Eating 3 Oreos per day instead of 2
petergreen3522
Posts: 4 Member
I want to eat 3 instead of 2
Will this make a huge difference for dieting. I’m actually thin right now but I don’t really want to gain weight
Will this make a huge difference for dieting. I’m actually thin right now but I don’t really want to gain weight
0
Replies
-
I would suggest you consult with a medical professional for the best course of action, imo. Be well and thrive.
5 -
It shouldn't be enough to make a difference. Please excuse the rudeness of the previous poster. I'm sure they think they're being funny. They're not.2
-
1 Oreo is 53 cal. It takes 3500 calories to equate a pound lost or gained. If your calorie intake is exactly the same every day, and you normally eat 3 Oreos every day, dropping that 1 Oreo will result in 1 pound lost after 66 days.2
-
I don’t think @neanderthin was being rude. That’s not his style. His posts are usually well considered and informative.
So pardon me if I sound rude as well.
Based on the fact that you’re worrying over three Oreos versus two, and your previous posting history over the last few months, maybe you should reevaluate how you’re approaching weight loss, or actually maintenance, which is where you seem to be at.
I am not a “ my body is a temple” person. I can - and do- still scarf down sweets or temptations in massive quantities.
Believe me, if there were a chocolate /oreo / Breyers diet, I’d be the first one to trumpet it to everyone I know.
Having lived off a diet of 80% junk food for years, and being the kid-teen-young married adult who could “eat anything without gaining” it was a rude awakening when one day well into adulthood I realized, whoopsie, I’m obese. And I had no idea whatsoever how to cope with it.
You sound very young. If you’re sincerely concerned over the quality and or quantity of what you’re eating, please consider consulting with a dietician. If you’re thinking about those Oreos to that degree, a dietician may be able to give you guidance to other help that might be useful to you.
(Btw dieticians are degreed health professionals. Anyone can call themselves a nutritionist. You, me, someone pushing protein powder or supplements. I swear I saw an ad for a 3 day Fasting box diet yesterday that pictured empty boxes. There are numpties out there who will fall for anything if it promises weight loss. )
I WISH I’d done this younger. My nutrition education consisted of about ten minutes on the three food groups and the food pyramid back in the early 70’s. You have the opportunity to use reliable sources on the internet to educate yourself better than I ever dreamed of. You also have the responsibility to your own self of separating the good advice from the quacks, loonytoons and secret salespeople inhabiting same.
By the same token, obsessing over thinness is equally as harmful. I’ve had Bulemic family members, and my girls shared a best friend with a serious eating disorder brought on by a controlling mother.
Too much, too little, you’ve got to find the balance that works for you.
Good for you for asking questions, but consider the questions you’re asking? Sure, you can survive on a diet of high fat, Oreos, etc, but speaking from experience, when it catches up with you via weight, diabetes, GERD, joint pain, etc, its an major undertaking to undo the damage.
Others here can share their stories of undereating- the hair loss, muscle loss, heart issues (your heart is a muscle, hello!), inability to have children etc.
Sometimes a cigar is a cigar, an extra Oreo, an extra Oreo. But sometimes, not.
Hugs to you, sweetie. 😘11 -
Based on the information you give out, I agree with the part of @sollyn23l2's answer where she says that it shouldn't be enough to make a difference.2
-
My dn, a few years back when low-fat was all the rage and approach, well she thought if she had butter, she would get fat.
So the good news is, you can choose any food to eat, any time, any place. And go from there.
Don't want to gain weight, don't eat more than your body needs over time.
Only want to eat sweets and treats? You can.
Do you want to nourish your body so you are strong and healthy, then explore foods that will help your body.
Your choices should be food you like, and if it helps your body too, great. No need to eat foods you don't enjoy.4 -
While 50 Cals seem minor these things add up. Stick with zero Oreos. It’s too hard to jut eat 2 so out of sight, out of mind. If you’re in fat loss mode don’t buy these things if they’re a problem.1
-
I dont see any need to stick with zero Oreos.
If OP is calorie counting and her calorie allowance is x, it is easy enough to fit 2 Oreos into that, if they are 53 calories each.
Easy enough to fit 3 in if she wants to
and easy enough to fit in other nutritional foods so your diet is nutritionally sound - that can include 2 or 3 Oreos.
Of course if controlling your intake of any food is an issue, find ways to limit its availabilty - but nothing in OP's post to suggest that is the case for her.
1 -
sollyn23l2 wrote: »It shouldn't be enough to make a difference. Please excuse the rudeness of the previous poster. I'm sure they think they're being funny. They're not.
Having been a member here since 2011, I also believe that neanderthin was not being rude or trying to be funny, but showing genuine concern over a concerning question. I agree with their response.
4 -
tomcustombuilder wrote: »While 50 Cals seem minor these things add up. Stick with zero Oreos. It’s too hard to jut eat 2 so out of sight, out of mind. If you’re in fat loss mode don’t buy these things if they’re a problem.
Yep, junk calories.2 -
It's OK to spend some calories on things just because you enjoy them as long as your overall diet is reasonably nutrionally sound.
159 calories ( 3 oreos at 53 calories each) is easy enough to fit into any calorie allowance leaving plenty of room for higher nutrition items as well.5 -
paperpudding wrote: »It's OK to spend some calories on things just because you enjoy them as long as your overall diet is reasonably nutrionally sound.
159 calories ( 3 oreos at 53 calories each) is easy enough to fit into any calorie allowance leaving plenty of room for higher nutrition items as well.
If someone is on a 1200-1500 calorie a day plan, the 3 Oreos is over 10% of their caloric intake. Not much wiggle room to get optimum nutrition with the 3 Oreos on a daily basis.2 -
I find Oreos gross with all kinds of nasty chemicals so that would be zero in my opinion... lol6
-
Theoldguy1 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »It's OK to spend some calories on things just because you enjoy them as long as your overall diet is reasonably nutrionally sound.
159 calories ( 3 oreos at 53 calories each) is easy enough to fit into any calorie allowance leaving plenty of room for higher nutrition items as well.
If someone is on a 1200-1500 calorie a day plan, the 3 Oreos is over 10% of their caloric intake. Not much wiggle room to get optimum nutrition with the 3 Oreos on a daily basis.
Or any other UPF loaded with refined carbs and sugar which happens to represent over 60% of the SAD diet. So if a diet is mostly whole foods without UPF 2 or 3 oreo cookies mean very little as far as health is concerned if it's within a persons calorie allowance.
3 -
xbowhunter wrote: »I find Oreos gross with all kinds of nasty chemicals so that would be zero in my opinion... lol
I vividly remember the days where if I bought oreo's the box would not survive the night, now I look at them in the store and look down the cereal and cookie row and wonder how many UPF make up the totality of calories in a supermarket and there's actually numbers from research for that and they vary from around 55% to 70%. Add heavily processed not quite UFP and humans are ill equipped to make the right choices, especially with all the health banners telling us how healthy they are and all the pretty and delicious looking food, lol, crazy times really.1 -
neanderthin wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »It's OK to spend some calories on things just because you enjoy them as long as your overall diet is reasonably nutrionally sound.
159 calories ( 3 oreos at 53 calories each) is easy enough to fit into any calorie allowance leaving plenty of room for higher nutrition items as well.
If someone is on a 1200-1500 calorie a day plan, the 3 Oreos is over 10% of their caloric intake. Not much wiggle room to get optimum nutrition with the 3 Oreos on a daily basis.
Or any other UPF loaded with refined carbs and sugar which happens to represent over 60% of the SAD diet. So if a diet is mostly whole foods without UPF 2 or 3 oreo cookies mean very little as far as health is concerned if it's within a persons calorie allowance.
My point is if someone is on a lower calorie allowance the 159 calories represented by the cookies every day could cut into their caloric needs for health. If someone is needs and is eating 3000 calories a day to maintain, yeah eat the 3 Oreos.
The lower # of calories one is consuming means they have to be very careful with UPFs (in many cases pretty much eliminating them) to get adequate nutrition.1 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »It's OK to spend some calories on things just because you enjoy them as long as your overall diet is reasonably nutrionally sound.
159 calories ( 3 oreos at 53 calories each) is easy enough to fit into any calorie allowance leaving plenty of room for higher nutrition items as well.
If someone is on a 1200-1500 calorie a day plan, the 3 Oreos is over 10% of their caloric intake. Not much wiggle room to get optimum nutrition with the 3 Oreos on a daily basis.
Or any other UPF loaded with refined carbs and sugar which happens to represent over 60% of the SAD diet. So if a diet is mostly whole foods without UPF 2 or 3 oreo cookies mean very little as far as health is concerned if it's within a persons calorie allowance.
My point is if someone is on a lower calorie allowance the 159 calories represented by the cookies every day could cut into their caloric needs for health. If someone is needs and is eating 3000 calories a day to maintain, yeah eat the 3 Oreos.
The lower # of calories one is consuming means they have to be very careful with UPFs (in many cases pretty much eliminating them) to get adequate nutrition.
I agree with you but I did say if a diet was without UPF it's really not too much of an issue or at all. An oreo cookie even though it's highly processed still has some nutrition it and does contribute to the overall diet but in the context
of those requirements. Most of the fat is unsaturated mono and poly fats and the carbs are good and quick energy. Personally I would never eat them but like you I'm low carb/ketogenic and I consume mostly a whole food diet, so they are a no go, but for other people they might be fine, even if they represent 10% of their diet and it really depends on their health status and their exercise status, basically sedentary, obese and have diabetes, yeah not good, younger, not overweight and athletic, it's basically fuel.3 -
I, too, used to blow through a family pack of Doublestuff in a sitting.
I’d much rather double the calories but then spend them on a bakery cookie from a local French bakery.
Otherwise, if fewer available, I’d spend them on a Nugo bar. More satisfying and tastes better.
Although I can still scarf chocolate with the best of them, Oreos, Little Debbie’s, Pepperidge Farm, Grasshoppers, Girl Scout cookies…..all have zero appeal any more.
Funny how choices and decisions- and tastebuds- change with better nutritional education.4 -
springlering62 wrote: »I, too, used to blow through a family pack of Doublestuff in a sitting.
I’d much rather double the calories but then spend them on a bakery cookie from a local French bakery.
Otherwise, if fewer available, I’d spend them on a Nugo bar. More satisfying and tastes better.
Although I can still scarf chocolate with the best of them, Oreos, Little Debbie’s, Pepperidge Farm, Grasshoppers, Girl Scout cookies…..all have zero appeal any more.
Funny how choices and decisions- and tastebuds- change with better nutritional education.
Tru dat. 3 -
xbowhunter wrote: »I find Oreos gross with all kinds of nasty chemicals so that would be zero in my opinion... lol
I'd probably still eat them if they didn't taste like dried-out rounds of brown fiberboard with denatured dollar store toothpaste in between. I just don't get the "Oreos are irresistible" thing, personally, though I believe other people when they say they enjoy them. It remains a conundrum: So many "hyperpalatable" foods don't even taste good (to me).
I'd go with zero, too.
P.S. Ingredients aren't all that horrible, IMO: Unbleached enriched flour, sugar, oil (palm, soybean or canola), cocoa, corn syrup (HFCS), baking soda or calcium phosphate leavening, salt, lecithin, chocolate.
I'd put most of those things into cookies if I was making the cookies myself. And they'd taste way better than an Oreo (to me).
5 -
neanderthin wrote: »xbowhunter wrote: »I find Oreos gross with all kinds of nasty chemicals so that would be zero in my opinion... lol
I vividly remember the days where if I bought oreo's the box would not survive the night, now I look at them in the store and look down the cereal and cookie row and wonder how many UPF make up the totality of calories in a supermarket and there's actually numbers from research for that and they vary from around 55% to 70%. Add heavily processed not quite UFP and humans are ill equipped to make the right choices, especially with all the health banners telling us how healthy they are and all the pretty and delicious looking food, lol, crazy times really.
Same. Weird how taste buds and cravings change once you adapt to a new lifestyle. Everything I felt manic obsessed with before means nothing to me now. It took time but thankfully I’m on the other side of it now.
Btw, nice updated pic 😊1 -
I'd probably still eat them if they didn't taste like dried-out rounds of brown fiberboard with denatured dollar store toothpaste in between.
I’m trying to decide if products are just getting worse over time or if I’ve changed. Can’t touch fast food and most restaurant dishes anymore. It’s bitter sweet. Has McDonalds always sucked this bad or did they recently change to amoxicillin mystery meat? It tastes so weird to me.
OP- if I had 150 calories I would likely go towards something delicious and satiating. Only you can decide how important that specific treat is for you.1 -
neanderthin wrote: »xbowhunter wrote: »I find Oreos gross with all kinds of nasty chemicals so that would be zero in my opinion... lol
I vividly remember the days where if I bought oreo's the box would not survive the night, now I look at them in the store and look down the cereal and cookie row and wonder how many UPF make up the totality of calories in a supermarket and there's actually numbers from research for that and they vary from around 55% to 70%. Add heavily processed not quite UFP and humans are ill equipped to make the right choices, especially with all the health banners telling us how healthy they are and all the pretty and delicious looking food, lol, crazy times really.
Same. Weird how taste buds and cravings change once you adapt to a new lifestyle. Everything I felt manic obsessed with before means nothing to me now. It took time but thankfully I’m on the other side of it now.
Btw, nice updated pic 😊
Yeah, thanks. It's difficult for people to understand if they don't have problems with sugar cravings, and trust me it doesn't have anything to do with how good they look or taste, that's a none factor but I was a little more picky and generally picked home made or pastry level but in a pinch Oreo or other cookies and cakes were it. lol.2 -
I'd probably still eat them if they didn't taste like dried-out rounds of brown fiberboard with denatured dollar store toothpaste in between.
I’m trying to decide if products are just getting worse over time or if I’ve changed. Can’t touch fast food and most restaurant dishes anymore. It’s bitter sweet. Has McDonalds always sucked this bad or did they recently change to amoxicillin mystery meat? It tastes so weird to me.
OP- if I had 150 calories I would likely go towards something delicious and satiating. Only you can decide how important that specific treat is for you.
They've always been poor, IMO. Full of the button-pushers (sugar, fat, salt), no subtlety or nuance in flavors, engineered to be non-sating, buttressed by intense marketing that suggests all the happy, pretty people eat these things . . . so we should eat them if we want to be happy and pretty, too. Quick. Convenient. (Cooking is hard. Veggies are yucky.) Social influence is powerful: Everyone says these foods are good, right?
Unfortunately, it's also possible to become/stay fat eating mostly whole foods, too2 -
xbowhunter wrote: »I find Oreos gross with all kinds of nasty chemicals so that would be zero in my opinion... lol
I'd probably still eat them if they didn't taste like dried-out rounds of brown fiberboard with denatured dollar store toothpaste in between. I just don't get the "Oreos are irresistible" thing, personally, though I believe other people when they say they enjoy them. It remains a conundrum: So many "hyperpalatable" foods don't even taste good (to me).
I'd go with zero, too.
P.S. Ingredients aren't all that horrible, IMO: Unbleached enriched flour, sugar, oil (palm, soybean or canola), cocoa, corn syrup (HFCS), baking soda or calcium phosphate leavening, salt, lecithin, chocolate.
I'd put most of those things into cookies if I was making the cookies myself. And they'd taste way better than an Oreo (to me).
I have often had the experience of eating a "hyperpalatable" food that I didn't particularly enjoy yet still have a problem stopping. As intended, I'm triggered to eat and eat and eat.
For example, there is free low quality candy at work. I can eat a lot and not feel satisfied, yet if I have 50 calories worth of high quality chocolate, I am satisfied.
(Now I just ignore it and keep good stuff in my desk.)
I can moderate desserts I make myself; I cannot moderate Oreos, and so I do not buy them.1 -
Interesting thoughts about taste preferences changing. I was surprised when i was drooling over some veggies, shocked! When kale with colored stalk i stumbled across was so exciting to find, i just had to buy some to experiment with.
Not in my wildest dreams would i have imagined, back in the day when i craved specific hpfs.
--and further found it offensive when people sneer about foods that are widely available and advertised, that i enjoyed eating.
-- you can not shame/bully people into choosing different foods.
--it is the choice of the eater to make.
So, for a place like here, a question like 2 or 3 oreos ok? Do we have someone who does not actually know and is trying to sort it?
-- or someone who is yanking chains?
The idea that someone can't/shouldn't eat 3 oreos or no oreos is perhaps a different answer depending where they are in the process of making food choices...
If I typically was eating mostly sweets and treats, 3 oreos might be impossibly not enough of the childhood dunk in milk treat... and be imfathomable to imagine I could ever feel otherwise
-- but i never would have guessed I would get excited to explore a new freggie either.
Imho, think a good guideline is that it is ok to eat if it fits within calorie budget. Anything healthier than that is bonus.2 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »It's OK to spend some calories on things just because you enjoy them as long as your overall diet is reasonably nutrionally sound.
159 calories ( 3 oreos at 53 calories each) is easy enough to fit into any calorie allowance leaving plenty of room for higher nutrition items as well.
If someone is on a 1200-1500 calorie a day plan, the 3 Oreos is over 10% of their caloric intake. Not much wiggle room to get optimum nutrition with the 3 Oreos on a daily basis.
I disagree.
If one uses 10% of one's allowance on Oreos that leaves plenty of wiggle room for good nutrition. 90% good nutrition diet would be fine
I see thread has now morphed into whether we like taste of Oreos ourselves - but that wasn't the question.
2 -
Oreos is the question in op.... relevant.0
-
^^^ no, not really - fitting Oreos into your calories while dieting was OP's question - not whether we like them ourselves2
-
paperpudding wrote: »^^^ no, not really - fitting Oreos into your calories while dieting was OP's question - not whether we like them ourselves
I don't understand constraining the nature of other posters reply, who include how they use or think about oreos anecdotally to illustrate their thoughts and points.
Of interest and Relevant, imho, or i would not have included in my post.
Do not need to be word policed. .2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions