Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

wisegeek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 261 posts

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#71

Post by c1u »

driverdan wrote: post #64
c1u wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almonds are mostly fat, and not very satiating either. I've done the paleo/lowcarb fad diets too. They just trick you into eating fewer calories by forbidding most of the food you ate before the diet. Not to mention some versions of these diets are based on incorrect understanding of human physiology. For example, despite what the paleotards will tell you, carbs are very rarely converted into body fat. But when you e…

Not entirely true. High protein diets allow you to eat more calories because the thermal effect of digesting protein results in a loss of 25% calories (of protein).

Yep. But even though almonds are ~20% protein, they are also ~50% fat. It's not the best protein source by a long shot.

While the TEF of protein does reduce it's net caloric contribution by about 25%, that doesn't matter if you eat in excess of TDEE, which will result in weight gain regardless of the kind of foods eaten. Upping protein to reduce hunger works really well, but there are better foods than almonds to do this (cottage cheese, meat, fish, whey protein, etc).

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#72

Post by Evbn »

choxi wrote: post #18
rubyrescue wrote: post #14

One of the things I've enjoyed the most in the past 4 months has been diving into reddit.com/r/fitness. If you spend a few hours reading the FAQ on that site, plus examine.com's nutrition articles, and reddit.com/r/leangains FAQs, you will come out with a much better understanding of your diet. There are also calculators listed in the FAQs that will help you determine what you need to eat to maintain your bodyweight,…

what's a "macro"?

Preprocessor, hygienic, nutritional, or excel?

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#73

Post by driverdan »

rubyrescue wrote: post #43
peterwwillis wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

to get enough protein if you're even moderately active, you have to eat A LOT - eggs, milk, meat, tuna Any time someone specifies "A LOT" as a nutritional guide I get a little skeptical. Keep in mind when you're eating these foods the whole nutritional profile to determine if you're over-eating something (or filling yourself with LDLs). Try to balance the eggs, milk and meat with alternatives like quinoa, spirulina,…

the recommendation if you're lifting to gain strength from a number of sources is 1g to 1.5g of protein per lb of body weight. for me that's 190 to 260g/day. it's A LOT...

Actually it's 1-2g of protein per kg of weight, not lb. Unless you're on anabolic steroids or are on a protein sparing modified fast (PSMF) 1.5g of protein per lb isn't going to help you gain or retain more muscle.

Source: A week ago I read through all studies I could find on pubmed about optimal protein intake for muscle gain.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#74

Post by afterburner »

TomGullen wrote: post #62
sneak wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lol paleo I've been losing weight lately without any fad diet. I just cut my caloric intake by 20% and boosted my caloric output by 20-30% with regular exercise.

What part of Paleo is a fad exactly? It's trying to replicate consumption of food we evolved off. A pretty simple idea. Sugar/carbs are not something readily available in human history in the vast quantities we eat them today.

Fad: An intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something, esp. one that is short-lived; a craze.

Just because the idea came from the prehistoric doesn't mean it can't be a fad.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#75

Post by Evbn »

dfxm12 wrote: post #45
moggie wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is the exploitable amount of calories determined, exactly? Is there a layperson-readable resource somewhere that you might recommend?

I'm not sure what exactly OP is referring to, but there is a difference in the nutritional data of, for example, raw chicken breast (which is marked on the packaging) and baked chicken breast (which is what gets digested [unless you actually eat it raw]). See http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/poultry-products/701/2 VS http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/poultry-products/703/2 Make sure you line up the serving sizes…

Self.com has great data tables for many variations of foods.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#77

Post by Evbn »

muxxa wrote: post #67
TomGullen wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very concise way to say it, thank you! Never read it explained that well.

It really annoys me as e.g. the trend in industrial bread making is to reduce the relative quantity of flour (the most expensive ingredient), in favour of cheaper vegetable fats. This is achieved by the addition of emulsifiers. So the calorific value of the bread may go down, and you'll have to eat more bread to make you feel as full, but the overall nutritional balance is completely skewed away from what was origina…

Whole wheat and seeds are good ingredients too.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#78

Post by maxerickson »

jwoah12 wrote: post #11
smackfu wrote: post #2

Peanut butter, nuts, and bagels tend to be the ones that are most surprising to people who are dieting for the first time. Just way more calories than people think because they think they are "healthy" because they are natural.

People think bagels are healthy? They're just a big, dense (delicious) ring of simple carbs.

In relation to a custard filled donut, they probably are pretty healthy.

They definitely fall on the 'health food' end of the breakfast breads/pastries/etc.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#79

Post by TomGullen »

sneak wrote: post #53
bisu wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

good luck trying to sustain that

The joke's on you, sir: I have successfully repealed the first law of thermodynamics!

Thermodynamic laws aren't very useful when talking about weight loss and metabolism. Firstly, the human body is not an isolated system (2nd law).

Also a calorie is not a calorie. One small example, different calories have different thermic effects. I've read estimations that from protein you lose 30% of the calories from the thermic effect, and with carbs you'll lose 15%. Therefore reducing carbs and upping protein will assist with weight loss further. Calories in and out will probably have you losing weight, but it's an over-simplistic view.

Re: What Does 200 Calories Look Like?

#80

Post by rubyrescue »

driverdan wrote: post #73
rubyrescue wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the recommendation if you're lifting to gain strength from a number of sources is 1g to 1.5g of protein per lb of body weight. for me that's 190 to 260g/day. it's A LOT...

Actually it's 1-2g of protein per kg of weight, not lb. Unless you're on anabolic steroids or are on a protein sparing modified fast (PSMF) 1.5g of protein per lb isn't going to help you gain or retain more muscle. Source: A week ago I read through all studies I could find on pubmed about optimal protein intake for muscle gain.

this is where i got my data - http://examine.com/faq/how-much-protein-do-i-need-every-day.... - and you're right. I aim for 200g/day which for me is 2g/kg and probably a bit more than i need. I've noticed if i work out and eat much less than that i don't recover as well.
Post reply on HN