Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

'low calorie' food

2»

Replies

  • robs_readyrobs_ready Posts: 1,489Member Member Posts: 1,489Member Member
    pebble4321 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:
    qsfkgsl2mk8u.png

    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%
  • robs_readyrobs_ready Posts: 1,489Member Member Posts: 1,489Member Member
    zyxst wrote: »
    bpetrosky 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
  • fr33sia12fr33sia12 Posts: 1,258Member Member Posts: 1,258Member Member
    My porridge with soya milk, banana, pineapple & chia seeds 300 calories.
  • Need2Exerc1seNeed2Exerc1se Posts: 13,589Member Member Posts: 13,589Member Member
    robs_ready wrote: »
    Hornsby 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.
  • lemurcat12lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886Member Member Posts: 30,886Member Member
    robs_ready wrote: »
    Hornsby 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.
  • robs_readyrobs_ready Posts: 1,489Member Member Posts: 1,489Member Member
    robs_ready wrote: »
    Hornsby 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.
  • stevencloserstevencloser Posts: 8,917Member Member Posts: 8,917Member Member
    robs_ready wrote: »
    robs_ready wrote: »
    Hornsby 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.
  • robs_readyrobs_ready Posts: 1,489Member Member Posts: 1,489Member Member
    robs_ready wrote: »
    robs_ready wrote: »
    Hornsby 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.
  • zyxstzyxst Posts: 9,154Member Member Posts: 9,154Member Member
    robs_ready wrote: »
    zyxst wrote: »
    bpetrosky 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.
    1reosvxtjbqb.gif
  • JaneSnoweJaneSnowe Posts: 1,282Member Member Posts: 1,282Member Member
    robs_ready wrote: »
    robs_ready wrote: »
    robs_ready wrote: »
    Hornsby 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.
    edited May 2016
  • robs_readyrobs_ready Posts: 1,489Member Member Posts: 1,489Member Member
    zyxst wrote: »
    robs_ready wrote: »
    zyxst wrote: »
    bpetrosky 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.
    1reosvxtjbqb.gif

    It's not, lol. My point still remains, you're better off eating a meal that's caloric to avoid overeating during the day.
  • robs_readyrobs_ready Posts: 1,489Member Member Posts: 1,489Member Member
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    robs_ready wrote: »
    robs_ready wrote: »
    robs_ready wrote: »
    Hornsby 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.
  • JaneSnoweJaneSnowe Posts: 1,282Member Member Posts: 1,282Member Member
    robs_ready wrote: »
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    robs_ready wrote: »
    robs_ready wrote: »
    robs_ready wrote: »
    Hornsby 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".
  • lemurcat12lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886Member Member Posts: 30,886Member Member
    robs_ready wrote: »
    zyxst wrote: »
    robs_ready wrote: »
    zyxst wrote: »
    bpetrosky 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.
    1reosvxtjbqb.gif

    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.
    edited May 2016
  • The_EnginerdThe_Enginerd Posts: 3,932Member Member Posts: 3,932Member Member
    robs_ready wrote: »
    zyxst wrote: »
    robs_ready wrote: »
    zyxst wrote: »
    bpetrosky 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.
    1reosvxtjbqb.gif

    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.
  • JruzerJruzer Posts: 3,355Member Member Posts: 3,355Member Member
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    robs_ready wrote: »
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    robs_ready wrote: »
    robs_ready wrote: »
    robs_ready wrote: »
    Hornsby 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.
Sign In or Register to comment.