Good Calories versus Bad?

I am curious about something. Most of the folks here abouts stress the
importance of eating GOOD FOOD, and reducing calories, rather than just
reducing calories.

What I am wondering is this...If you are reducing calories (and exercising,
of course), and let's say that you keep your calories below a certain level.
How does the "quality" of the food you eat affect the diet?

Let me give you an example. Let's say I like something that is
nutritionally atrocious. Armor Treet for example, which I just made a
sandwich of. Now accordinag to the label, this stuff is only 130 calories
per serving (which there are two servings per container. Since I used about
1/6th of a container that means that the calories in what I ate was about 40
calories). This is good because there are lots of other things I could eat
that would be A LOT higher in calories.

However, according to the label, it is also 17% fat. Not so good. It also
has a bus load of sodium and cholesteral at 370 mg and 25 mg respecively
(per serving).

So I am wondering if it is better to eat more calories of good stuff or less
calories of bad stuff? I mean, if I eat more calories of good stuff, I
can't eat as much of it - or if I do, I don't lose weight. Whereas, if I
eat bad stuff I eat less calories, but the nutrition level suffers.

I am confused.

Em

Auntie Em wrote:
I am curious about something. Most of the folks here abouts stress the
importance of eating GOOD FOOD, and reducing calories, rather than just
reducing calories.

What I am wondering is this...If you are reducing calories (and exercising,
of course), and let's say that you keep your calories below a certain level.
How does the "quality" of the food you eat affect the diet?


Good question, and I found the answer somewhat surprising and non-intuitive.

It turns out that it's not a closed system. Your body doesn't just burn
2000 calories no matter what you eat, it might burn MORE calories if you
eat stuff that revs up your metabolism and it might burn FEWER calories
if you eat stuff that makes you sluggish.

One of the surprising things I discovered was that eating more of my
calories from fat actually worked better for me. I can't say I measured
my metabolism at any particular point, but I can tell you that the
essential fatty acids I got from seed and nut oils and fish oils has
made a world of difference in my skin elasticity. Dry scaly patches on
my elbows (that I had for years!) are totally gone. What happened was
that my body grabbed those oils and used them to repair cells - work
that just wouldn't have happened if those particular calories hadn't
come in.

Because my body is able to use the calories for specific metabolic
functions, those functions get done (burning calories) and those
calories don't get sent to storage as fat as easily.

Let me give you an example. Let's say I like something that is
nutritionally atrocious. Armor Treet for example, which I just made a
sandwich of. Now accordinag to the label, this stuff is only 130 calories
per serving (which there are two servings per container. Since I used about
1/6th of a container that means that the calories in what I ate was about 40
calories). This is good because there are lots of other things I could eat
that would be A LOT higher in calories.

I don't know what Armor Treet is, but it sounds dreadful. Was it some
sort of sludge-based protein source? 17% fat sounds low-fat, but it's
high if it's all from saturated fats! It's possible you got some
protein out of this, but probably a huge dose of sodium, too.

Plus, you put it into a sandwich which means two slices of bread. How
can you have left THAT off of the analysis? Bread is rarely worth the
calories. Unless it was sprouted whole wheat bread sliced mighty thin
with maybe some walnuts mixed in, it probably doesn't have much fiber or
phytonutrients to recommend it.

However, according to the label, it is also 17% fat. Not so good. It also
has a bus load of sodium and cholesteral at 370 mg and 25 mg respecively
(per serving).

So I am wondering if it is better to eat more calories of good stuff or less
calories of bad stuff? I mean, if I eat more calories of good stuff, I
can't eat as much of it - or if I do, I don't lose weight. Whereas, if I
eat bad stuff I eat less calories, but the nutrition level suffers.

I am confused.

Eat good things in moderate calories. No one is saying you can eat more
than you burn as long as it's healthy food. But you can probably
increase your burn if you eat healthy food. So, to pull an example out
of my hat,

Eat 1200 calories of crap, burn 1600 calories.
Eat 1400 calories of good fuel, burn 1800 calories.

I guess I'm trying to say you can eat more calories of good fuel than of
bad fuel and still lose weight as long as you're still eating
catabolically. Does that make any sense?

The whole trick, Em, is to find foods that allow you to feel sated,
energetic and that work with your lifestyle... within your calorie
budget. I think most of us have found that crappy foods just don't fit
in the calorie budget without making us feel crappy. :-)

By the way, how about having an apple sliced up and dipped in some
natural peanut-butter for a snack? Or mix some yogurt with some
skimmed-milk cottage cheese. Or have one slice of whole meal bread with
peanutbutter on it. Or have some pickled whitefish along with some
celery sticks. Or some ryvata crackers with a really delicious cheese
sliced thinly on it.

What is Armor Treet, anyway? (I'm sorry, but it sounds like a cat food.)

Dally

In article , Dally
wrote:


One of the surprising things I discovered was that
eating more of my
calories from fat actually worked better for me.

Ditto that--that's the problem I had with WW point
system--even the good fats are too high in points for
most. People don't want to "waste" their points so
they'll skip the high-point fats and eat of ton of low
point foods, but never feel sated because they're
skipping the fats. Well, that's how it worked for me,
anyway. Others may be a whole lot smarter than I.

What is Armor Treet, anyway? (I'm sorry, but it sounds
like a cat food.)


It's a version of SPAM in a can.

Amy

168/115

You answered your own question. Taking vitamins is a waste of money because
clinical studies show that anti-oxidants from pills don't work as well as
anti-oxidants from food. Also fiber from supplements doesn't work as well as
fiber from food. And you have to exercise. Food alone is not going to
improve your health.


"Auntie Em" wrote in message
...
I am curious about something. Most of the folks here abouts stress the
importance of eating GOOD FOOD, and reducing calories, rather than just
reducing calories.

What I am wondering is this...If you are reducing calories (and
exercising,
of course), and let's say that you keep your calories below a certain
level.
How does the "quality" of the food you eat affect the diet?

Let me give you an example. Let's say I like something that is
nutritionally atrocious. Armor Treet for example, which I just made a
sandwich of. Now accordinag to the label, this stuff is only 130 calories
per serving (which there are two servings per container. Since I used
about
1/6th of a container that means that the calories in what I ate was about
40
calories). This is good because there are lots of other things I could
eat
that would be A LOT higher in calories.

However, according to the label, it is also 17% fat. Not so good. It
also
has a bus load of sodium and cholesteral at 370 mg and 25 mg respecively
(per serving).

So I am wondering if it is better to eat more calories of good stuff or
less
calories of bad stuff? I mean, if I eat more calories of good stuff, I
can't eat as much of it - or if I do, I don't lose weight. Whereas, if I
eat bad stuff I eat less calories, but the nutrition level suffers.

I am confused.

Em

Auntie Em wrote:
What I am wondering is this...If you are reducing calories (and exercising,
of course), and let's say that you keep your calories below a certain level.
How does the "quality" of the food you eat affect the diet?

Speaking for myself, personally, the quality of the food serves the
purpose of 2 popular phrases, "More bang for the buck" and "killing two
birds with one stone".

For an extreme example:
If I set a goal of say, 1800 calories per day, and eat only donuts that
day totalling 1800 calories, sure, my body has the calories, but like in
the classic Wendy's commercial... "Where's the beef?".

I'm not saying one ONLY has to eat pure food that they just picked from
their garden, but giving your body the nutrients it wants really does
take away the cravings and the desire to overeat.

So I am wondering if it is better to eat more calories of good stuff or less
calories of bad stuff? I mean, if I eat more calories of good stuff, I
can't eat as much of it - or if I do, I don't lose weight.

Actually, you do lose weight if you portion it out accordingly. I'd
rather have one small plate of something calorie-dense that has "good
stuff" in it than 3 plates of something I didn't really want anyway.

For me, I learned to put less importance on "how much", and just enjoy
the fact that I actually could still eat what I want and lose weight.
If I have to downsize something higher calorie that is good, I take a
cue from my beautiful, thin mother-in-law, take small fork/spoonfuls at
a time and savour each bite. ;-) Something calorie-dense does weigh
heavy on the stomach and make me feel full, even though size-wise it's
small. (I have tried this with a tablespoon - 120 calories - of flax
seed oil... it *Fills* me)

As a former binge-eater, I had to train myself to eat slowly. That way,
I get to spend the same amount of *time* as everyone else eating, and
yet don't have to keep refilling my plate in order to do so.

I hope that this makes sense... this has been my week for being
misunderstood (not that I am complaining, I was long overdue hehe) so
I'll timidly hit "send" LOL

Crafting Mom
--
The post you read contains just my opinion. Please interpret
accordingly

"Auntie Em" wrote in message
...
I am curious about something. Most of the folks here abouts stress
the
importance of eating GOOD FOOD, and reducing calories, rather than
just
reducing calories.

For me it's a matter of more bang for my caloric buck. If I'm limiting
myself to 2000 calories per day I want to make sure that I maximize the
nutrition for them. Everything has to count for me and for my WOE to
work.

For me, and I am just an example.. I am sticking to my WOE for the
health of it. The weightloss is just a nice perk. I'll start at the top
of my head and list the benefits I feel are from changing my eating
habits. I had a malady of health complaints prior to my changes.

a.) My hair which was always "good hair" has become healthier, shinier,
and I think it grows faster (may or may not be fact, but *I* feel it
does.)(head)
b.) I have become more alert and focused in my thinking.(brain)
c.) I have less allergies than I used to and I believe it is because I
may have had a few food allergies I was unaware of. (nose and skin)
d.) I have rosacea and it is completely disappeared in less than 1 year
of stopping the crappy food intake. (nose and skin)
e.) My dentist is a happy man now days since I stopped drinking sodas
and sugar. I have had good reports the last 2 visits. (teeth and dental
health)
f.) My shoulders would always droop when I was packing around those 90
extra lbs and now my posture is MUCH better(shoulders and spine and of
course my ta ta's look MUCH better when I'm standing up straight lol)
g.) I suffered for years from some unknown/undiagnosed/misdiagnosed
"boils" or cysts which I fought constantly with every antibiotic and
over the counter med out there. I believe they were caused by several
things, mostly the sugar intake with a dash of inactivity aggravating
them once they were there. I haven't had an outbreak in over 6
months.(skin, groin, under breasts, under arms etc)
h.) I was diagnosed with acid reflux about 4 months prior to my starting
my WOE and since day 1 and that is no exaggeration - day 1- I have not
had a case of reflux or acid indigestion.(stomach and digestive tract)
i.) My blood pressure has dropped back to a normal person range instead
of a stroke victim.(heart)
j.) My back doesn't hurt constantly any longer due to exercise and
proper nutrition.(spine)
k.) Sex... woo I don't think I have to expound on this subject much.
Let's just leave it to say that my sex life has VASTLY improved since
the rest of my body is working far more properly than it was before. My
drive is greater, my confidence is much higher and my stamina is far
greater.
l.) I used to battle periods of constipation - I have become regular.
m.) I used to be one of those folks who "creaked" when they got up from
the chair after sitting for an extended period.. Now, I can get up
normally without feeling like every joint in my body is screaming. My
hips were the worst. I believe this has been reduced/eliminated by
better eating and exercise.
n.) My menstral cycle is slow but surely coming to grips with my new
eating habits and exercise habits - It was worse there for awhile but
last month was not as bad as before, so that issue is a work in progress
still.
o.) My thighs and legs are getting much better looking. I also suffered
a fall the Christmas prior to my start date and injured my knee. I feel
that my better nutrition has been the main factor of knee recovery. I
assisted my healing with better eating. It's my belief that your body
will heal itself regardless of what you eat, but you can speed/assist it
with better nutrition.
p.) My feet don't hurt. I don't know if it's because of the pre diabetes
being under control or because of the 90 lb loss. Or because of better
circulation etc. Don't know and don't care. All I know is that my feet
don't hurt.. and that is a Godsend to me.
q.) The whole process encouraged me and gave me the drive to stop
smoking. Which I have a 1 year quit anniversary coming up Sept 8th for
that. The benefits of that are too long to list, for myself AND my
family.
r.) I'm not hungry anymore. The cravings have ceased. Almost completely.
s.) I was diagnosed in March of last year as having Dysthymia and every
site/bit of information I read encouraged the nutritional change route
as a way of helping control/treat it. I didn't want to take
antidepressants or go to therapy. So I made the decision to "control" it
myself with my diet and lifestyle. For me it has worked.

So there you have it, top to bottom and I am sure I am missing something
somewhere in all that. But the end result is I feel better when my body
has a diet of better nutrition rather than empty calories. I don't know
if that answers your question of bad vs. good calories but it's enough
for me. Like I said before, the weightloss is simply a wonderful side
effect of getting healthy. If I never lost another lb I'd be "ok" with
it as long as I felt better and I knew my body was in better health.

Susan (recovering top poster, trying hard to reform)
280/190/140

"Auntie Em" wrote in message
...
I am curious about something. Most of the folks here abouts stress
the
importance of eating GOOD FOOD, and reducing calories, rather than
just
reducing calories.

For me it's a matter of more bang for my caloric buck. If I'm limiting
myself to 2000 calories per day I want to make sure that I maximize the
nutrition for them. Everything has to count for me and for my WOE to
work.

For me, and I am just an example.. I am sticking to my WOE for the
health of it. The weightloss is just a nice perk. I'll start at the top
of my head and list the benefits I feel are from changing my eating
habits. I had a malady of health complaints prior to my changes.

a.) My hair which was always "good hair" has become healthier, shinier,
and I think it grows faster (may or may not be fact, but *I* feel it
does.)(head)
b.) I have become more alert and focused in my thinking.(brain)
c.) I have less allergies than I used to and I believe it is because I
may have had a few food allergies I was unaware of. (nose and skin)
d.) I have rosacea and it is completely disappeared in less than 1 year
of stopping the crappy food intake. (nose and skin)
e.) My dentist is a happy man now days since I stopped drinking sodas
and sugar. I have had good reports the last 2 visits. (teeth and dental
health)
f.) My shoulders would always droop when I was packing around those 90
extra lbs and now my posture is MUCH better(shoulders and spine and of
course my ta ta's look MUCH better when I'm standing up straight lol)
g.) I suffered for years from some unknown/undiagnosed/misdiagnosed
"boils" or cysts which I fought constantly with every antibiotic and
over the counter med out there. I believe they were caused by several
things, mostly the sugar intake with a dash of inactivity aggravating
them once they were there. I haven't had an outbreak in over 6
months.(skin, groin, under breasts, under arms etc)
h.) I was diagnosed with acid reflux about 4 months prior to my starting
my WOE and since day 1 and that is no exaggeration - day 1- I have not
had a case of reflux or acid indigestion.(stomach and digestive tract)
i.) My blood pressure has dropped back to a normal person range instead
of a stroke victim.(heart)
j.) My back doesn't hurt constantly any longer due to exercise and
proper nutrition.(spine)
k.) Sex... woo I don't think I have to expound on this subject much.
Let's just leave it to say that my sex life has VASTLY improved since
the rest of my body is working far more properly than it was before. My
drive is greater, my confidence is much higher and my stamina is far
greater.
l.) I used to battle periods of constipation - I have become regular.
m.) I used to be one of those folks who "creaked" when they got up from
the chair after sitting for an extended period.. Now, I can get up
normally without feeling like every joint in my body is screaming. My
hips were the worst. I believe this has been reduced/eliminated by
better eating and exercise.
n.) My menstral cycle is slow but surely coming to grips with my new
eating habits and exercise habits - It was worse there for awhile but
last month was not as bad as before, so that issue is a work in progress
still.
o.) My thighs and legs are getting much better looking. I also suffered
a fall the Christmas prior to my start date and injured my knee. I feel
that my better nutrition has been the main factor of knee recovery. I
assisted my healing with better eating. It's my belief that your body
will heal itself regardless of what you eat, but you can speed/assist it
with better nutrition.
p.) My feet don't hurt. I don't know if it's because of the pre diabetes
being under control or because of the 90 lb loss. Or because of better
circulation etc. Don't know and don't care. All I know is that my feet
don't hurt.. and that is a Godsend to me.
q.) The whole process encouraged me and gave me the drive to stop
smoking. Which I have a 1 year quit anniversary coming up Sept 8th for
that. The benefits of that are too long to list, for myself AND my
family.
r.) I'm not hungry anymore. The cravings have ceased. Almost completely.
s.) I was diagnosed in March of last year as having Dysthymia and every
site/bit of information I read encouraged the nutritional change route
as a way of helping control/treat it. I didn't want to take
antidepressants or go to therapy. So I made the decision to "control" it
myself with my diet and lifestyle. For me it has worked.

So there you have it, top to bottom and I am sure I am missing something
somewhere in all that. But the end result is I feel better when my body
has a diet of better nutrition rather than empty calories. I don't know
if that answers your question of bad vs. good calories but it's enough
for me. Like I said before, the weightloss is simply a wonderful side
effect of getting healthy. If I never lost another lb I'd be "ok" with
it as long as I felt better and I knew my body was in better health.

Susan (recovering top poster, trying hard to reform)
280/190/140

Yes, a calorie is a calorie is a calorie - except: 1) eating high
fiber foods decreases your appetite. 2) eating "empty" calories -
sodas, for example, is poor nutrition. 3) for many people, eating high
refined carb/sugar foods leads to a blood sugar spike leading a blood
sugar crash leading to hunger. 4) if you eat foods that taste too good
(candy, potatoe chips, etc) you will tend to eat more.

"Auntie Em" wrote in message ...
I am curious about something. Most of the folks here abouts stress the
importance of eating GOOD FOOD, and reducing calories, rather than just
reducing calories.

What I am wondering is this...If you are reducing calories (and exercising,
of course), and let's say that you keep your calories below a certain level.
How does the "quality" of the food you eat affect the diet?

Let me give you an example. Let's say I like something that is
nutritionally atrocious. Armor Treet for example, which I just made a
sandwich of. Now accordinag to the label, this stuff is only 130 calories
per serving (which there are two servings per container. Since I used about
1/6th of a container that means that the calories in what I ate was about 40
calories). This is good because there are lots of other things I could eat
that would be A LOT higher in calories.

However, according to the label, it is also 17% fat. Not so good. It also
has a bus load of sodium and cholesteral at 370 mg and 25 mg respecively
(per serving).

So I am wondering if it is better to eat more calories of good stuff or less
calories of bad stuff? I mean, if I eat more calories of good stuff, I
can't eat as much of it - or if I do, I don't lose weight. Whereas, if I
eat bad stuff I eat less calories, but the nutrition level suffers.

I am confused.

Em

One dark day on Usenet, Crafting Mom said:

Something calorie-dense does weigh
heavy on the stomach and make me feel full, even though size-wise it's
small. (I have tried this with a tablespoon - 120 calories - of flax
seed oil... it *Fills* me)

snip

Given the healthy properties of flax oil, I can see why one
would want to do this, but not sure how one *could* do this.
I just can't imagine putting a spoonful of oil in my mouth.
How does it taste?

J.J. in WA -- just curious...

byakee wrote:
One dark day on Usenet, Crafting Mom said:

Something calorie-dense does weigh
heavy on the stomach and make me feel full, even though size-wise it's
small. (I have tried this with a tablespoon - 120 calories - of flax
seed oil... it *Fills* me)

snip

Given the healthy properties of flax oil, I can see why one
would want to do this, but not sure how one *could* do this.
I just can't imagine putting a spoonful of oil in my mouth.
How does it taste?

It tastes kind of nutty and grassy at the same time. It's extremely
difficult to get in a very fresh state. When I am lucky enough to get a
fresh bottle, I store it in the freezer. I don't do it very frequently
because I have very rigid narrow standards as to how I like my flax oil.
Small bottle, *recently pressed*, stored in the freezer.

I can certainly understand the squeamishness...

It's difficult to wrap one's mind around the idea of putting a spoonful
of oil in their mouth, but it's really not that far off the mark from
when people used to dip their spoons and lick the beaters off a big vat
of butter and sugar frosting. People eat vats of oil sometimes without
even realizing it ;-), they're just not used to the idea of eating it
alone. I don't care for flax oil in a salad dressing or anything like
that, just at a near freezing temperature and it slides right down.

Hope this explains it a bit for you