Coffe options

A good coffee is any that you can fit into your calorie deficit. I usually make my coffee at home w/ just stevia and those little tubs of creamer. But if I am at Starbucks I will get a grande skinny mocha with almond milk for 130 calories. or I get an Americano with Almond milk and 2 pumps of sugarfree cinnamon dolce or vanilla for 130 calories or less. If you stick to more coffee than the other added stuff you'll be fine.

I mean there are tons of coffee options that are pretty low cal. i can go get a coffee with a touch of non fat milk or almond milk and that's easy to fit it. Daily i factor in (i.e. log) a half cup of non fat milk for my coffee and one cup of almond milk for my daily teas.

if i get a latte it's not daily, and i factor it in at the usual 140 cal. But i generally prefer to eat my calories.

you can eat whatever you want and lose weight if you stay in the calorie deficit. but calorie dense foods/drinking calories can lead to feeling much more hungry for some. it's a compromise.

I would guess not too many people are having 150++ calorie lattes DAILY (some there must be a group who loves their latte's that much but not a ton)

ashsabiha wrote: »

I know people can drink coffee and lattes while losing weight but my question is what kind of coffee and latte can we have ? Because some Starbucks and McDonald’s coffee and lattes are mixed with sugar and calories. Sometimes i get a sugar free vanilla iced coffee from McDonald’s which is around 120 cals for a small is that a good option ? Also i don’t like black coffee if you have any good tasty but healthy coffee options you have please suggest !!

Coffee is like <10 calories. It's what you add to it that makes it a potential calorie bomb. Sweetener comes in a variety of options - you can decide whether you prefer artifical sweetener or prefer to spend the calories for sugar. Milk/cream also comes in a variety of fat levels from skim milk to half & half to heavy cream - again your choice. Some places will have things like cinnamon or a variety of low/non-calorie SF flavor syrups you can add. Commercial creamers and blends used by shops will have a variety of calorie content and macros. Pretty much anywhere will at least let you specify how many sugars/sweetener packets/creamer tubs (usually half&half) to add.

That sugar-free iced coffee is adding about 110 calories of probably mostly fat mixed with some carbs (not bad, per se, - you get to choose whether it's worth it to you/where you'd prefer to get your calories from. Maybe you'd rather get it with skim milk or less milk and save some fat calories for ice cream. Maybe you really like it, and consider it worth it.

Like others have said you can drink and coffee if it’s within your calorie deficit. My only concern is sugar. Also I buy instant coffee at home so I have the control to the amount of sugar and cream I put into my coffee.

I drink my coffee with flavored hazelnut creamer. I’m willing to give up/restrict alcohol but I am NOT willing to change my morning coffee. If I do, I’d be in jail.

Love my daily lattes! And they help with my calcium intake. I don’t seem to have trouble budgeting for them, but I’m reasonably active

FYI

If you like espresso drinks and there's a Whole Foods nearby, try their coffee bar. Half the price of Starbucks (16 oz triple) and consistently better.

ashsabiha wrote: »

NovusDies wrote: »

ashsabiha wrote: »

NovusDies wrote: »

ashsabiha wrote: »

NovusDies wrote: »

Where you spend your calories and how much you spend is completely up to you. No one can tell you if it is a good option or not because they are not you. It is a matter of personal preference and calorie budgeting.

So i can even have unhealthy foods as long it fits my calorie budget ?

Most definitely. Be careful with the term "unhealthy" though because most foods have nutrients that we need to eat.

Calories do not differ from one food to the next.

The trick is sustainability. If you eat high caloric food that doesn't fill you up enough you may struggle. What you need is to figure out your personal balance between foods you find filling and treat foods.

Thank youu so much for explaining !!! I am pretty new to this and a lot of people say different stuff but your explanation seems legit and logical

It is very common to think that there is "diet" food. I thought that myself for a long time and it caused many weight loss attempts to fail for me.

There are many helpful threads pinned to the top of this forum. They can help dispel other diet myths as well as help you understand how to log your food correctly and scale weight fluctuations that can cause many people problems as they once did me.

Most of the confusion comes from people who tell you to avoid a lot of foods while losing weight mostly carbs are told to be avoided , to only eat veggies , and fruits and salads that’s what society always showed you should be eating if you are trying to be fit. Mean while in my fitness pal people are pretty supportive of eating what ever as long as it fits your calorie deficit which confuses me because a lot of people all over youtube and online are making it seem like having foods that are unhealthier within your calorie deficit can sabotage your weight loss. I once had a doctor who even told me to avoid orange juice or bread or rice i don’t get why we are told to do that ?

I think the idea is that there are many foods that are fairly calorie dense. These are generally what we think of as "unhealthy" foods. Therefore by swapping these calorie dense foods (or foods that have more calories than you think) for lighter alternatives, you're reducing the amount of calories you're consuming as a whole.

I think many people find it easier to stick for a set of rules in hope for a quick fix. Most people want results yesterday and are happy to be miserable, eating food they don't like, and essentially starving themselves because they think that it's only going to be for the short term and once they're their goal weight they can eat all those foods that they've been depriving themselves of (which of course is how they gained all that weight in the first place, so obviously they're just going to gain all that weight back).

Another reason why people say eating "bad" foods can derail the process is because we have a habit of getting an emotional attachment to food, especially when we label them good and bad. We eat a "bad" food, and then they've ruined that day, so they might as well eat more "bad" food because it doesn't matter and we'll start again tomorrow. And then you binge and you feel terrible the next day, and because you feel terrible you eat "badly" and then you think "screw this week, it's ruined now. I'll start again on Monday" And then you binge for the rest of the week, feel terrible and feeling like a failure. And that doesn't really help anyone does it.

So the reason lots of people here advocate the: there are no bad food, enjoy what you want in moderation. Is because it removes this emotional attachment. So you ate an enormous slice of cake which was 500 calories that you hadn't planned for, so what? Yes you've gone over your target, but accepting it lets you limit any damage that might come from spiraling. And you've probably only pushed the date of reaching your goal weight back by, what, one day? Honestly, if it was a damn good cake I think that only one day is a pretty good trade off (which is why my weight loss has been slower than I initially planned)

Something else to consider is the fact that the diet industry relies on the fact that people lose and regain weight. Therefore, it is keen to promote quick fixes that rarely advocate changes for life. That's also the reason MFP veterans are keen to avoid using the term "diet". Because it implies that at some point you're going to stop eating this way, and what happens then? You go back to how you ate before? If I cannot foresee ever giving something up forever, then I won't be giving it up to lose weight (although I might limit it). So by pushing this ideal of fit, thin people who only eat salads and fruit, it gives an unreachable aspiration that people will only ever fail trying to achieve. When people fail they are more likely to try out the latest new trend that the industry is pushing. With some ignoring their normal levels of skepticism in their desperation and believe whatever woo they've heard in the hope that it'll be the magic bullet they've been looking for.

Consider the WW model. Within my living memory (I'm 27) they've changed the points system twice, both times running adverts under the general vain of "if you didn't lose weight with the previous system, you might be able to with this new system". The systems are essentially the same, so all those people who will go back thinking that it'll be different this time, will probably find themselves disappointed to learn that it's basically the same as last time. But by that point they've paid the membership fee and bought the WW branded foods and spent their money on something that again hasn't worked for them. At the end of the day essentially WW is (and has always been) calorie counting. But by covering it up by using their system, it means that you don't learn the actual calorific value of foods on their own. Which means that if you regain, you need to start using their system to lose weight, because it's been the only thing that has worked for you. Of course, I'm not bashing WW as a weigh loss method. If it has worked for you, then good for you! However, this is the sad truth about the industry and that it relies on failure.


Back on the subject of coffee. I'll drink a latte with a spoonful of brown sugar and I think it's made with semi-skimmed milk (as that's pretty much the default setting here in the UK). I mostly drink tea, so if I actually have a coffee I'm going to have one which I enjoy. Besides, I could do with the protein.

(and gosh this post got long ...)