential to staying alive. Looking for low cal foods at the expense of satiety and enjoyment is not something that's every going to be sustainable, and quite often not enjoyable.
I'm really glad someone got my post 100%1 -
How much is 1 serving of the porridge? It seems you're getting more than a single serving even using whole milk.
If you stuck to 1 serving would you still be held over until lunch? Or if you had a more comparable level of calories of yogurt? Either comparison would be a bit more useful.
Based on what I have and guessing on what OP eats, 170 cals for the oats (44 g) and 160 cals for whole milk (250 mL). Guessing OP is eating at least 2 servings of steel-cut oats with a cup or so of whole milk and that's just if those 2 items are all that's in his oatmeal. Me, if I had 600 cals to play with for breakfast, I wouldn't "waste" them on cooked oatmeal with milk.
That's because you're not bulking lol0 -
My porridge with soya milk, banana, pineapple & chia seeds 300 calories.0
-
robs_ready wrote: »I agree to an extent. I prefer the low fat versions of some things as I'd rather spend my calories elsewhere. Low fat doesn't equal high sugar in all cases. Other than that, yep, agree with OP although his strategy is most certainly not the only strategy.
This is also true, I was referring more to misleading producing thats that boast 'low fat'. A lot of these products are misleading as they often contain high sugar
How is a label of "low fat" misleading if the food contains high sugar? Seems like it would only be misleading if it said "low sugar" or it contained a lot of fat. I don't think we should hold food industry labeling accountable for our own laziness or ignorance if we choose not to read the label and see the sugar content.4 -
robs_ready wrote: »I agree to an extent. I prefer the low fat versions of some things as I'd rather spend my calories elsewhere. Low fat doesn't equal high sugar in all cases. Other than that, yep, agree with OP although his strategy is most certainly not the only strategy.
This is also true, I was referring more to misleading producing thats that boast 'low fat'. A lot of these products are misleading as they often contain high sugar
That's not the case with greek yogurt (your example). I recently posted this in another thread:
Taking the numbers from the Fage nutrition labels:
The non low fat version sold here is 200 g, 190 calories, 18 g protein, 8 g sugar.
The 2% is 200 g, 150 calories, 20 g protein, 8 g sugar.
The non fat is smaller by weight (same size container), so 170 g, 100 calories, 18 g protein, 7 g sugar. Even if you converted it to 200 g, you'd get 8.2 g of sugar (which would be 8 on the label here), so no more than in the whole milk variety.
100 g of 1% cottage cheese has less than 3 grams of sugar.
I don't personally drink milk or use it in oatmeal (and have experimented with full fat and don't find it any more filling than skim -- none of it is filling to me). However, relevant numbers:
USDA has both skim and whole milk with about 12 g of sugar in a cup. I checked the whole milk from a farm I used to buy, and it looks like a cup had about 11 g of sugar.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »robs_ready wrote: »I agree to an extent. I prefer the low fat versions of some things as I'd rather spend my calories elsewhere. Low fat doesn't equal high sugar in all cases. Other than that, yep, agree with OP although his strategy is most certainly not the only strategy.
This is also true, I was referring more to misleading producing thats that boast 'low fat'. A lot of these products are misleading as they often contain high sugar
How is a label of "low fat" misleading if the food contains high sugar? Seems like it would only be misleading if it said "low sugar" or it contained a lot of fat. I don't think we should hold food industry labeling accountable for our own laziness or ignorance if we choose not to read the label and see the sugar content.
Because the industry mislead the public into believing low fat is healthy, when in fact, it's not necessarily.0 -
robs_ready wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »robs_ready wrote: »I agree to an extent. I prefer the low fat versions of some things as I'd rather spend my calories elsewhere. Low fat doesn't equal high sugar in all cases. Other than that, yep, agree with OP although his strategy is most certainly not the only strategy.
This is also true, I was referring more to misleading producing thats that boast 'low fat'. A lot of these products are misleading as they often contain high sugar
How is a label of "low fat" misleading if the food contains high sugar? Seems like it would only be misleading if it said "low sugar" or it contained a lot of fat. I don't think we should hold food industry labeling accountable for our own laziness or ignorance if we choose not to read the label and see the sugar content.
Because the industry mislead the public into believing low fat is healthy, when in fact, it's not necessarily.
That... does not make the claim it's low fat misleading if it is indeed low fat.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »robs_ready wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »robs_ready wrote: »I agree to an extent. I prefer the low fat versions of some things as I'd rather spend my calories elsewhere. Low fat doesn't equal high sugar in all cases. Other than that, yep, agree with OP although his strategy is most certainly not the only strategy.
This is also true, I was referring more to misleading producing thats that boast 'low fat'. A lot of these products are misleading as they often contain high sugar
How is a label of "low fat" misleading if the food contains high sugar? Seems like it would only be misleading if it said "low sugar" or it contained a lot of fat. I don't think we should hold food industry labeling accountable for our own laziness or ignorance if we choose not to read the label and see the sugar content.
Because the industry mislead the public into believing low fat is healthy, when in fact, it's not necessarily.
That... does not make the claim it's low fat misleading if it is indeed low fat.
The claim is not misleading, thats not what I'm arguing. I can't argue that a product is low fat, what I'm arguing is that low fat = healthy.0 -
robs_ready wrote: »How much is 1 serving of the porridge? It seems you're getting more than a single serving even using whole milk.
If you stuck to 1 serving would you still be held over until lunch? Or if you had a more comparable level of calories of yogurt? Either comparison would be a bit more useful.
Based on what I have and guessing on what OP eats, 170 cals for the oats (44 g) and 160 cals for whole milk (250 mL). Guessing OP is eating at least 2 servings of steel-cut oats with a cup or so of whole milk and that's just if those 2 items are all that's in his oatmeal. Me, if I had 600 cals to play with for breakfast, I wouldn't "waste" them on cooked oatmeal with milk.
That's because you're not bulking lol
Oh my, I didn't realize a 600 calorie meal is only for those who bulk.
4 -
robs_ready wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »robs_ready wrote: »I agree to an extent. I prefer the low fat versions of some things as I'd rather spend my calories elsewhere. Low fat doesn't equal high sugar in all cases. Other than that, yep, agree with OP although his strategy is most certainly not the only strategy.
This is also true, I was referring more to misleading producing thats that boast 'low fat'. A lot of these products are misleading as they often contain high sugar
How is a label of "low fat" misleading if the food contains high sugar? Seems like it would only be misleading if it said "low sugar" or it contained a lot of fat. I don't think we should hold food industry labeling accountable for our own laziness or ignorance if we choose not to read the label and see the sugar content.
Because the industry mislead the public into believing low fat is healthy, when in fact, it's not necessarily.
High sugar in a single food isn't necessarily unhealthy either. But again, unless the label says "healthy" and there is some reason to believe it's not I don't see how it's misleading.
We have brains. We have no one to blame but ourselves if we choose not to use them.5 -
robs_ready wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »robs_ready wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »robs_ready wrote: »I agree to an extent. I prefer the low fat versions of some things as I'd rather spend my calories elsewhere. Low fat doesn't equal high sugar in all cases. Other than that, yep, agree with OP although his strategy is most certainly not the only strategy.
This is also true, I was referring more to misleading producing thats that boast 'low fat'. A lot of these products are misleading as they often contain high sugar
How is a label of "low fat" misleading if the food contains high sugar? Seems like it would only be misleading if it said "low sugar" or it contained a lot of fat. I don't think we should hold food industry labeling accountable for our own laziness or ignorance if we choose not to read the label and see the sugar content.
Because the industry mislead the public into believing low fat is healthy, when in fact, it's not necessarily.
That... does not make the claim it's low fat misleading if it is indeed low fat.
The claim is not misleading, thats not what I'm arguing. I can't argue that a product is low fat, what I'm arguing is that low fat = healthy.
It can be depending on the food and individual dietary goals. If anyone believes all low fat is automatically more healthful, then that's a failure of nutrition education, not a fault of the food industry.
Edited for clarity.1 -
robs_ready wrote: »How much is 1 serving of the porridge? It seems you're getting more than a single serving even using whole milk.
If you stuck to 1 serving would you still be held over until lunch? Or if you had a more comparable level of calories of yogurt? Either comparison would be a bit more useful.
Based on what I have and guessing on what OP eats, 170 cals for the oats (44 g) and 160 cals for whole milk (250 mL). Guessing OP is eating at least 2 servings of steel-cut oats with a cup or so of whole milk and that's just if those 2 items are all that's in his oatmeal. Me, if I had 600 cals to play with for breakfast, I wouldn't "waste" them on cooked oatmeal with milk.
That's because you're not bulking lol
Oh my, I didn't realize a 600 calorie meal is only for those who bulk.
It's not, lol. My point still remains, you're better off eating a meal that's caloric to avoid overeating during the day.0 -
robs_ready wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »robs_ready wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »robs_ready wrote: »I agree to an extent. I prefer the low fat versions of some things as I'd rather spend my calories elsewhere. Low fat doesn't equal high sugar in all cases. Other than that, yep, agree with OP although his strategy is most certainly not the only strategy.
This is also true, I was referring more to misleading producing thats that boast 'low fat'. A lot of these products are misleading as they often contain high sugar
How is a label of "low fat" misleading if the food contains high sugar? Seems like it would only be misleading if it said "low sugar" or it contained a lot of fat. I don't think we should hold food industry labeling accountable for our own laziness or ignorance if we choose not to read the label and see the sugar content.
Because the industry mislead the public into believing low fat is healthy, when in fact, it's not necessarily.
That... does not make the claim it's low fat misleading if it is indeed low fat.
The claim is not misleading, thats not what I'm arguing. I can't argue that a product is low fat, what I'm arguing is that low fat = healthy.
It can be depending on the food. If anyone believes all low fat is automatically more healthful, then that's a failure of nutrition education, not a fault of the food industry.
That's correct, you'd be surprised how many people equate low fat to healthy though.0 -
robs_ready wrote: »robs_ready wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »robs_ready wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »robs_ready wrote: »I agree to an extent. I prefer the low fat versions of some things as I'd rather spend my calories elsewhere. Low fat doesn't equal high sugar in all cases. Other than that, yep, agree with OP although his strategy is most certainly not the only strategy.
This is also true, I was referring more to misleading producing thats that boast 'low fat'. A lot of these products are misleading as they often contain high sugar
How is a label of "low fat" misleading if the food contains high sugar? Seems like it would only be misleading if it said "low sugar" or it contained a lot of fat. I don't think we should hold food industry labeling accountable for our own laziness or ignorance if we choose not to read the label and see the sugar content.
Because the industry mislead the public into believing low fat is healthy, when in fact, it's not necessarily.
That... does not make the claim it's low fat misleading if it is indeed low fat.
The claim is not misleading, thats not what I'm arguing. I can't argue that a product is low fat, what I'm arguing is that low fat = healthy.
It can be depending on the food. If anyone believes all low fat is automatically more healthful, then that's a failure of nutrition education, not a fault of the food industry.
That's correct, you'd be surprised how many people equate low fat to healthy though.
Yep. There needs to be more education on the matter, not more blame cast on "the industry".0 -
robs_ready wrote: »robs_ready wrote: »How much is 1 serving of the porridge? It seems you're getting more than a single serving even using whole milk.
If you stuck to 1 serving would you still be held over until lunch? Or if you had a more comparable level of calories of yogurt? Either comparison would be a bit more useful.
Based on what I have and guessing on what OP eats, 170 cals for the oats (44 g) and 160 cals for whole milk (250 mL). Guessing OP is eating at least 2 servings of steel-cut oats with a cup or so of whole milk and that's just if those 2 items are all that's in his oatmeal. Me, if I had 600 cals to play with for breakfast, I wouldn't "waste" them on cooked oatmeal with milk.
That's because you're not bulking lol
Oh my, I didn't realize a 600 calorie meal is only for those who bulk.
It's not, lol. My point still remains, you're better off eating a meal that's caloric to avoid overeating during the day.
Nope, I disagree. You might be better off but I am better off if I don't eat anything until I am hungry, which often isn't until well after noon. Eating breakfast typically just makes me want to eat more all day. I do better eating most of my calories at night.5 -
robs_ready wrote: »robs_ready wrote: »How much is 1 serving of the porridge? It seems you're getting more than a single serving even using whole milk.
If you stuck to 1 serving would you still be held over until lunch? Or if you had a more comparable level of calories of yogurt? Either comparison would be a bit more useful.
Based on what I have and guessing on what OP eats, 170 cals for the oats (44 g) and 160 cals for whole milk (250 mL). Guessing OP is eating at least 2 servings of steel-cut oats with a cup or so of whole milk and that's just if those 2 items are all that's in his oatmeal. Me, if I had 600 cals to play with for breakfast, I wouldn't "waste" them on cooked oatmeal with milk.
That's because you're not bulking lol
Oh my, I didn't realize a 600 calorie meal is only for those who bulk.
It's not, lol. My point still remains, you're better off eating a meal that's caloric to avoid overeating during the day.
This depends on one's hunger patterns. If one doesn't tend to overeat later in the day and prefers a smaller breakfast (like lots of people do), then there's no reason to eat a big breakfast. If one enjoys a smaller breakfast (or none at all) and bigger dinner, that's fine.1 -
robs_ready wrote: »robs_ready wrote: »How much is 1 serving of the porridge? It seems you're getting more than a single serving even using whole milk.
If you stuck to 1 serving would you still be held over until lunch? Or if you had a more comparable level of calories of yogurt? Either comparison would be a bit more useful.
Based on what I have and guessing on what OP eats, 170 cals for the oats (44 g) and 160 cals for whole milk (250 mL). Guessing OP is eating at least 2 servings of steel-cut oats with a cup or so of whole milk and that's just if those 2 items are all that's in his oatmeal. Me, if I had 600 cals to play with for breakfast, I wouldn't "waste" them on cooked oatmeal with milk.
That's because you're not bulking lol
Oh my, I didn't realize a 600 calorie meal is only for those who bulk.
It's not, lol. My point still remains, you're better off eating a meal that's caloric to avoid overeating during the day.
Meal size/timing is HIGHLY individualized. I personally do better on a light breakfast and a large lunch, because I tend to work out after work before dinner. Some people find small meals throughout the day work best. Some do IF and it works well for them.2 -
robs_ready wrote: »robs_ready wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »robs_ready wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »robs_ready wrote: »I agree to an extent. I prefer the low fat versions of some things as I'd rather spend my calories elsewhere. Low fat doesn't equal high sugar in all cases. Other than that, yep, agree with OP although his strategy is most certainly not the only strategy.
This is also true, I was referring more to misleading producing thats that boast 'low fat'. A lot of these products are misleading as they often contain high sugar
How is a label of "low fat" misleading if the food contains high sugar? Seems like it would only be misleading if it said "low sugar" or it contained a lot of fat. I don't think we should hold food industry labeling accountable for our own laziness or ignorance if we choose not to read the label and see the sugar content.
Because the industry mislead the public into believing low fat is healthy, when in fact, it's not necessarily.
That... does not make the claim it's low fat misleading if it is indeed low fat.
The claim is not misleading, thats not what I'm arguing. I can't argue that a product is low fat, what I'm arguing is that low fat = healthy.
It can be depending on the food. If anyone believes all low fat is automatically more healthful, then that's a failure of nutrition education, not a fault of the food industry.
That's correct, you'd be surprised how many people equate low fat to healthy though.
Yep. There needs to be more education on the matter, not more blame cast on "the industry".
Yes. It's hardly "the industry." It was the standard line, what everybody knew. I learned it in an exercise physiology class in college in the 80s. What we were taught was that calories rule all, but the best way to keep calories low was to eat lower fat.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 897 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions