| why so stressed |
| Author | Post |
|---|
btowns911
New Member
| Joined: | 14 Sep 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 68 |
|
Posted: 17 Oct 2006 02:07 am |
|
i dont get it....
why are people SO stressed about low cal , low fat, low carb substitutions..... when they really just have to watch their caloric intake... or is that also why ur doing it, so u can eat maximal but stay within the -500 caloric deficit atleast?!
if i crave chocolate i eat it, but i just adjust my food so i can still lose a 500 caloric deficit....
is that okay, or am i suppposed to eat -500 caloric deficit + only healthy food
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 17 Oct 2006 08:18 am |
|
As a rule, any food which is labelled with one of those "low" labels is processed to some degree. I've never seen the labels "low fat", "low calorie" or "low carb" stamped on raw vegetables in the supermarket. They're always on a processed product.
Processed products are generally less healthy than whole foods.
But those labelled products might be healthier than the original versions of those same processed products, and they might help you to stick to your calorie limit if you're counting calories.
To use your example of chocolate, there are some 'chocolate for diabetics' products which are around 400 calories per 100g instead of 500g. This is because they use artificial sweetners. Of course they've got their drawbacks. Some people (OWF on this forums, for example) have severe reactions to these alcohol-based sweetners. Those specialist 'diabetic' products are a bit dear too.
The main "low" thing I use is low fat dairy. I use dairy as a source of protein - because I like variety in my food. (I could eat lots of protein without eating dairy, but why restrict myself?). I measure how useful a protein source is to me by what % of the calories come from protein. Generally, when comparing "low fat" and "original" versions of the same dairy product, the "low fat" version has a higher % of protein (and a higher % of carbs) than the "original" version. The difference can be striking. Philadelphia cream chease: most calories are from fat. Sainsbury's supermarkt lowest-fat version: about 70% of calories from protein and just 3% of calories from fat.
artificial sweetners are a hot-potato in discussions about health. what you're talking about is swapping the sugars for chemicals. on the calorie balance sheet it is obvious that this "low cal", "low carb" version of whatever it is (for example, Cola) is better for calorie-counting and kinder to your blood-sugar levels. But artificial sweetners could well be bad for you healthwise in the longer term. Personally, I take the risk and use artificial sweetners. Others choose to learn to live without "sweetness" in their lives - or, as you say, just make room for the sugar in their daily calorie limit.
The danger is when people look at those headlines and simply forget to analyse those labels. "low fat" could easily mean "high sugar". "low carb" could mean "high fat". "low cal" - it only has to be low compared with the original version of the same product - in reality it might still be a lot of calories. Ignore the headline and analyse the label.
|
NevD
New Member
| Joined: | 26 Oct 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1536 |
|
Posted: 17 Oct 2006 11:33 am |
|
It really isn't just about calories - it's about nutrition.
If you lose weight on the wrong diet, some of what you lose is muscle, then you regain that body fat - only faster than you lost it.
Watch not just calories but how much carbs, protein and fat is in your diet if you want results that last.
|
Current time is 03:40 pm | |
|
|
|
