What are your go to "free foods"
Options
Replies
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »For all of those who are saying "But everything has calories except water" - I don't think the idea was for things that literally have no calories, but for ideas of foods that have nearly zero calories. For some of us volume eaters, those foods make a huge difference. There is an enormous calorie difference between eating 36 oz. of peanut butter vs. eating 2 gallons of pickles. Yes, pickles have calories, but it is so close to zero that eating in large quantities when hungry is rarely going to put someone over their calories goals unless they are already at or above their daily limit.
I'm pretty sure these types of foods with very low calorie content for high volumes of food is what OP is looking for.
Uh, 2 gallons of pickles is around 450-500 cals. That's hardly zero and a large quantity could easily put someone over their daily calorie limit if they make the mistake of thinking 'they are so close to zero'. And I'm pretty sure no one needs the ~60,000 mg of sodium that goes along with that.
It is much better than 6K calories of peanut butter... which would you choose if you were trying to lose weight and were hangry?
The pickles I have right now are about 32K mg of sodium for 2 gallons.
Sure it's better than eating 6k cals of peanut butter, but the point is you are being misleading by saying you can eat a large volume for virtually no calories or that said large volume is unlikely to put anyone over their calorie goals.
Fair enough - it depends on how close one is to their calorie goal at that point. The alternative noted is going to put nearly everyone over their calorie goal.
But no reasonably rational/sane person is going to sit down and eat 36 oz. of peanut butter, so it's pretty much a moot point. Although one could argue that eating 2 gallons of pickles would tend to fall in the same category.3 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »For all of those who are saying "But everything has calories except water" - I don't think the idea was for things that literally have no calories, but for ideas of foods that have nearly zero calories. For some of us volume eaters, those foods make a huge difference. There is an enormous calorie difference between eating 36 oz. of peanut butter vs. eating 2 gallons of pickles. Yes, pickles have calories, but it is so close to zero that eating in large quantities when hungry is rarely going to put someone over their calories goals unless they are already at or above their daily limit.
I'm pretty sure these types of foods with very low calorie content for high volumes of food is what OP is looking for.
Uh, 2 gallons of pickles is around 450-500 cals. That's hardly zero and a large quantity could easily put someone over their daily calorie limit if they make the mistake of thinking 'they are so close to zero'. And I'm pretty sure no one needs the ~60,000 mg of sodium that goes along with that.
It is much better than 6K calories of peanut butter... which would you choose if you were trying to lose weight and were hangry?
The pickles I have right now are about 32K mg of sodium for 2 gallons.
Sure it's better than eating 6k cals of peanut butter, but the point is you are being misleading by saying you can eat a large volume for virtually no calories or that said large volume is unlikely to put anyone over their calorie goals.
Fair enough - it depends on how close one is to their calorie goal at that point. The alternative noted is going to put nearly everyone over their calorie goal.
But no reasonably rational/sane person is going to sit down and eat 36 oz. of peanut butter, so it's pretty much a moot point. Although one could argue that eating 2 gallons of pickles would tend to fall in the same category.
Holy crap, that's a kilogram of peanut butter. I didn't get the oz measurement. Thats... disordered.3 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »For all of those who are saying "But everything has calories except water" - I don't think the idea was for things that literally have no calories, but for ideas of foods that have nearly zero calories. For some of us volume eaters, those foods make a huge difference. There is an enormous calorie difference between eating 36 oz. of peanut butter vs. eating 2 gallons of pickles. Yes, pickles have calories, but it is so close to zero that eating in large quantities when hungry is rarely going to put someone over their calories goals unless they are already at or above their daily limit.
I'm pretty sure these types of foods with very low calorie content for high volumes of food is what OP is looking for.
Uh, 2 gallons of pickles is around 450-500 cals. That's hardly zero and a large quantity could easily put someone over their daily calorie limit if they make the mistake of thinking 'they are so close to zero'. And I'm pretty sure no one needs the ~60,000 mg of sodium that goes along with that.
It is much better than 6K calories of peanut butter... which would you choose if you were trying to lose weight and were hangry?
The pickles I have right now are about 32K mg of sodium for 2 gallons.
Sure it's better than eating 6k cals of peanut butter, but the point is you are being misleading by saying you can eat a large volume for virtually no calories or that said large volume is unlikely to put anyone over their calorie goals.
Fair enough - it depends on how close one is to their calorie goal at that point. The alternative noted is going to put nearly everyone over their calorie goal.
But no reasonably rational/sane person is going to sit down and eat 36 oz. of peanut butter, so it's pretty much a moot point. Although one could argue that eating 2 gallons of pickles would tend to fall in the same category.
Really?! Did you miss where I mentioned I've done exactly that?0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »For all of those who are saying "But everything has calories except water" - I don't think the idea was for things that literally have no calories, but for ideas of foods that have nearly zero calories. For some of us volume eaters, those foods make a huge difference. There is an enormous calorie difference between eating 36 oz. of peanut butter vs. eating 2 gallons of pickles. Yes, pickles have calories, but it is so close to zero that eating in large quantities when hungry is rarely going to put someone over their calories goals unless they are already at or above their daily limit.
I'm pretty sure these types of foods with very low calorie content for high volumes of food is what OP is looking for.
Uh, 2 gallons of pickles is around 450-500 cals. That's hardly zero and a large quantity could easily put someone over their daily calorie limit if they make the mistake of thinking 'they are so close to zero'. And I'm pretty sure no one needs the ~60,000 mg of sodium that goes along with that.
It is much better than 6K calories of peanut butter... which would you choose if you were trying to lose weight and were hangry?
The pickles I have right now are about 32K mg of sodium for 2 gallons.
Sure it's better than eating 6k cals of peanut butter, but the point is you are being misleading by saying you can eat a large volume for virtually no calories or that said large volume is unlikely to put anyone over their calorie goals.
Fair enough - it depends on how close one is to their calorie goal at that point. The alternative noted is going to put nearly everyone over their calorie goal.
But no reasonably rational/sane person is going to sit down and eat 36 oz. of peanut butter, so it's pretty much a moot point. Although one could argue that eating 2 gallons of pickles would tend to fall in the same category.
Really?! Did you miss where I mentioned I've done exactly that?
Nope.5 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »FTR, I have also eaten 36 oz. of peanut butter in a single sitting. Some of us have an appetite that takes a lot to fill. I'm pretty sure OP is asking for ideas to fill that appetite with a low calorie:satiety ratio. It's OK if you don't understand what it is like to be hungry all the time without eating a lot of food.
Where I come from, people who eat ~6,000 calories of peanut butter in one sitting are called binge eaters. Have you ever been diagnosed with BED?4 -
CafeRacer808 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »FTR, I have also eaten 36 oz. of peanut butter in a single sitting. Some of us have an appetite that takes a lot to fill. I'm pretty sure OP is asking for ideas to fill that appetite with a low calorie:satiety ratio. It's OK if you don't understand what it is like to be hungry all the time without eating a lot of food.
Where I come from, people who eat ~6,000 calories of peanut butter in one sitting are called binge eaters. Have you ever been diagnosed with BED?
No, and I just looked up the criteria for a binge eating disorder and not a single one of these applies to me:The binge eating episodes are associated with three (or more) of the following:
Eating much more rapidly than normal.
Eating until feeling uncomfortably full.
Eating large amounts of food when not feeling physically hungry.
Eating alone because of feeling embarrassed by how much one is eating.
Feeling disgusted with oneself, depressed, or very guilty afterward.
https://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/binge-eating-disorder0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »CafeRacer808 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »FTR, I have also eaten 36 oz. of peanut butter in a single sitting. Some of us have an appetite that takes a lot to fill. I'm pretty sure OP is asking for ideas to fill that appetite with a low calorie:satiety ratio. It's OK if you don't understand what it is like to be hungry all the time without eating a lot of food.
Where I come from, people who eat ~6,000 calories of peanut butter in one sitting are called binge eaters. Have you ever been diagnosed with BED?
No, and I just looked up the criteria for a binge eating disorder and not a single one of these applies to me:The binge eating episodes are associated with three (or more) of the following:
Eating much more rapidly than normal.
Eating until feeling uncomfortably full.
Eating large amounts of food when not feeling physically hungry.
Eating alone because of feeling embarrassed by how much one is eating.
Feeling disgusted with oneself, depressed, or very guilty afterward.
https://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/binge-eating-disorder
Do you really not get that the vast majority of people do not eat the volumes of food you claim to? That it is actually not normal behaviour?2 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »CafeRacer808 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »FTR, I have also eaten 36 oz. of peanut butter in a single sitting. Some of us have an appetite that takes a lot to fill. I'm pretty sure OP is asking for ideas to fill that appetite with a low calorie:satiety ratio. It's OK if you don't understand what it is like to be hungry all the time without eating a lot of food.
Where I come from, people who eat ~6,000 calories of peanut butter in one sitting are called binge eaters. Have you ever been diagnosed with BED?
No, and I just looked up the criteria for a binge eating disorder and not a single one of these applies to me:The binge eating episodes are associated with three (or more) of the following:
Eating much more rapidly than normal.
Eating until feeling uncomfortably full.
Eating large amounts of food when not feeling physically hungry.
Eating alone because of feeling embarrassed by how much one is eating.
Feeling disgusted with oneself, depressed, or very guilty afterward.
https://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/binge-eating-disorder
Do you really not get that the vast majority of people do not eat the volumes of food you claim to? That it is actually not normal behaviour?
I understand that. I also do not believe I'm the only one, even if I'm in the minority. It looks to me like OP is looking for solutions to a similar struggle - insatiable appetite, but not a lot of calories left to fill that usually. Do you not get that I'm offering suggestions because I've been there?0 -
My go-to low calorie foods are tea, coffee, sugar free jello, cucumbers and pickles, lettuce, raw cauliflower (love the crunch), diet drinks (I go through phases with these), various light soups broths and bouillons, various salad greens. Sometimes I also use bamboo shoots when I can find them, but sadly I don't find them often.0
-
Oh please. It's more than a bit of a stretch to assume that someone asking about low cal snacking options is putting away 2 gallons of pickles in a sitting, or wanting to. She said absolutely nothing about insatiable appetite.2
-
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Oh please. It's more than a bit of a stretch to assume that someone asking about low cal snacking options is putting away 2 gallons of pickles in a sitting, or wanting to. She said absolutely nothing about insatiable appetite.
And yet OP absolutely mentioned wanting to control her sodium intake. How is eating 32 oz of peanut butter or 2 gallons of pickles in one sitting even remotely relevant?6 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Oh please. It's more than a bit of a stretch to assume that someone asking about low cal snacking options is putting away 2 gallons of pickles in a sitting, or wanting to. She said absolutely nothing about insatiable appetite.
Her words were "rough patch." I'm not sure what her threshold is... perhaps it is less than mine or perhaps it is more. Her specific appetite compared to mine isn't really the point - she can use my suggestion to whatever extent works for her. I'm not sure why you continue to derail this thread, but I'm not going to be a part of that... good luck!0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Susieq_1994 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »If I have cravings but few calories left, I drink herbal tea. So-called "free" foods still have calories and can add up really fast if you're a small person with a small deficit, as I am. Keep in mind that FDA guidelines allow manufacturers to call products "zero calorie" if they have fewer than 5 calories per serving. Since I have such a small deficit, I even log Splenda if I put some in my tea. (The Splenda website states that it's called "zero calorie" due to that FDA loophole. So I log a packet as 5 calories.)
I switched to liquid sucralose ages ago and haven't looked back. I've been getting it from Amazon for a couple of years now. Before I switched, I too logged my splenda. Just so you know, the exact count per gram of Splenda is 3 calories.
I said upthread that I drink herbal tea with liquid sucralose, and that is truly a free food. Some flavors get a small 10 calorie splash of milk. I can fit those into my day too. I have a ridiculous stash of tea!
Whoa. This actually shocked me. Splenda has only 1 calorie less than sugar per gram?! I'd rather have sugar!
There's a difference in sweetening power per gram, though. A gram of splenda sweetens like 4 grams of sugar.
This can make a difference if you're using the powdered stuff and need it for bulk in cooking.
If you're just using it to sweeten beverages or yogurt or cottage cheese, it's worth it to get the liquid and have zero calories. The brand I get even includes handy little travel size bottles with your order.
Ahhh, right. I forgot about that for a minute there, silly me. Thanks for the reminder! I use a mixture of Stevia and Splenda and it's 6 calories per 2.5 grams (equivalent to 2 tsp of sugar in sweetness) and I log that.0 -
chocolate pudding!
But i restrain myself to just one portion for like 170 cal.
I'm assuming "rough patch" means emotional stress. Chocolate always helps
0 -
Any green vegetable.0
-
-
When I feel like something sweet and am out of wiggle room for the day, I chew sugar-free gum. Bursting with flavour and keeps my mouth busy, too.
My favourite is "5" Winterfresh flavour. Not too spicy and the taste lasts a good long time. 1 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »When I feel like something sweet and am out of wiggle room for the day, I chew sugar-free gum. Bursting with flavour and keeps my mouth busy, too.
My favourite is "5" Winterfresh flavour. Not too spicy and the taste lasts a good long time.
I have quite a collection of 5 gums. All of their flavors are nice and long lasting. It's my favorite brand by far.0 -
What do you mean by "free food"? Are you on Slimming World or Weight Watchers or something?
If "free" means you don't pay for it, I mainly get that from my mum's house. She does huge portions but always loads of vegetables. And love! And homemade.
If you're on about low calorie then I guess I've just tried to lower everything I eat. I've cut loads of wine out (it was nightly 250ml), I'm having just banana or grapefruit or a smoothie at breakfast, try to snack on clementines or whatever instead of the previous bowls of cereal.
What are using the "free food" for? Hungry? Bored? Need to snack constantly? I drink a lot of tea.0 -
My favorite low calorie snack and it's filling is mushrooms, remove the caps and add laughing cow cheese. You can get 3 mushrooms and only use 1 wedge of laughing cow cheese. I baked them a little in the toaster oven to make it all soft and gooey!! DELICIOUS! I am loving all the lower calorie ideas.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 938 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions