Weight, health & body image

Munsford0

I'm a pig when it comes to confectionery but think I'd struggle with 4 mars bars at a sitting. I could definitely eat a tube of pringles if I was left alone with one.

TheBigBean

Munsford0 said:

I'm a pig when it comes to confectionery but think I'd struggle with 4 mars bars at a sitting. I could definitely eat a tube of pringles if I was left alone with one.

Yes, likewise. It was the point I was trying to lead people towards. 15 eggs is pretty unimaginable.

surrey_commuter

Actuaries overlay their mortality charts with data on education, earnings and where you live.

It strikes me that the unspoken truth is that you don't live longer because you live in Knightsbridge but because you are well educated and earn more which means that you are aware of what is "common knowledge" about healthy eating and exercise.

There is no easy solution but surely it is worth a long term Govt information campaign like drink driving and smoking.

davebradswmb

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

TheBigBean said:

I presume no one read the article I posted upthread about fat and the dodgy science that 40 years of bad advice was based on?

I'd read it some time ago. In summary, fat was concluded as being so evil that it had to be eradicated from food where possible, with the unfortunate side effect that sugar, in increasingly refined and otherwise sub-optimal formats was used instead, with the end result that food contained no fewer calories in "low fat" form but is far worse for you in sugar-related ways.

Yes, and the original research deliberated excluded France which had a high fat diet, but low incidence of heart disease which was at odds with the desired result. Then everyone in the industry forced out anyone who questioned it.

I mentioned it, because there is yet another post about how healthy cooking involves reducing the fat.

Most I’ve read mention reducing fat and sugar. I thought it had been common knowledge for years that there are ‘good’ and ‘bad’ sources of fat (and sugar for that matter) with trans fats being the worst, saturated being not great and unsaturated having potential health benefits. In one of my first chemistry lessons nearly 40 years ago we covered the difference between saturated and unsaturated fats and why the one was less healthy.

Likewise, fruit and to a lesser extent veg are sources of sugar but are still very much part of a healthy diet (my pet hate is people saying they’ve cut sugar out of their diet).

However, when discussing obesity the overall calories come into play and fat has over double the amount of calories per gram than either carbohydrates or protein.

If I’m really making an effort to eat healthily I try to balance my diet so that the calories come from 20-30% fat, 30% protein and 40-50% carbs. If exercising a lot I’ll usually be at the higher carb level.

That is all based on reading up on things though and I agree basic messaging isn’t great. I assume it is due to feeling the need to dumb down like the 5 a day thing.

The point is that there is nothing wrong with saturated fats and that you have been misled for years. Fat is more calorie dense, but is also more satiating which is important in terms of overeating.

I would say it isn't as conclusive as that and, once again, simplistic messaging on food probably isn't helpful https://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i5796

The article I posted is very long, but it is a worthwhile read. Going back on 40 years of advice is not going to happen without a fight.

I know, I've looked at it but that study is also very comprehensive and with no obvious affiliation that might create bias as far as I can see. It's a problem in the world of health and nutrition, there always seems to be a study that say 'x' is bad for you followed by another saying 'actually 'x' is good for you' (alcohol, caffeine etc.). That report is basically saying it's not conclusive but on balance saturated fats may lead to an increased risk of heart disease and that further studies are needed.

This has already been done really, on quite a large scale. https://openheart.bmj.com/content/4/2/e000673
The conclusion is that it is sugar and simple carbs that cause heart disease, not saturated fat.

wallace_and_gromit

TheBigBean said:

Ways to eat 1,000 calories:
- eat a tube of pringles
- eat four Mars bars or 200g of milk chocolate
- eat 15 eggs
- drink 1.5l of full fat milk

Which is easiest?

Pringles!

Pross

davebradswmb said:

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

TheBigBean said:

I presume no one read the article I posted upthread about fat and the dodgy science that 40 years of bad advice was based on?

I'd read it some time ago. In summary, fat was concluded as being so evil that it had to be eradicated from food where possible, with the unfortunate side effect that sugar, in increasingly refined and otherwise sub-optimal formats was used instead, with the end result that food contained no fewer calories in "low fat" form but is far worse for you in sugar-related ways.

Yes, and the original research deliberated excluded France which had a high fat diet, but low incidence of heart disease which was at odds with the desired result. Then everyone in the industry forced out anyone who questioned it.

I mentioned it, because there is yet another post about how healthy cooking involves reducing the fat.

Most I’ve read mention reducing fat and sugar. I thought it had been common knowledge for years that there are ‘good’ and ‘bad’ sources of fat (and sugar for that matter) with trans fats being the worst, saturated being not great and unsaturated having potential health benefits. In one of my first chemistry lessons nearly 40 years ago we covered the difference between saturated and unsaturated fats and why the one was less healthy.

Likewise, fruit and to a lesser extent veg are sources of sugar but are still very much part of a healthy diet (my pet hate is people saying they’ve cut sugar out of their diet).

However, when discussing obesity the overall calories come into play and fat has over double the amount of calories per gram than either carbohydrates or protein.

If I’m really making an effort to eat healthily I try to balance my diet so that the calories come from 20-30% fat, 30% protein and 40-50% carbs. If exercising a lot I’ll usually be at the higher carb level.

That is all based on reading up on things though and I agree basic messaging isn’t great. I assume it is due to feeling the need to dumb down like the 5 a day thing.

The point is that there is nothing wrong with saturated fats and that you have been misled for years. Fat is more calorie dense, but is also more satiating which is important in terms of overeating.

I would say it isn't as conclusive as that and, once again, simplistic messaging on food probably isn't helpful https://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i5796

The article I posted is very long, but it is a worthwhile read. Going back on 40 years of advice is not going to happen without a fight.

I know, I've looked at it but that study is also very comprehensive and with no obvious affiliation that might create bias as far as I can see. It's a problem in the world of health and nutrition, there always seems to be a study that say 'x' is bad for you followed by another saying 'actually 'x' is good for you' (alcohol, caffeine etc.). That report is basically saying it's not conclusive but on balance saturated fats may lead to an increased risk of heart disease and that further studies are needed.

This has already been done really, on quite a large scale. https://openheart.bmj.com/content/4/2/e000673
The conclusion is that it is sugar and simple carbs that cause heart disease, not saturated fat.

Not really relevant to the discussion, it is looking at a particular group of Inuit people to determine if a relatively recent change to their diet to include higher levels of refined sugar is causing a rise in heart disease when their diet was traditionally high in fat.

dannbodge

I really struggle to drop weight/maintain it.

I'm 173cm tall and weigh anywhere between 68 and 72kg depending on the time of year and how I'm feeling.

My goal is to be a consistent 68kg but as soon as I stop cycling/running I bump back up to 70kg.

Diet isn't bad, eat a varied amount of food and not too many biscuits and cakes.
Ride 160km a week (4 days commuting), run 5-10k on another day and don't drink any alcohol.

I've tracked my intake using a scanning app thing and I was consistently under 2000kCals and the recomended amount for fat/sats and sugar etc.

davebradswmb

Pross said:

davebradswmb said:

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

TheBigBean said:

I presume no one read the article I posted upthread about fat and the dodgy science that 40 years of bad advice was based on?

I'd read it some time ago. In summary, fat was concluded as being so evil that it had to be eradicated from food where possible, with the unfortunate side effect that sugar, in increasingly refined and otherwise sub-optimal formats was used instead, with the end result that food contained no fewer calories in "low fat" form but is far worse for you in sugar-related ways.

Yes, and the original research deliberated excluded France which had a high fat diet, but low incidence of heart disease which was at odds with the desired result. Then everyone in the industry forced out anyone who questioned it.

I mentioned it, because there is yet another post about how healthy cooking involves reducing the fat.

Most I’ve read mention reducing fat and sugar. I thought it had been common knowledge for years that there are ‘good’ and ‘bad’ sources of fat (and sugar for that matter) with trans fats being the worst, saturated being not great and unsaturated having potential health benefits. In one of my first chemistry lessons nearly 40 years ago we covered the difference between saturated and unsaturated fats and why the one was less healthy.

Likewise, fruit and to a lesser extent veg are sources of sugar but are still very much part of a healthy diet (my pet hate is people saying they’ve cut sugar out of their diet).

However, when discussing obesity the overall calories come into play and fat has over double the amount of calories per gram than either carbohydrates or protein.

If I’m really making an effort to eat healthily I try to balance my diet so that the calories come from 20-30% fat, 30% protein and 40-50% carbs. If exercising a lot I’ll usually be at the higher carb level.

That is all based on reading up on things though and I agree basic messaging isn’t great. I assume it is due to feeling the need to dumb down like the 5 a day thing.

The point is that there is nothing wrong with saturated fats and that you have been misled for years. Fat is more calorie dense, but is also more satiating which is important in terms of overeating.

I would say it isn't as conclusive as that and, once again, simplistic messaging on food probably isn't helpful https://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i5796

The article I posted is very long, but it is a worthwhile read. Going back on 40 years of advice is not going to happen without a fight.

I know, I've looked at it but that study is also very comprehensive and with no obvious affiliation that might create bias as far as I can see. It's a problem in the world of health and nutrition, there always seems to be a study that say 'x' is bad for you followed by another saying 'actually 'x' is good for you' (alcohol, caffeine etc.). That report is basically saying it's not conclusive but on balance saturated fats may lead to an increased risk of heart disease and that further studies are needed.

This has already been done really, on quite a large scale. https://openheart.bmj.com/content/4/2/e000673
The conclusion is that it is sugar and simple carbs that cause heart disease, not saturated fat.

Not really relevant to the discussion, it is looking at a particular group of Inuit people to determine if a relatively recent change to their diet to include higher levels of refined sugar is causing a rise in heart disease when their diet was traditionally high in fat.

It was a reply to the the conclustion in Pross's post

" saturated fats may lead to an increased risk of heart disease and that further studies are needed.".

It's very relevant to that statement, and by extension to the whole topic. A good part of the reason for increased obesity is reliance on sugar and simple carbohydrates in the modern western diet, the answer is to increase fat intake and reduce carbs to return to a more natural diet. There is a lot of resistance to doing this because we have had 50 years of "experts" telling us that saturated fat causes heart disease which is simply not true, and has been proven so.

pangolin

wallace_and_gromit said:

TheBigBean said:

Ways to eat 1,000 calories:
- eat a tube of pringles
- eat four Mars bars or 200g of milk chocolate
- eat 15 eggs
- drink 1.5l of full fat milk

Which is easiest?

Pringles!

I think I could manage 200g of chocolate more easily than a whole tube of pringles.

Are we allowed a drink BB?

wallace_and_gromit

pblakeney said:

TheBigBean said:

pblakeney said:

TheBigBean said:

Ways to eat 1,000 calories:
- eat a tube of pringles
- eat four Mars bars
- eat 15 eggs
- drink 1.5l of full fat milk

Which is easiest?

None of the above as I don't have any of them. 😉

It's harder to put pasta, rice etc. in context, but the point stands for those as well. It's much easier to eat a bucket load of calories by eating carbs than it is by eating fat.

1000 calories of rice is 740g.

This got me thinking as 740g of rice is "a lot" in a way that 4 Mars Bars isn't. My rule of thumb was that rice is 80% carbs, and there are 4.5 calories per gram. So 1000 calories would involve (1000 / 4.5) / 0.8 ~ 280g of rice.

So the 740g had to be cooked weight, as using a ratio of rice:water of 1:1.7 (perfect for the absorption method) gives a dry weight of circa 280g.

To my surprise a look at my pack of Sainbury's Basmati rice revealed that nutritional information is now in terms of cooked weight of rice, with info given per 100g of cooked weight and per 195g serving, based on 75g dry rice weighing 195g when cooked.

My recollection is that not so long ago, nutritional info was per 100g of dry weight, which is much more sensible, as you can easily weight dry rice, but it's harder to weigh it when cooked (without the risk of spilling it).

wallace_and_gromit

pangolin said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

TheBigBean said:

Ways to eat 1,000 calories:
- eat a tube of pringles
- eat four Mars bars or 200g of milk chocolate
- eat 15 eggs
- drink 1.5l of full fat milk

Which is easiest?

Pringles!

I think I could manage 200g of chocolate more easily than a whole tube of pringles.

Are we allowed a drink BB?

I reckon 100g chocolate and half a tub of Pringles would be optimal, leaving plenty of room for a drink, to get the calories up to around 1200.

webboo

wallace_and_gromit said:

pangolin said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

TheBigBean said:

Ways to eat 1,000 calories:
- eat a tube of pringles
- eat four Mars bars or 200g of milk chocolate
- eat 15 eggs
- drink 1.5l of full fat milk

Which is easiest?

Pringles!

I think I could manage 200g of chocolate more easily than a whole tube of pringles.

Are we allowed a drink BB?

I reckon 100g chocolate and half a tub of Pringles would be optimal, leaving plenty of room for a drink, to get the calories up to around 1200.

That’s tonight’s dinner sorted then.

pangolin

wallace_and_gromit said:

pangolin said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

TheBigBean said:

Ways to eat 1,000 calories:
- eat a tube of pringles
- eat four Mars bars or 200g of milk chocolate
- eat 15 eggs
- drink 1.5l of full fat milk

Which is easiest?

Pringles!

I think I could manage 200g of chocolate more easily than a whole tube of pringles.

Are we allowed a drink BB?

I reckon 100g chocolate and half a tub of Pringles would be optimal, leaving plenty of room for a drink, to get the calories up to around 1200.

What if we coat the pringles in chocolate?

Pross

davebradswmb said:

Pross said:

davebradswmb said:

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

TheBigBean said:

I presume no one read the article I posted upthread about fat and the dodgy science that 40 years of bad advice was based on?

I'd read it some time ago. In summary, fat was concluded as being so evil that it had to be eradicated from food where possible, with the unfortunate side effect that sugar, in increasingly refined and otherwise sub-optimal formats was used instead, with the end result that food contained no fewer calories in "low fat" form but is far worse for you in sugar-related ways.

Yes, and the original research deliberated excluded France which had a high fat diet, but low incidence of heart disease which was at odds with the desired result. Then everyone in the industry forced out anyone who questioned it.

I mentioned it, because there is yet another post about how healthy cooking involves reducing the fat.

Most I’ve read mention reducing fat and sugar. I thought it had been common knowledge for years that there are ‘good’ and ‘bad’ sources of fat (and sugar for that matter) with trans fats being the worst, saturated being not great and unsaturated having potential health benefits. In one of my first chemistry lessons nearly 40 years ago we covered the difference between saturated and unsaturated fats and why the one was less healthy.

Likewise, fruit and to a lesser extent veg are sources of sugar but are still very much part of a healthy diet (my pet hate is people saying they’ve cut sugar out of their diet).

However, when discussing obesity the overall calories come into play and fat has over double the amount of calories per gram than either carbohydrates or protein.

If I’m really making an effort to eat healthily I try to balance my diet so that the calories come from 20-30% fat, 30% protein and 40-50% carbs. If exercising a lot I’ll usually be at the higher carb level.

That is all based on reading up on things though and I agree basic messaging isn’t great. I assume it is due to feeling the need to dumb down like the 5 a day thing.

The point is that there is nothing wrong with saturated fats and that you have been misled for years. Fat is more calorie dense, but is also more satiating which is important in terms of overeating.

I would say it isn't as conclusive as that and, once again, simplistic messaging on food probably isn't helpful https://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i5796

The article I posted is very long, but it is a worthwhile read. Going back on 40 years of advice is not going to happen without a fight.

I know, I've looked at it but that study is also very comprehensive and with no obvious affiliation that might create bias as far as I can see. It's a problem in the world of health and nutrition, there always seems to be a study that say 'x' is bad for you followed by another saying 'actually 'x' is good for you' (alcohol, caffeine etc.). That report is basically saying it's not conclusive but on balance saturated fats may lead to an increased risk of heart disease and that further studies are needed.

This has already been done really, on quite a large scale. https://openheart.bmj.com/content/4/2/e000673
The conclusion is that it is sugar and simple carbs that cause heart disease, not saturated fat.

Not really relevant to the discussion, it is looking at a particular group of Inuit people to determine if a relatively recent change to their diet to include higher levels of refined sugar is causing a rise in heart disease when their diet was traditionally high in fat.

It was a reply to the the conclustion in Pross's post

" saturated fats may lead to an increased risk of heart disease and that further studies are needed.".

It's very relevant to that statement, and by extension to the whole topic. A good part of the reason for increased obesity is reliance on sugar and simple carbohydrates in the modern western diet, the answer is to increase fat intake and reduce carbs to return to a more natural diet. There is a lot of resistance to doing this because we have had 50 years of "experts" telling us that saturated fat causes heart disease which is simply not true, and has been proven so.

I don't see anything in the conclusion extrapolating the findings out to a wider population (or even that this was the purpose of the study). It seems to be very much looking at a very specific population. I'd agree that it looking at populations with historically low rates of heart disease and trying to learn from them is a good starting point though. Even if it did extrapolate out I'm not sure why that study should be viewed as more conclusive that the 2016 study I had in my link that suggested saturated fats may lead to a higher risk of heart disease. As I said, there seem to always be contradictory messages when it comes to nutrition / health and you can pretty much pick one that supports your argument.

TheBigBean

pangolin said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

TheBigBean said:

Ways to eat 1,000 calories:
- eat a tube of pringles
- eat four Mars bars or 200g of milk chocolate
- eat 15 eggs
- drink 1.5l of full fat milk

Which is easiest?

Pringles!

I think I could manage 200g of chocolate more easily than a whole tube of pringles.

Are we allowed a drink BB?

I'm sure you could have a pint of something while eating the pringles.

TheBigBean

wallace_and_gromit said:

pblakeney said:

TheBigBean said:

pblakeney said:

TheBigBean said:

Ways to eat 1,000 calories:
- eat a tube of pringles
- eat four Mars bars
- eat 15 eggs
- drink 1.5l of full fat milk

Which is easiest?

None of the above as I don't have any of them. 😉

It's harder to put pasta, rice etc. in context, but the point stands for those as well. It's much easier to eat a bucket load of calories by eating carbs than it is by eating fat.

1000 calories of rice is 740g.

This got me thinking as 740g of rice is "a lot" in a way that 4 Mars Bars isn't. My rule of thumb was that rice is 80% carbs, and there are 4.5 calories per gram. So 1000 calories would involve (1000 / 4.5) / 0.8 ~ 280g of rice.

So the 740g had to be cooked weight, as using a ratio of rice:water of 1:1.7 (perfect for the absorption method) gives a dry weight of circa 280g.

To my surprise a look at my pack of Sainbury's Basmati rice revealed that nutritional information is now in terms of cooked weight of rice, with info given per 100g of cooked weight and per 195g serving, based on 75g dry rice weighing 195g when cooked.

My recollection is that not so long ago, nutritional info was per 100g of dry weight, which is much more sensible, as you can easily weight dry rice, but it's harder to weigh it when cooked (without the risk of spilling it).

I admire your commitment to calculations. Google tells me it is 280g of rice or 1.5 cups in American. I'd need to see it in front of me to assess where it sits in my table. 1000 calories of pasta is easy.

wallace_and_gromit

pangolin said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

pangolin said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

TheBigBean said:

Ways to eat 1,000 calories:
- eat a tube of pringles
- eat four Mars bars or 200g of milk chocolate
- eat 15 eggs
- drink 1.5l of full fat milk

Which is easiest?

Pringles!

I think I could manage 200g of chocolate more easily than a whole tube of pringles.

Are we allowed a drink BB?

I reckon 100g chocolate and half a tub of Pringles would be optimal, leaving plenty of room for a drink, to get the calories up to around 1200.

What if we coat the pringles in chocolate?

No idea. Can you experiment and report back?

wallace_and_gromit

TheBigBean said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

pblakeney said:

TheBigBean said:

pblakeney said:

TheBigBean said:

Ways to eat 1,000 calories:
- eat a tube of pringles
- eat four Mars bars
- eat 15 eggs
- drink 1.5l of full fat milk

Which is easiest?

None of the above as I don't have any of them. 😉

It's harder to put pasta, rice etc. in context, but the point stands for those as well. It's much easier to eat a bucket load of calories by eating carbs than it is by eating fat.

1000 calories of rice is 740g.

This got me thinking as 740g of rice is "a lot" in a way that 4 Mars Bars isn't. My rule of thumb was that rice is 80% carbs, and there are 4.5 calories per gram. So 1000 calories would involve (1000 / 4.5) / 0.8 ~ 280g of rice.

So the 740g had to be cooked weight, as using a ratio of rice:water of 1:1.7 (perfect for the absorption method) gives a dry weight of circa 280g.

To my surprise a look at my pack of Sainbury's Basmati rice revealed that nutritional information is now in terms of cooked weight of rice, with info given per 100g of cooked weight and per 195g serving, based on 75g dry rice weighing 195g when cooked.

My recollection is that not so long ago, nutritional info was per 100g of dry weight, which is much more sensible, as you can easily weight dry rice, but it's harder to weigh it when cooked (without the risk of spilling it).

I admire your commitment to calculations. Google tells me it is 280g of rice or 1.5 cups in American. I'd need to see it in front of me to assess where it sits in my table. 1000 calories of pasta is easy.

Cups are the work of the Devil. There's no place for such Johnny Foreigner measurements in traditional British cuisine.

Pross

Just deep fry the Mars bars and you'll need fewer. I can confirm from bitter experience that they sit very heavily in your stomach leaving you unable to eat for several hours. My advice is don't decide to try one when walking to rugby training!

TheBigBean

Garlic baguette is about 750 calories. Another easy side dish to top things up.

wallace_and_gromit

TheBigBean said:

Garlic baguette is about 750 calories. Another easy side dish to top things up.

Cheesy garlic bread must be the one foodstuff to which all others bow down if we're talking about getting to 1000 calories most easily!

TheBigBean

wallace_and_gromit said:

TheBigBean said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

pblakeney said:

TheBigBean said:

pblakeney said:

TheBigBean said:

Ways to eat 1,000 calories:
- eat a tube of pringles
- eat four Mars bars
- eat 15 eggs
- drink 1.5l of full fat milk

Which is easiest?

None of the above as I don't have any of them. 😉

It's harder to put pasta, rice etc. in context, but the point stands for those as well. It's much easier to eat a bucket load of calories by eating carbs than it is by eating fat.

1000 calories of rice is 740g.

This got me thinking as 740g of rice is "a lot" in a way that 4 Mars Bars isn't. My rule of thumb was that rice is 80% carbs, and there are 4.5 calories per gram. So 1000 calories would involve (1000 / 4.5) / 0.8 ~ 280g of rice.

So the 740g had to be cooked weight, as using a ratio of rice:water of 1:1.7 (perfect for the absorption method) gives a dry weight of circa 280g.

To my surprise a look at my pack of Sainbury's Basmati rice revealed that nutritional information is now in terms of cooked weight of rice, with info given per 100g of cooked weight and per 195g serving, based on 75g dry rice weighing 195g when cooked.

My recollection is that not so long ago, nutritional info was per 100g of dry weight, which is much more sensible, as you can easily weight dry rice, but it's harder to weigh it when cooked (without the risk of spilling it).

I admire your commitment to calculations. Google tells me it is 280g of rice or 1.5 cups in American. I'd need to see it in front of me to assess where it sits in my table. 1000 calories of pasta is easy.

Cups are the work of the Devil. There's no place for such Johnny Foreigner measurements in traditional British cuisine.

I disagree. Very practical for lots of things which scale really easily. E.g. porridge requires double the volume of liquid to oats which means it can be measured with any size cup and doesn't require scales.

wallace_and_gromit

TheBigBean said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

TheBigBean said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

pblakeney said:

TheBigBean said:

pblakeney said:

TheBigBean said:

Ways to eat 1,000 calories:
- eat a tube of pringles
- eat four Mars bars
- eat 15 eggs
- drink 1.5l of full fat milk

Which is easiest?

None of the above as I don't have any of them. 😉

It's harder to put pasta, rice etc. in context, but the point stands for those as well. It's much easier to eat a bucket load of calories by eating carbs than it is by eating fat.

1000 calories of rice is 740g.

This got me thinking as 740g of rice is "a lot" in a way that 4 Mars Bars isn't. My rule of thumb was that rice is 80% carbs, and there are 4.5 calories per gram. So 1000 calories would involve (1000 / 4.5) / 0.8 ~ 280g of rice.

So the 740g had to be cooked weight, as using a ratio of rice:water of 1:1.7 (perfect for the absorption method) gives a dry weight of circa 280g.

To my surprise a look at my pack of Sainbury's Basmati rice revealed that nutritional information is now in terms of cooked weight of rice, with info given per 100g of cooked weight and per 195g serving, based on 75g dry rice weighing 195g when cooked.

My recollection is that not so long ago, nutritional info was per 100g of dry weight, which is much more sensible, as you can easily weight dry rice, but it's harder to weigh it when cooked (without the risk of spilling it).

I admire your commitment to calculations. Google tells me it is 280g of rice or 1.5 cups in American. I'd need to see it in front of me to assess where it sits in my table. 1000 calories of pasta is easy.

Cups are the work of the Devil. There's no place for such Johnny Foreigner measurements in traditional British cuisine.

I disagree. Very practical for lots of things which scale really easily. E.g. porridge requires double the volume of liquid to oats which means it can be measured with any size cup and doesn't require scales.

I was referring to the US "cup" which has an official size that is not widely known in the UK, where a "cup" be it the UK or US variant is no longer a standard measure. I blame the internet for US recipes for Red Velvet Cake.

I imagine folk from other countries being confused initially by the concept of the floz.

I agree about the usefulness of a cup (or mug, small jug or large serving spoon etc.) where ratios rather than absolute size are the key thing.

Stevo_666

All this talk of high calorie food has put me in the mood for a chicken parmo tonight. I've been out on the bike recently so I've earned it

webboo

Stevo_666 said:

All this talk of high calorie food has put me in the mood for a chicken parmo tonight. I've been out on the bike recently so I've earned it

I can’t claim to be an expert on nutrition but I’m fairly sure going for a ride 2 days ago won’t burn off the calories you eat tonight.

wallace_and_gromit

webboo said:

Stevo_666 said:

All this talk of high calorie food has put me in the mood for a chicken parmo tonight. I've been out on the bike recently so I've earned it

I can’t claim to be an expert on nutrition but I’m fairly sure going for a ride 2 days ago won’t burn off the calories you eat tonight.

Likely true, but we all still need circa 2000 calories per day to keep us just functional enough to lounge on the sofa all day, so some of the curry will go towards that.

TheBigBean

wallace_and_gromit said:

TheBigBean said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

TheBigBean said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

pblakeney said:

TheBigBean said:

pblakeney said:

TheBigBean said:

Ways to eat 1,000 calories:
- eat a tube of pringles
- eat four Mars bars
- eat 15 eggs
- drink 1.5l of full fat milk

Which is easiest?

None of the above as I don't have any of them. 😉

It's harder to put pasta, rice etc. in context, but the point stands for those as well. It's much easier to eat a bucket load of calories by eating carbs than it is by eating fat.

1000 calories of rice is 740g.

This got me thinking as 740g of rice is "a lot" in a way that 4 Mars Bars isn't. My rule of thumb was that rice is 80% carbs, and there are 4.5 calories per gram. So 1000 calories would involve (1000 / 4.5) / 0.8 ~ 280g of rice.

So the 740g had to be cooked weight, as using a ratio of rice:water of 1:1.7 (perfect for the absorption method) gives a dry weight of circa 280g.

To my surprise a look at my pack of Sainbury's Basmati rice revealed that nutritional information is now in terms of cooked weight of rice, with info given per 100g of cooked weight and per 195g serving, based on 75g dry rice weighing 195g when cooked.

My recollection is that not so long ago, nutritional info was per 100g of dry weight, which is much more sensible, as you can easily weight dry rice, but it's harder to weigh it when cooked (without the risk of spilling it).

I admire your commitment to calculations. Google tells me it is 280g of rice or 1.5 cups in American. I'd need to see it in front of me to assess where it sits in my table. 1000 calories of pasta is easy.

Cups are the work of the Devil. There's no place for such Johnny Foreigner measurements in traditional British cuisine.

I disagree. Very practical for lots of things which scale really easily. E.g. porridge requires double the volume of liquid to oats which means it can be measured with any size cup and doesn't require scales.

I was referring to the US "cup" which has an official size that is not widely known in the UK, where a "cup" be it the UK or US variant is no longer a standard measure. I blame the internet for US recipes for Red Velvet Cake.

I imagine folk from other countries being confused initially by the concept of the floz.

I agree about the usefulness of a cup (or mug, small jug or large serving spoon etc.) where ratios rather than absolute size are the key thing.

I know it is a standard size hence how I managed to quote grams of rice in cup size for Americans.

My point was that a volume measure scales easily, so still works with non standard size cups. For example, hungry today so will use a pint glass to measure the porridge.

They're also much easier for measuring things like rice. A plastic cup (official measurement) lives in our rice bag so that it is easy to spoon into the rice cooker which works by volume of cups (official measurement).

wallace_and_gromit

TheBigBean said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

TheBigBean said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

TheBigBean said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

pblakeney said:

TheBigBean said:

pblakeney said:

TheBigBean said:

Ways to eat 1,000 calories:
- eat a tube of pringles
- eat four Mars bars
- eat 15 eggs
- drink 1.5l of full fat milk

Which is easiest?

None of the above as I don't have any of them. 😉

It's harder to put pasta, rice etc. in context, but the point stands for those as well. It's much easier to eat a bucket load of calories by eating carbs than it is by eating fat.

1000 calories of rice is 740g.

This got me thinking as 740g of rice is "a lot" in a way that 4 Mars Bars isn't. My rule of thumb was that rice is 80% carbs, and there are 4.5 calories per gram. So 1000 calories would involve (1000 / 4.5) / 0.8 ~ 280g of rice.

So the 740g had to be cooked weight, as using a ratio of rice:water of 1:1.7 (perfect for the absorption method) gives a dry weight of circa 280g.

To my surprise a look at my pack of Sainbury's Basmati rice revealed that nutritional information is now in terms of cooked weight of rice, with info given per 100g of cooked weight and per 195g serving, based on 75g dry rice weighing 195g when cooked.

My recollection is that not so long ago, nutritional info was per 100g of dry weight, which is much more sensible, as you can easily weight dry rice, but it's harder to weigh it when cooked (without the risk of spilling it).

I admire your commitment to calculations. Google tells me it is 280g of rice or 1.5 cups in American. I'd need to see it in front of me to assess where it sits in my table. 1000 calories of pasta is easy.

Cups are the work of the Devil. There's no place for such Johnny Foreigner measurements in traditional British cuisine.

I disagree. Very practical for lots of things which scale really easily. E.g. porridge requires double the volume of liquid to oats which means it can be measured with any size cup and doesn't require scales.

I was referring to the US "cup" which has an official size that is not widely known in the UK, where a "cup" be it the UK or US variant is no longer a standard measure. I blame the internet for US recipes for Red Velvet Cake.

I imagine folk from other countries being confused initially by the concept of the floz.

I agree about the usefulness of a cup (or mug, small jug or large serving spoon etc.) where ratios rather than absolute size are the key thing.

I know it is a standard size hence how I managed to quote grams of rice in cup size for Americans.

Just to clarify, my point was that the standard size is not widely known in the UK, not that it is a standard size per se. So good for preparing stuff where ratios rather than absolute size are important. Not good for relatively young kids when cooking red velvet cake as a treat for their Mum when everything in the recipe is in cups (bar the # of eggs) and your scales are in grams and oz!

webboo

wallace_and_gromit said:

webboo said:

Stevo_666 said:

All this talk of high calorie food has put me in the mood for a chicken parmo tonight. I've been out on the bike recently so I've earned it

I can’t claim to be an expert on nutrition but I’m fairly sure going for a ride 2 days ago won’t burn off the calories you eat tonight.

Likely true, but we all still need circa 2000 calories per day to keep us just functional enough to lounge on the sofa all day, so some of the curry will go towards that.

Except a Chicken Parmo is not a curry. I believe it’s a piece of chicken pulverised flat stuffed with cheese and other things covered in bread crumbs then deep fried.
It’s a staple if you are from Middlesbrough.

briantrumpet

wallace_and_gromit said:

TheBigBean said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

TheBigBean said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

TheBigBean said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

pblakeney said:

TheBigBean said:

pblakeney said:

TheBigBean said:

Ways to eat 1,000 calories:
- eat a tube of pringles
- eat four Mars bars
- eat 15 eggs
- drink 1.5l of full fat milk

Which is easiest?

None of the above as I don't have any of them. 😉

It's harder to put pasta, rice etc. in context, but the point stands for those as well. It's much easier to eat a bucket load of calories by eating carbs than it is by eating fat.

1000 calories of rice is 740g.

This got me thinking as 740g of rice is "a lot" in a way that 4 Mars Bars isn't. My rule of thumb was that rice is 80% carbs, and there are 4.5 calories per gram. So 1000 calories would involve (1000 / 4.5) / 0.8 ~ 280g of rice.

So the 740g had to be cooked weight, as using a ratio of rice:water of 1:1.7 (perfect for the absorption method) gives a dry weight of circa 280g.

To my surprise a look at my pack of Sainbury's Basmati rice revealed that nutritional information is now in terms of cooked weight of rice, with info given per 100g of cooked weight and per 195g serving, based on 75g dry rice weighing 195g when cooked.

My recollection is that not so long ago, nutritional info was per 100g of dry weight, which is much more sensible, as you can easily weight dry rice, but it's harder to weigh it when cooked (without the risk of spilling it).

I admire your commitment to calculations. Google tells me it is 280g of rice or 1.5 cups in American. I'd need to see it in front of me to assess where it sits in my table. 1000 calories of pasta is easy.

Cups are the work of the Devil. There's no place for such Johnny Foreigner measurements in traditional British cuisine.

I disagree. Very practical for lots of things which scale really easily. E.g. porridge requires double the volume of liquid to oats which means it can be measured with any size cup and doesn't require scales.

I was referring to the US "cup" which has an official size that is not widely known in the UK, where a "cup" be it the UK or US variant is no longer a standard measure. I blame the internet for US recipes for Red Velvet Cake.

I imagine folk from other countries being confused initially by the concept of the floz.

I agree about the usefulness of a cup (or mug, small jug or large serving spoon etc.) where ratios rather than absolute size are the key thing.

I know it is a standard size hence how I managed to quote grams of rice in cup size for Americans.

Just to clarify, my point was that the standard size is not widely known in the UK, not that it is a standard size per se. So good for preparing stuff where ratios rather than absolute size are important. Not good for relatively young kids when cooking red velvet cake as a treat for their Mum when everything in the recipe is in cups (bar the # of eggs) and your scales are in grams and oz!

That's a pet hate of mine - recipes that jumble up all sorts of different units.