 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / August 2004saturated fat
i ask this question out of concern for both weight and overall health. after searching the web, i am still confused about saturated fat: how much is 'okay'? i eat about 1500-1600 calories a day. so i guess i'm really not supposed to exceed 20 grams per day, based on percentage. but is 15, for example, still too much? how about 10? for example, one taco has about 4 grams. so am i okay with even two tacos for a dinner? what if i've already eaten 4 grams earlier? it seems that so many foods have saturated fat, especially cheese. i buy fat free milk but most cheese is still regular and fatty, with about 4 grams sat. fat per serving. so i'm assuming one should really only have one serving of cheese per day. and how much does one need to watch the unsaturated fats? even reduced fat peanut butter, for example, has like 12 grams of fat total per 2 tbsp. but only 2.5 saturated. does that make it 'safe' if you stay within the serving, or should one only eat something like peanut butter once in awhile? i personally don't believe in cutting something completely out of my diet that i enjoy. but with some foods, even small servings are high in fat, and some in saturated fat. i'd just like to know how much, exactly, i should be limiting saturated fat and even unsaturated fats if i'd like to maintain good health and my current weight. sara hello teacher tell me what's my lesson, look right through me, look right through me. 30 grams of fat total and you should be using monounsaturates like olive or canola, or things like nut oils. I don't think you should cut out tacos or cheese either but you have to realize you can't eat them every day if you want to be healthy. > i ask this question out of concern for both weight and overall health. after > searching the web, i am still confused about saturated fat: how much is 'okay'? [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > hello teacher tell me what's my lesson, > look right through me, look right through me. >I don't think you should cut out tacos or >cheese either but you have to realize you can't eat them every day if you >want to be healthy. well that was just hypothetical, i haven't had a taco in quite awhile. but i do eat cheese almost everyday. is it bad to eat cheese so frequently, even in small servings? sara hello teacher tell me what's my lesson, look right through me, look right through me. > Patty Heil wrote: >>I don't think you should cut out tacos or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > eat cheese almost everyday. is it bad to eat cheese so frequently, even in > small servings? I don't know about "bad", but it might not be your best choice for foods on a small calorie budget. You've got to look at foods and ask yourself if they've got a role as food or entertainment. Cheese is calorie dense - do you get enough bang for those calorie bucks? You might if you use just a little and it makes your recipes work better. I won't argue with that. But something that is calorie dense and full of saturated fat is a good thing to examine when you're trying to live on a tight calorie budget. What do you think? Dally > > Patty Heil wrote: >>>I don't think you should cut out tacos or [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Dally Dally, what was it that convinced you that saturated fat is bad? i > Cheese is calorie dense > - do you get enough bang for those calorie bucks? It depends on what you consider bang and bucks. Cheese is a good source of calcium and proteins, so it's not exactly empty calories. People who cannot process milk have no problem digesting cheese too. Like most calorie dense food, it also bring a high satiety level. It also tastes strong, which bring it own kind of satiety. It also brings the satisfaction of eating something that fills you quickly and strongly. Greens do provide vitamins and all, but they don't bring satiety (unless you add oil in them, or cheese for that matter). Eating lots of greens don't make me feel satieted, it makes me feel bloated (and hungry). >>Cheese is calorie dense >>- do you get enough bang for those calorie bucks? > > It depends on what you consider bang and bucks. Exactly. That's why I left the analysis to the OP. Each person will evaluate this differently. For example, they might have some serious emotional attachments to Twinkies that makes an occasional Twinkie necessary in their tight calorie budget. Personally, I'd work on severing the emotional attachment, but until it's done I think you just have to account for it on an individual level. > Cheese is a good source of > calcium and proteins, so it's not exactly empty calories. People who cannot > process milk have no problem digesting cheese too. Like most calorie dense > food, it also bring a high satiety level. It also tastes strong, which bring > it own kind of satiety. It also brings the satisfaction of eating something > that fills you quickly and strongly. Right. So budget for it if it's important to you. Just don't get lax about measuring: cheese calories do add up fast. > Greens do provide vitamins and all, but > they don't bring satiety (unless you add oil in them, or cheese for that > matter). Eating lots of greens don't make me feel satieted, it makes me feel > bloated (and hungry). I tend to do both with greens: I sprinkle some feta or some grated cheese on the salad AND I spritz it with Toasted Sesame Oil. (I got a pump spritzer from Pampered Chef that is great for lightly spraying some oil on greens.) Dally 244/174/168 >Greens do provide vitamins and all, but >they don't bring satiety (unless you add oil in them, or cheese for that >matter). exactly-- my salads usually have feta cheese. it makes an "empty" salad feel rich and satisfying. i would say it's partly entertainment in a general sense. i love the taste of cheese. sara hello teacher tell me what's my lesson, look right through me, look right through me. >But something that is calorie dense and full of saturated fat is >a good thing to examine when you're trying to live on a tight calorie >budget. it's true. it's just so good to have a slice on a sandwich, some sprinkled in some soup or wheat pasta, or some feta on the salad. i try not to eat more than a small amount with other parts of the meal. i try to be careful not to eat too much. thanks. everyone has a couple pieces of pizza once in awhile though. :) sara hello teacher tell me what's my lesson, look right through me, look right through me. >it's true. it's just so good to have a slice on a sandwich, some sprinkled in >some soup or wheat pasta, or some feta on the salad. i try not to eat more than >a small amount with other parts of the meal. i try to be careful not to eat too >much. thanks. I allow myself a cheese sandwich (wholegrain bread, no butter), and have that with soup, and perhaps some salad, for lunch. And perhaps a *small* piece of cheese if I need a snack that is basically mouth-feel, not food. Also, there is cottage cheese, which is low in fat and calories, and although it won't always do, it is lovely stirred through (say) a cup of tabbouleh. I have also made this delicious salad dressing, which is low in fat and relatively low in calories: 2 tbsp natural low-fat or fat-free yogurt 2 tbsp lemon juice 1 tbsp sugar or honey (I have a garlic-infused honey which is wonderful in salad dressings) 1/4 tsp mustard powder Salt and pepper to taste Mix and shake. >everyone has a couple pieces of pizza once in awhile though. :) Well, of course! But you can make your own pizza (daughter and I both make our own pizzas and actually prefer them, most of the time, to the bought varieties), and put more vegetables and less cheese on them. But I do agree, an occasional bought pizza is a necessity! Our local discount supermarket does the most wonderful Mozarella and tomato pizza and, best of all, it is Italian-style with the thin crust that I so much prefer!  SignatureAnnabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday snaps! >I allow myself a cheese sandwich (wholegrain bread, no butter), and have >that with soup, and perhaps some salad, for lunch. And perhaps a >*small* piece of cheese if I need a snack that is basically mouth-feel, >not food. see, that sounds like so little food. it is something that i would eat and would satify my hunger. but i just signed up on the nutrawatch site and after putting in my food for the day, i only have 626 calories and i'll probably only have a couple small snacks before and after dinner. i should at least be eating 1500 but that seems hard to reach when i'm already over my protein allowance by about 5 grams and i'm at half of my fat: 1 cup cheerios with skim milk 6 inch subway sub, honey oat bread, open faced (half serving): 4 slices ham, 1 slice provolone, fat free honey mustard and lots of vegetables. that's all i've eaten today. i needed to get the sandwich because i don't have too much in the house and i can't buy more because i'm leaving for school. i guess if i eat some calorie dense fruits like bananas and have more veggies for dinner i could reach the amount of needed calories without adding too much fat and protein?? sara hello teacher tell me what's my lesson, look right through me, look right through me. >>I allow myself a cheese sandwich (wholegrain bread, no butter), and have >>that with soup, and perhaps some salad, for lunch. And perhaps a >>*small* piece of cheese if I need a snack that is basically mouth-feel, >>not food. > >see, that sounds like so little food. Well, that was only lunch! Not my main meal > it is something that i would eat and >would satify my hunger. but i just signed up on the nutrawatch site and after [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >that's all i've eaten today. But as far as I can see, that's only 2 meals so far - what do you plan to have for supper? SignatureAnnabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday snaps! >But as far as I can see, that's only 2 meals so far - what do you plan >to have for supper? i have no idea because i've already gone over protein. it's just to make around 1500 calories, with even a small snack, i need about 850 calories for dinner. that's so much! what do you suggest i eat? should i make some sort of stir fry? i could run to the supermarket. sara hello teacher tell me what's my lesson, look right through me, look right through me. >>But as far as I can see, that's only 2 meals so far - what do you plan >>to have for supper? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >that's so much! what do you suggest i eat? should i make some sort of stir fry? >i could run to the supermarket. Stir-fry is nice, perhaps with some instant noodles added? I don't fuss about how much protein I eat in relation to other foods; don't forget that it does tend to balance out over the week. I was going to cook some chicken breast strips with stir-fry vegetables and chicken-flavour instant noodles, but in the end we had salad again, with quiche lorraine, and husband had the bread rolls & cheese that I'd had for lunch with my friend. The chicken will do for tomorrow. SignatureAnnabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday snaps! >>>But as far as I can see, that's only 2 meals so far - what do you plan >>>to have for supper? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > lorraine, and husband had the bread rolls & cheese that I'd had for > lunch with my friend. The chicken will do for tomorrow. Annabel, instant noodles? Gross! It's instant-blood-sugar spike. Anything of refined flour that is pre-blanched like that are pretty much instantly turned to fat. How about some brown rice, instead? For dinner tonight I had some chicken stir-fried in a bit of olive oil with a package of frozen stir-fry veggies added served on top of brown basmati rice with a ginger-wasabi finishing sauce drizzled on top for dinner. It made enough for two lunches in the leftovers, too. (Now that I package up dinners for lunches on purpose I've gotten better about not snacking on leftovers. I just put them away for lunch.) Dally >>>>But as far as I can see, that's only 2 meals so far - what do you plan >>>>to have for supper? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Anything of refined flour that is pre-blanched like that are pretty much > instantly turned to fat. According to Annabel, she does not have blood sugar spikes. i > How about some brown rice, instead? For dinner tonight I had some > chicken stir-fried in a bit of olive oil with a package of frozen [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Dally > Annabel, instant noodles? Gross! It's instant-blood-sugar spike. > Anything of refined flour that is pre-blanched like that are pretty much > instantly turned to fat. It's a suger spike if you are insulin-resistant. If you're not, your blood glucose will be back to normal shortly after the meal and there won't be much of a spike. Anyway, spike or not spike, it will be turned into fat sooner or later. Actually, if you're spiking, it means "later", since it's not being turned into fat if it's still in your blood because you don't have enough insulin to process it. The total amount of carbs remains the same in whatever case. Al dente regular noodles actually have a reasonnable glycemic index, especially if you consider they will be part of a stir fry (high fiber content, some fat). The problem is not really that they are white, it's the *instant* part that is. Besides, instant noodles tend to over-cook and taste like water. You can also use the traditionnal Japanese buckwheat noodles (Soba), they do nicely in stir fries (and soups). > How about some brown rice, instead? Regular white basmati (and most long grain) rice also has a reasonnable glycemic index, especially if it's part of a complex meal (proteins, fibers, fat, some acid). As long as you stay away from instant stuff, rice and noodles are medium slow carbs (around 50 GI). Besides, making them instant turns to ruin their taste and texture. If you add the usual stuff that slow carbs (fats, fibers, proteins, acid), you end up with a GI that is actually quite low. >The problem is not really that they are white, it's the >*instant* part that is. Besides, instant noodles tend to over-cook and taste >like water. I think the "instant" part is the flavour sachet they come with (which you don't have to use if you don't want to); the noodles themselves are identical to the plain ones you can also buy, and the cooking method is identical. SignatureAnnabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday snaps! > I think the "instant" part is the flavour sachet they come with (which > you don't have to use if you don't want to); the noodles themselves are > identical to the plain ones you can also buy, and the cooking method is > identical. Are you sure? I noticed some instant spaghettis at my supermarket (they cook in 3 mins instead of 10), and they are not similar to regular ones. They have a tiny hole in the middle, so that water cooks them from both the inside and outside. They do taste awfull too - al dente is just not an option with them. Same with rice, usually this involves pre-cooking it and cooking it in a large amount of water (I tend to use fat and add just the right amount of water to my rice). All that preprocessing is usually was makes them have such a high GI. Maybe that's not true for Chinese style noodles. Either they all are instant, or they just cook quickly naturally... >> I think the "instant" part is the flavour sachet they come with (which >> you don't have to use if you don't want to); the noodles themselves are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Are you sure? I noticed some instant spaghettis at my supermarket (they cook >in 3 mins instead of 10), and they are not similar to regular ones. Oh, no, quite different - these are the soup noodles you buy with a sachet of flavouring in. Chinese noodles, not instant spaghetti (I do so agree with you - yuckers!) >They >have a tiny hole in the middle, so that water cooks them from both the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >right amount of water to my rice). All that preprocessing is usually was >makes them have such a high GI. Where I envy you is the lovely Mediterranean rice you can get - it's one of the things I stock up on when I do a booze-cruise. >Maybe that's not true for Chinese style noodles. Either they all are >instant, or they just cook quickly naturally... I think they just naturally cook quickly. Incidentally, so do home-made noodles - take all of 30 seconds! They are the quickest of all. SignatureAnnabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday snaps! > Where I envy you is the lovely Mediterranean rice you can get - it's one > of the things I stock up on when I do a booze-cruise. Which one? We do have tons of different rice, especially since a bunch of Koreans established themselves in my neighborhood... > I think they just naturally cook quickly. Incidentally, so do home-made > noodles - take all of 30 seconds! They are the quickest of all. That's pretty normal for fresh ones... I do buy some from the supermarket and they also score at 30s, though they certainly do not taste as vile as the instant variety. But my gf prefers plain non fresh pasta for some weird reason... >> Where I envy you is the lovely Mediterranean rice you can get - it's one >> of the things I stock up on when I do a booze-cruise. > >Which one? We do have tons of different rice, especially since a bunch of >Koreans established themselves in my neighborhood... Usually the brand called "Taureau Ailé", although I got Carrefour's own brand last time, a mixture of red & white Camargue rice. I have plain white rice from Taureau Ailé at the moment, although usually I buy their 3-rice variety. >> I think they just naturally cook quickly. Incidentally, so do home-made >> noodles - take all of 30 seconds! They are the quickest of all. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the instant variety. But my gf prefers plain non fresh pasta for some weird >reason... Tastes different.... SignatureAnnabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday snaps! >Annabel, instant noodles? Gross! It's instant-blood-sugar spike. >Anything of refined flour that is pre-blanched like that are pretty much >instantly turned to fat. At <100 calories per packet? I don't think so.... The high-fat varieties, perhaps - but I always check the label now, and buy those that are <3 g fat per package. Some of them are horrific..... >How about some brown rice, instead? Basically, brown rice takes 45 minutes to cook, and noodles take 3 minutes. Sometimes I have brown rice, sometimes I have noodles. Other times I have pasta, either home-made or bought, other times I have potatoes. Or even bread. It depends on how much time I have, what I fancy, and what I am cooking. SignatureAnnabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday snaps! > Basically, brown rice takes 45 minutes to cook, and noodles take 3 > minutes. You can use a presure cooker, that would be much faster. Regular basmati cooks in around 7 minutes in mine. Though I do tend to burn things using the presure cooker, despite my girlfriend claiming it's impossible to burn things with it and that I must be doing it on purpose. >> Basically, brown rice takes 45 minutes to cook, and noodles take 3 >> minutes. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >presure cooker, despite my girlfriend claiming it's impossible to burn >things with it and that I must be doing it on purpose. It doesn't taste the same, though. No, if I'm going to cook brown rice - which I do, quite often, although my favourite is French Camargue rice - then I do it the same way as I do white rice, with just twice as much water as rice, start with boiling water, lower the heat until it would go out if you lowered it any more, and leave to sit. 15 minutes for white rice; 45 for brown. Lovely. SignatureAnnabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday snaps! > It doesn't taste the same, though. It's not that bad, cooking rice in the presure cooker works by absorption too. If you're in a hurry, it's one of the decent alternatives. > No, if I'm going to cook brown rice > - which I do, quite often, although my favourite is French Camargue rice > - then I do it the same way as I do white rice, with just twice as much > water as rice, start with boiling water, lower the heat until it would > go out if you lowered it any more, and leave to sit. 15 minutes for > white rice; 45 for brown. Lovely. That's called "pilaf" cooking here, except we stir the rice in olive oil before adding the water.That's how you cook rice for Spanish paella too. Paella is probably the optimal way to get the lowest GI rice actually : long grain rice cooked in fat, with just the right amount of water, along with some fibers and proteins and some lemon juice at the end. That's about every single GI lowering actions packed in a single recipe. :p >>Annabel, instant noodles? Gross! It's instant-blood-sugar spike. >>Anything of refined flour that is pre-blanched like that are pretty much [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > varieties, perhaps - but I always check the label now, and buy those > that are <3 g fat per package. Some of them are horrific..... I think <100 calories per packet is a high calorie price to pay for something that adds no fiber or nutrients. And the flavor sachet is most likely salt, salt and corn syrup. I guess I'm only harping on this because it's just this sort of shift that I found necessary to make real weight loss possible. I had to give up crappy refined flour products. Not because they're evil, but because they didn't fuel my body well enough. >>How about some brown rice, instead? > > Basically, brown rice takes 45 minutes to cook, and noodles take 3 > minutes. Again, I don't mean to harp, but I cook brown basmati rice in about 35 minutes, including the time it takes to bring the water to a boil to begin with. It takes about 30 minutes to cook once the rice is in the water. And it's not like dinner comes upon me by accident, I always know I'm going to have it that day. I just put the water on to boil, go check my mail, put the rice in, gather my other ingredients, go feed the dog, wash off the table, cook the other ingredients and dinner is ready. > Sometimes I have brown rice, sometimes I have noodles. Other > times I have pasta, either home-made or bought, other times I have > potatoes. Or even bread. It depends on how much time I have, what I > fancy, and what I am cooking. How's this working for you? I don't mean to argue with success. Dally >>>Annabel, instant noodles? Gross! It's instant-blood-sugar spike. >>>Anything of refined flour that is pre-blanched like that are pretty much [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >something that adds no fiber or nutrients. And the flavor sachet is most >likely salt, salt and corn syrup. Too much salt, I agree, but apart from salt, the sachet contains Chicken extract, yeast extract, sugar, onion powder, garlic powder, ground ginger, turmeric, white pepper, dried coriander, dried Wakame (what's that?). Hmmm, I notice that the noodles are, quote, 92% of the contents of the packet and the flavour sachet is 7%. I wonder what the other 1% is???? Incidentally, "Made up according to instructions", 100g (and the sachet is 65 grammes) 126 Kcal, 3.2 g protein, 20.7 g carbohydrate, of which sugars are 0.7g, 3.4 g fat, of which 1.3 g are saturates, 0.9 g fibre. I agree, it's not the sort of food you want to eat every day. >I guess I'm only harping on this because it's just this sort of shift that I >found necessary to make real weight loss possible. I had to give up >crappy refined flour products. Not because they're evil, but because >they didn't fuel my body well enough. I don't eat them often! But we are having them tonight, as part of a chicken and vegetable stir-fry. >>>How about some brown rice, instead? >> Basically, brown rice takes 45 minutes to cook, and noodles take 3 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >minutes, including the time it takes to bring the water to a boil to begin >with. It takes about 30 minutes to cook once the rice is in the water. Are you sure this is proper whole-grain rice, then? I know that when I cook ours for less than 40 minutes, it is still hard in the middle. I prefer to give it a good 40 minutes once it has returned to the boil, ideally 45, and then let it sit with the heat turned off for another 5, to absorb the last of the water. >And it's not like dinner comes upon me by accident, I always know I'm >going to have it that day. I just put the water on to boil, go check my >mail, put the rice in, gather my other ingredients, go feed the dog, wash >off the table, cook the other ingredients and dinner is ready. If I know what time I'm going to be able to serve dinner, then that does make a big difference. With a husband apt to come home any time between about 7.00 and 9.00 pm (well, every 30 minutes, given train times!), and sometimes later, it makes life difficult. >> Sometimes I have brown rice, sometimes I have noodles. Other >> times I have pasta, either home-made or bought, other times I have >> potatoes. Or even bread. It depends on how much time I have, what I >> fancy, and what I am cooking. > >How's this working for you? I don't mean to argue with success. As long as I eat less, I lose weight. I find the easiest way to eat fewer calories is to lower my fat intake, but try to avoid refined sugar as much as possible, too. Not totally, just "as much as possible". SignatureAnnabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday snaps! >>>>Annabel, instant noodles? Gross! It's instant-blood-sugar spike. >>>>Anything of refined flour that is pre-blanched like that are pretty much [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Too much salt, I agree, but apart from salt, the sachet contains Chicken > extract, yeast extract, sugar, onion powder, garlic powder, ground yeast extract is an equivalent of monosodium glutamate. some other names for MSG equivalents are "hydrolyzed vegetable protein", "calcium caseinate", etc. the instant noodles flavor packets usually contain a lot of MSG. that's what makes them tasty. i i >yeast extract is an equivalent of monosodium glutamate. some other >names for MSG equivalents are "hydrolyzed vegetable protein", "calcium >caseinate", etc. You're probably right, but in fact it could be Marmite. SignatureAnnabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday snaps! >>I cook brown basmati rice in about 35 >>minutes, including the time it takes to bring the water to a boil to begin [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ideally 45, and then let it sit with the heat turned off for another 5, > to absorb the last of the water. I agree with you about regular brown rice, but the brown *basmati* rice is a bit thinner and cooks a bit faster. It's also fluffier and nuttier tasting. I recommend it! (Can you tell?) :-) > If I know what time I'm going to be able to serve dinner, then that does > make a big difference. With a husband apt to come home any time between > about 7.00 and 9.00 pm (well, every 30 minutes, given train times!), and > sometimes later, it makes life difficult. True. My husband works 1/2 an hour from home and calls me when he's leaving, but it's not like I have dinner on the table when he walks through the door! I understand about wanting to eat ASAP. >>How's this working for you? I don't mean to argue with success. > > As long as I eat less, I lose weight. I find the easiest way to eat > fewer calories is to lower my fat intake, but try to avoid refined sugar > as much as possible, too. Not totally, just "as much as possible". I'm feeling really bad for picking on you so much. One of the things I've noticed is that I need to tackle one item at a time in the transformation from obese to slender. It's impossible to make ALL the changes at once. Portion size is a worthy subject to tackle and if that's where you're at I should be more supportive. Dally >>Annabel, instant noodles? Gross! It's instant-blood-sugar spike. >>Anything of refined flour that is pre-blanched like that are pretty much [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >potatoes. Or even bread. It depends on how much time I have, what I >fancy, and what I am cooking. If you know you're going to want rice when you're in a hurry, it keeps cooked for several days in the fridge, and for longer in the freezer, and just needs re-heating. janice > If you know you're going to want rice when you're in a hurry, it keeps > cooked for several days in the fridge, and for longer in the freezer, > and just needs re-heating. I cook rice once a week. My husband eats most of it, but it saves me from doing up a single portion several times. I just nuke his bit for a minute and toss the veggies on top. For special occasions I'll have a quarter cup. SignatureWalking (but mostly biking!) on . . . Laurie in Maine 207/110 60 inches of attitude! Start: 2/02 Maintained since 2/03 >> If you know you're going to want rice when you're in a hurry, it keeps >> cooked for several days in the fridge, and for longer in the freezer, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >minute and toss the veggies on top. For special occasions I'll have a >quarter cup. I don't care to keep cold cooked rice for very long - apparently it is very easy to contract food poisoning from it. Obviously if I am making a cold rice dish, then I allow it to cool, but otherwise I don't cook more than I need for that meal. SignatureAnnabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday snaps! >>>If you know you're going to want rice when you're in a hurry, it keeps >>>cooked for several days in the fridge, and for longer in the freezer, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > a cold rice dish, then I allow it to cool, but otherwise I don't cook > more than I need for that meal. Uh, that's a storage problem. If rice is kept at room temperature, you can get food poisoning from the Bacillus cereus that uncooked (dry) rice has on it naturally, however, if it is promptly refrigrated, as all leftovers should be, this is a non issue. Signaturejmk in NC > Uh, that's a storage problem. If rice is kept at room temperature, you > can get food poisoning from the Bacillus cereus that uncooked (dry) rice > has on it naturally, however, if it is promptly refrigrated, as all > leftovers should be, this is a non issue. Sometimes I think it's some kind of miracle my mom didn't kill us all! lol SignatureWalking (but mostly biking!) on . . . Laurie in Maine 207/110 60 inches of attitude! Start: 2/02 Maintained since 2/03 > > Uh, that's a storage problem. If rice is kept at room temperature, you > > can get food poisoning from the Bacillus cereus that uncooked (dry) rice [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 207/110 60 inches of attitude! > Start: 2/02 Maintained since 2/03 Well I still have 4 living children and they often ate rice that had been stored in the fridge! >>I don't think you should cut out tacos or >>cheese either but you have to realize you can't eat them every day if you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > awhile. but i do eat cheese almost everyday. is it bad to eat cheese > so frequently, even in small servings? If you stay slim and exercise, you will do well if you eat healthy natural products like cheese or beef or nuts or fish. i >If you stay slim and exercise, you will do well if you eat healthy >natural products like cheese or beef or nuts or fish. Do you consider beef healthy? I've relegated it to my "treats" list - I will still eat it, but certainly not every week. I think I'd put "chicken" rather than "beef" on the list. SignatureAnnabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday snaps! > Do you consider beef healthy? I've relegated it to my "treats" list - I > will still eat it, but certainly not every week. I think I'd put > "chicken" rather than "beef" on the list. Why? Some parts of chicken (legs) are a lot fatter than some beef, or even pork, cuts. Pork tenderloin is not fatter than chicken breast for instance... Same with the lean beef cuts, they're almost as lean as chicken breast... >> Do you consider beef healthy? I've relegated it to my "treats" list - I >> will still eat it, but certainly not every week. I think I'd put [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >instance... Same with the lean beef cuts, they're almost as lean as chicken >breast... It depends on how you cook your chicken, but I also understand that red meat isn't as healthy as it was thought to be when I was growing up in the 1950s. Occasionally, as with everything, fine - daily, perhaps not such a good idea. SignatureAnnabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday snaps! > It depends on how you cook your chicken, but I also understand that red > meat isn't as healthy as it was thought to be when I was growing up in > the 1950s. Whatever way you cook your chicken, you're not going to go much lower than 3% fat, which is where pork tenderloin sits. I think the whole red meat=bad business comes from the fact that red meat often means saturated fat. But then, chicken also means saturated fats nowadays. And this doesn't apply if you pick lean cuts. It might also come from the fact that chicken is a whole lot cheaper to produce but sells pretty high (best performer being turkey: 1 pound of powdered food = 1 pound of meat), so that the industry had some interrest in diabolizing red meat. Meat does seem to have some impact on colon cancer, but that seems to be any kind of meat, red, white or chicken. > It might also come from the fact that chicken is a whole lot cheaper to > produce but sells pretty high (best performer being turkey: 1 pound of > powdered food = 1 pound of meat), so that the industry had some interrest in > diabolizing red meat. Meat does seem to have some impact on colon cancer, > but that seems to be any kind of meat, red, white or chicken. Check this out: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=8123778 When checked with sugar intake, live births, and other factors, meat intake was not a health risk for colon cancer. The studies that showed "dangers" of meat, were lumping meat intake together with eating sugar and starch and dubbed it a "western style diet". Looked that way, meat lumped together with a bunch of other things, was associated with higher colon cancer rates, but looked at separately, it was not. That said, meat should be cooked without burning... ====================================================================== Sugar, meat, and fat intake, and non-dietary risk factors for colon cancer incidence in Iowa women (United States). Bostick RM, Potter JD, Kushi LH, Sellers TA, Steinmetz KA, McKenzie DR, Gapstur SM, Folsom AR. Department of Family Practice and Community Health, Medical School, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis 55454. To investigate the relation of dietary intakes of sucrose, meat, and fat, and anthropometric, lifestyle, hormonal, and reproductive factors to colon cancer incidence, data were analyzed from a prospective cohort study of 35,215 Iowa (United States) women, aged 55-69 years and without a history of cancer, who completed mailed dietary and other questionnaires in 1986. Through 1990, 212 incident cases of colon cancer were documented. Proportional hazards regression was used to adjust for age and other risk factors. Risk factors found to be associated significantly with colon cancer included: (i) sucrose-containing foods and beverages other than ice cream/milk; relative risks (RR) across the quintiles = 1.00, 1.73, 1.56, 1.54, and 2.00 (95% confidence intervals [CI] for quintiles two and five exclude 1.0); (ii) sucrose; RR across the quintiles = 1.00, 1.70, 1.81, 1.82, and 1.45 (CI for quintiles two through four exclude 1.0); (iii) height; RR = 1.23 for highest to lowest quintile (P for trend = 0.02); (iv) body mass index; RR = 1.41 for highest to lowest quintile (P for trend = 0.03); and (v) number of livebirths, RR = 1.59 for having had one to two livebirths and 1.80 for having had three or more livebirths compared with having had none (P for trend = 0.04). These data support hypotheses that sucrose intake or being tall or obese increases colon cancer risk; run contrary to the hypothesis that increased parity decreases risk; support previous findings of no association with demographic factors other than age, cigarette smoking, or use of oral contraceptives or estrogen replacement therapy; and raise questions regarding previous associations with meat, fat, protein, and physical activity. PMID: 8123778 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] >>If you stay slim and exercise, you will do well if you eat healthy >>natural products like cheese or beef or nuts or fish. > Do you consider beef healthy? I do, personally, consider beef healthy. > I've relegated it to my "treats" list - I will still eat it, but > certainly not every week. I think I'd put "chicken" rather than > "beef" on the list. Chicken is also great food... i >well that was just hypothetical, i haven't had a taco in quite awhile. but i do >eat cheese almost everyday. is it bad to eat cheese so frequently, even in >small servings? I hope not! On the other hand, just look at the size I am...... on the third hand, "a little of what you fancy", and all that. SignatureAnnabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday snaps! > 30 grams of fat total and you should be using monounsaturates like olive or > canola, or things like nut oils. I don't think you should cut out tacos or > cheese either but you have to realize you can't eat them every day if you > want to be healthy. Patty was top-posting to the question of how many grams of saturated fat a woman eating 1600 calories should have in her diet. My answer is closer to 50 grams of fat, with as little from saturated sources as possible. For example, if I were making tacos I would drain the meat in a colander and rinse it, too. No, actually, I've used "Gimme Lean" soy crumble the last few times I've made tacos - a soy meat substitute by Light Life foods. I think people trying to live on a small calorie budget shoot themselves in the foot when they go too low on fat. It reduces your metabolism, ruins your skin and leaves you feeling hungry and cranky. Cut out things like the shell on the taco, sodas, empty-calorie carbs and put things like peanut-butter back into your diet instead. Dally > > 30 grams of fat total and you should be using monounsaturates like olive or > > canola, or things like nut oils. I don't think you should cut out tacos or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Patty was top-posting to the question of how many grams of saturated fat > a woman eating 1600 calories should have in her diet. Excellent strategy for idiot top-posters -- just don't respond to them. > My answer is closer to 50 grams of fat, with as little from saturated > sources as possible. 50g x 9kcal/g = 450 kcal, or ~30% for a 1500kcal diet. I too consider this just about right. Sure makes meal planning a lot more flexible! > I think people trying to live on a small calorie budget shoot themselves > in the foot when they go too low on fat. It reduces your metabolism, > ruins your skin and leaves you feeling hungry and cranky. yup, if you cut the fat you've basically got to add carbs since protein shouldn't go over 30%... > Cut out > things like the shell on the taco, sodas, empty-calorie carbs and put > things like peanut-butter back into your diet instead. Worked for me. I lost 2lbs/week for 5 months not overly worrying about fat calories that much. I avoided the bad stuff like snack foods and ice cream, but didn't stress about eg. a bit of cheese here & there, my 1% milk, some butter in my cooking etc. I think going under 20% fat calories is rather unnecessary, at least for most people. There is some evidence that 10% fat diets are more healthy, but who wants to live like a monk? >I think people trying to live on a small calorie budget shoot themselves >in the foot when they go too low on fat. true. although the 1600 seems to be what my body generally needs. so i don't want to go over that. >My answer is closer to 50 grams of fat, with as little from saturated >sources as possible. how little, do you think? sara hello teacher tell me what's my lesson, look right through me, look right through me. > >I think people trying to live on a small calorie budget shoot themselves > >in the foot when they go too low on fat. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > how little, do you think? 'as little as possible' seems the best answer to me. Life is all about tradeoffs, and IMV trying to eat really really healthy just gets you into the realm of diminishing returns. Each can of sugary soda has ~180kcal of sugar, and so is worth roughly 20g of saturated fat if you cut sodas out of your diet (the corn syrup in cokes is often metabolized direct into really bad blood fats). And to think I used to drink 600kcal of soda each and every day! gag. There is some evidence that the calcium in dairy foods is good for us in several ways, much better than calcium supplements, so I see nothing terribly wrong with a bit of saturated fat that comes with butter, milk, and cheese. > There is some evidence that the calcium in dairy foods is good for us > in several ways, much better than calcium supplements, so I see > nothing terribly wrong with a bit of saturated fat that comes with > butter, milk, and cheese. Besides, butter is rich in vitamins (A, D) and in CLA which seem to have an anti-cancerigen action among other things. > 30 grams of fat total and you should be using monounsaturates like olive or > canola, or things like nut oils. 30 grams is a radical low fat plan. If you plan in advance to be on a radical low fat plan that's fine. But is there any reason to suspect the OP wishes to be on a radical low fat plan? Twice that would be a moderate low fat plan for a woman, 60 grams of fat daily. It's an eternal tradeoff. It's tempting to get radical when you start but folks have more trouble staying on radical plans. Moderate plans don't yield as fast a losss as radical plans but folks have less trouble staying on moderate plans. Five years later staying on dominates the equation. > i ask this question out of concern for both weight and overall health. after > searching the web, i am still confused about saturated fat: how much is 'okay'? [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > hello teacher tell me what's my lesson, > look right through me, look right through me. You’ll get plenty of mixed opinions on the dangers or non-dangers of saturated fats so let me offer this advice instead. Peanuts are a source of good monounsaturated fat. Unfortunately many people don’t want to open up a jar of peanut butter and see peanut oil floating on the top. For this reason and extending the shelf life, most peanut butter has partially hydrogenated vegetable oil instead. This hydrogenation process keeps the oil solid and makes the peanut butter remain creamy throughout. This unfortunately gives it the ~3.5g of saturated fat. If you don’t mind stirring your peanut butter before spreading, switch to natural peanut butter which has not hydrogenated vegetable oils or trans-fats. Storing it upside down helps keep from using all the oil in the first few servings If you’re worried about the saturated fat in ground beef, substitute ground turkey or cubed chicken in your tacos. Turkey mixed with McCormick taco seasoning tastes very similar to ground beef. McCormick also now makes a chicken taco seasoning. It doesn’t taste like a beef taco, but it makes a nice chicken taco. The same holds for enchiladas, burritos and chili. Ground turkey substitutes in very easily. Use fresh ground turkey and not the “tube” variety. The tubes stuff (sorry don’t know the brand) is nasty. Turkey burgers are not on my list. If you cut enough saturated fats from your diet elsewhere, you can treat yourself to a beef hamburger. Turkey varieties I find bland or saturated fattened up with a slice or two of bacon. Hope this helps, Rob >If you don’t mind stirring your peanut butter before >spreading, switch to natural peanut butter which has not hydrogenated >vegetable oils or trans-fats thanks for the advice. when i buy my own peanut butter i do use natural or organic. i don't think i need to cut out hamburgers either, but when i can substitute turkey for beef i think i will, as long as i have the option of seasoning it well. sara hello teacher tell me what's my lesson, look right through me, look right through me. >thanks for the advice. when i buy my own peanut butter i do use natural or >organic. i don't think i need to cut out hamburgers either, but when i can >substitute turkey for beef i think i will, as long as i have the option of >seasoning it well. Try turkey ham and turkey bacon, too - I personally don't like them enough to substitute, but some people do. SignatureAnnabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday snaps! >>thanks for the advice. when i buy my own peanut butter i do use natural or >>organic. i don't think i need to cut out hamburgers either, but when i can [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Try turkey ham and turkey bacon, too - I personally don't like them > enough to substitute, but some people do. I'm not a fan of turkey ham or turkey bacon either. I eat the pork variety as a treat, not a staple. Turkey Kielbasa and chicken sausages work though. > >thanks for the advice. when i buy my own peanut butter i do use natural or > >organic. i don't think i need to cut out hamburgers either, but when i can [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Try turkey ham and turkey bacon, too - I personally don't like them > enough to substitute, but some people do. My husband won't touch turkey substitutes like turkey bacon, but he will eat soy bacon and sausage (certain brands). Jenn organic. i don't think i need to cut out hamburgers either, but when i can > substitute turkey for beef i think i will, as long as i have the option of > seasoning it well. My local butcher makes fantastic ground turkey -- much better than national brands. I've tried several national brands and have found I don't like the ground turkey breast at all (way too dry and blah) -- I like it with some dark meat ground in too -- I don't care that the fat percentage is higher -- but my local butcher's ground turkey blows away anything packaged. BF swears he doesn't care if he ever eats pork sausage again (I season up the ground turkey with my own spices) -- and it's wonderful in any recipe that calls for ground meat. (I don't eat red meat because I'm allergic.) Just a suggestion to try your local butcher -- you may find the ground turkey far superior than anything you'll find in a supermarket. Mary > organic. i don't think i need to cut out hamburgers either, but when i can > > substitute turkey for beef i think i will, as long as i have the option of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Mary It's also relatively easy to grind your own if you have a grinder or a good food processor. I grind my own turkey, chicken, and beef. There is a butcher in town though so I should check to see what he's got going on... Jenn > i ask this question out of concern for both weight and overall > health. after searching the web, i am still confused about saturated [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > exactly, i should be limiting saturated fat and even unsaturated > fats if i'd like to maintain good health and my current weight. Saturated fat is maligned based on mostly junk science. Such as, take a few select countries and show that in those that eat more saturated fat, there are more of certain diseases. Well, it turns out that if more countries are selected, the supposed relationship between eating saturated fat and disease disappears. Or, it turns out that victims of heart attack were not eating any more saturated fat than controls. Or, that early studies of saturated fats used hydrogenated oils as substitute fo saturated fat in their experiments. There is a lot of institutional imperative behind a few organizations crusading against saturated fat. They make an endless stream of warnings about saturated fat that are without substance. But the sheer volume is almost convincing. I will be delighted to supply you with references, if you are interested. i Just one quick example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=14758868 Findings from cohort studies and trials with intermediary endpoints have indicated that higher consumption of whole grain products and exchanging unsaturated fat for saturated fat may lower risk for type 2 diabetes. > i ask this question out of concern for both weight and > overall health. after searching the web, i am still > confused about saturated fat: how much is 'okay'? It's not the amount of saturated fat by itself that's an issue. The issue is (saturated fat + carbs). Since low fat folks eat plenty of carbs they must avoid saturated fats as much as they can. Because low carb folks eat little carbs they have no need to avoid saturated fats and actually end up completely on their own averaging near 20% of their total calories from saturated fat. They don't try, it just happens all by itself in the low carb case. > i eat about 1500-1600 calories a day. so i guess i'm > really not supposed to exceed 20 grams per day, based on > percentage. but is 15, for example, still too much? how > about 10? Without having your carb grams there is no way to answer. More carbs, less saturated fat is important. Less carbs, limiting saturated fat moves towards irrelevant. > and how much does one need to watch the unsaturated fats? Much less. There is far less interaction between the unsaturated ones and carbs. If you're on low fat you will need to count fat grams. > i personally don't believe in cutting something completely > out of my diet that i enjoy. Since I have an addictive reaction to certain foods that I enjoy, I don't have that luxury. I wish I did. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.