What portion for vegetarian meals? I want to lose weight.

neanderthin wrote: »

Well, that's not actually vegetarian but obviously eating less carbs if that's what your trying to do, you would then consume more fish and seafood and lower carb dairy and low carb plant food, lets not forget that. I know that sounds kind of obvious, but it's because it is.

I had to reread the post because I was so confused. This pretty much covers it! 😊

Also, OP, why are you wanting to cut out so many food options? Is there a medical issue?

I hope you realize that vegetarianism is not inherently a weight loss diet? It's also not inherently a healthier diet.

I've been vegetarian for nearly 50 years, and I was fat for most of those years . . . up to class 1 obese in fact, even when I was training hard 6 days most weeks and even competing athletically. (I'm slim now, have been at a healthy weight for nearly 8 years.)

But if you're eating fish and seafood, and plan to continue doing so, you're not vegetarian, you're pescatarian. (That's not a personal criticism, just a terminology quibble.) Being pescatarian should make nutrition and weight loss a little easier, actually, vs. doing it as any form of vegetarian.

The generic answer to "what should I eat to lose weight" is foods you personally enjoy, find practical and affordable, that add up to reasonable overall nutrition at appropriate calories. There aren't special "diet foods" (no matter what their marketers may claim). Which foods those are is very individual.

As a long term vegetarian (ovo-lacto), I somewhat disagree with those above. While I think it's important to get the essential minimum of protein and fats as a first-order goal, and that may mean reducing carbs to some extent, I don't think it's vital to completely minimize carbs.

Carbs are very much demonized in the weight-loss blogosphere these days (to the point of obsession, IMO). There's nothing wrong with low carb eating if it helps a person achieve appropriate calories, but it doesn't magically trigger weight loss. Neanderthin is correct, though, to say that low-carb diets can help manage certain health conditions.

If a person has a low calorie goal, and values their health, then it's ultra-important to choose nutrient dense foods that are calorie efficient. Many true vegetarian sources of protein bring some carbs along with them. If there's a meaningful amount of protein for the calories, IMO, that's not a thing to stress over. In addition, most people will feel more sated, and tend to achieve better health, eating mainly so-called whole foods, and reducing ultra-processed foods.

If you think of carbs as being things like baked goods and candy . . . sure, reduce or eliminate those. Many are highly-processed, not nutrient dense, and they tend not to be very filling. That's not helpful. I think of carbs - the ones I prioritize eating - as being things like many dairy foods, veggies, and fruits. Those latter tend to be nutrient-dense and filling.

Choosing nutrient dense foods and choosing more whole foods are two ideas that tend to point toward the same types of food choices.

If you're trying to lose weight, then choose a weight loss calorie goal. Unless you're currently so overweight that your current weight is creating acute health problems, choose a moderate weight loss rate that's easy to stick with, on the order of 0.5% of your current weight per week, certainly no more than 1%. That will help you get adequate nutrition.

If you plan to continue eating fish, seafood and dairy, then choose calorie-efficient versions of those to fill your protein goal. Neanderthin's rule of thumb for protein is fine, and for most people the MFP default percents will be close to that realm unless the person tries to lose weight silly fast. (There's no way to get adequate nutrition on too-few calories.) Beyond that, get adequate fats, and let carbs fall where they may to balance calories (unless you have a relevant health condition or find that even whole-food carbs spark your appetite).

If you plan to drop the fish and seafood for reasons unrelated to weight loss or health, that's fine. There are reasonable quality sources of vegetarian protein. Dairy and eggs are considered vegetarian sources, lacto-vegetarian and ovo-vegetarian respectively. Those generally are high quality protein, and reasonably bioavailable. There are plant sources of protein, but more care is needed to select calorie-efficient sources that are reasonably complete (in essential amino acids) and bioavailable.

This site, with content from science-centric registered dietitians who are vegan, is a reasonable reference to learn about nutrition in a plant-based diet:

https://veganhealth.org/

You can beneficially add fish/seafood if pescatarian, dairy or eggs or both if vegetarian.

Despite being a long-term vegetarian, and happy with that choice for myself, I agree with Neanderthin that meat is also over-demonized these days, if the reference point is weight loss or health. Meat is nutritious. As with other foods, it would make sense IMO to reduce or eliminate the more highly-processed types.

Best wishes!

An approach I use for pasta is a serving size of 16oz if served with a light, lean sauce (maybe with veg), and 12oz serving if served in a rich sauce (creamy or pesto) with meat or fish ingredients.

neanderthin wrote: »

Hobartlemagne wrote: »

An approach I use for pasta is a serving size of 16oz if served with a light, lean sauce (maybe with veg), and 12oz serving if served in a rich sauce (creamy or pesto) with meat or fish ingredients.

Those are big serving sizes, the 16oz of pasta is close to 1700 calories.

If @Hobartlemagne meant 16 oz to be two cups cooked wheat pasta, then (according to the USDA) that’s (220/kcal x 2) = 440 calories.
Which is a reasonable portion for an active adult male.
Although, at (typically for wheat pasta) around 75 carbs for two cups, OP would probably want to choose a different pasta.

https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/1101529/nutrients

MargaretYakoda wrote: »

neanderthin wrote: »

Hobartlemagne wrote: »

An approach I use for pasta is a serving size of 16oz if served with a light, lean sauce (maybe with veg), and 12oz serving if served in a rich sauce (creamy or pesto) with meat or fish ingredients.

Those are big serving sizes, the 16oz of pasta is close to 1700 calories.

If @Hobartlemagne meant 16 oz to be two cups cooked wheat pasta, then (according to the USDA) that’s (220/kcal x 2) = 440 calories.
Which is a reasonable portion for an active adult male.
Although, at (typically for wheat pasta) around 75 carbs for two cups, OP would probably want to choose a different pasta.

https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/1101529/nutrients

Yeah, your probably right, makes sense.

Hobartlemagne wrote: »

I meant 16oz (one pound) of a completed, cooked pasta dish that doesnt have a rich sauce or a bunch of meat. Thats just my personal approach to pasta meal portioning. I didnt mean dry uncooked pasta.

That makes sense! Thank you for the clarification.