Weight, health & body image

1…1011121315

Comments

  • wallace_and_gromit
    wallace_and_gromit Posts: 3,696
    briantrumpet said:

    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.
    Jamie Oliver is a perpetrator of numerous misdeeds on this front with his bunches, knobs and lugs.

  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 22,027
    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!

    Not sure eggs are sufficiently uniform in size to worry about it. A cup is 237ml. Either grab something roughly the same size or scale based on that. Far easier than weighing everything
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,820
    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.
    You were so keen to claim your smartarse points that you didn't spot the humour ;)
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,597
    wallace_and_gromit said:

    briantrumpet said:

    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.
    Jamie Oliver is a perpetrator of numerous misdeeds on this front with his bunches, knobs and lugs.

    I always like the professional chef ‘small knob of butter’ as half a pack goes into the mix and ‘a drizzle of oil’ which seems to be roughly half a pint.
  • wallace_and_gromit
    wallace_and_gromit Posts: 3,696
    TheBigBean said:

    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!

    Not sure eggs are sufficiently uniform in size to worry about it. A cup is 237ml. Either grab something roughly the same size or scale based on that. Far easier than weighing everything
    My semi-autistic tendencies lend themselves to the use of scales though. For some reason I find it very comforting to know that my bags of rice and pasta will
    do a certain number of servings. As I mentioned upthread, I’m maybe a bit weird!

  • wavefront
    wavefront Posts: 397
    wallace_and_gromit said:

    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!
    I have Jordan’s granola most days for breakfasts. Exceptionally easy to hit 1000 calories in one bowl without thinking when added to milk and a banana as a topping. The recommended serving is 45g (188 calories) but when you put that in the bowl is looks like a few crumbs…. And I’m not a big eater.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,812
    wallace_and_gromit said:

    rjsterry said:

    wallace_and_gromit said:

    rick_chasey said:

    I really disagree with the oversimplification of the problem.

    It's a bit like only looking at how people press the accelerator to examine why people speed. "it's because they're pressing the go pedal too hard" and therefore people who don't are the one's who don't speed, so just "don't press the go pedal too hard".

    Clearly there is more to it than that.

    I'm not really addressing the psychological aspects. Just the physical aspects. Whilst over-eating and obesity etc. is doubtless a complex social problem, the current trend of excusing obesity as it is more prevalent amongst the poor and poor people can only afford to eat cr*p food because of the evil Tories doesn't help, evil though the Tories may be. (If malnutrition was the main issue then this would be a valid argument.)

    Going back to your example with the chips and nuggets, I get why that might be the only feasible option for the parent to eat (though as others have observed, there may be better alternatives available for relatively little additional effort) but if parent is gaining weight whilst eating 8 nuggets and 200g (circa 1/5 of a full 1kg bag) of chips each night, it's really not that hard to redesign the cooking process to produce a serving of 7 nuggets and 160g chips (circa 1/6 of a full bag).
    I don't know where you get the idea of "excusing" from. It's not like people aren't bombarded with advertising telling them that they have to be thin to be successful in life. A certain amount of push back against that is a good thing.

    It's clearly a public health issue and should be addressed as such rather than 'everyone just needs to eat better' statements - I mean obviously: how we achieve that at a population level is the only interesting question.
    Re "excusing" try making any comment about a specific person (to their face, or by reference on social media) who is overweight relating to them needing to "shed a little timber" etc. You'll be accused of "fat-shaming" before you can blink and then you'll be hit with loads of reasons why it's not just a matter of willpower (and by inference, folk are overweight due to factors beyond their control). The overall result of which is that practical solutions are never discussed, because why do you need a practical solution to something that isn't your fault?
    I really think they already know.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 22,027
    wavefront said:

    wallace_and_gromit said:

    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!
    I have Jordan’s granola most days for breakfasts. Exceptionally easy to hit 1000 calories in one bowl without thinking when added to milk and a banana as a topping. The recommended serving is 45g (188 calories) but when you put that in the bowl is looks like a few crumbs…. And I’m not a big eater.
    I do that with full fat greek yoghurt. Good start to the day, but you're right
  • Munsford0
    Munsford0 Posts: 680
    Pross said:



    Jamie Oliver is a perpetrator of numerous misdeeds on this front with his bunches, knobs and lugs.

    I always like the professional chef ‘small knob of butter’ as half a pack goes into the mix and ‘a drizzle of oil’ which seems to be roughly half a pint.

    Read Stanley Tucci's book after Christmas and one of his recipes required what he described as a fuckload of butter :smile:

  • Munsford0
    Munsford0 Posts: 680
    Just started reading Spoon Fed by Tim Spector. Interesting stuff...
  • wallace_and_gromit
    wallace_and_gromit Posts: 3,696
    Slightly off-topic, but I was listening to a podcast yesterday by Tom Dean (Olympic gold medallist * 2 in swimming in Tokyo). As a professional endurance athlete, his big training days (12k-15k swimming plus gym work) see him eat 7,000 calories per day, which is apparently really hard to do without lots of sugar. It's basically 5 full meals per day, with regular cooked (second) breakfasts. Even a light training day requires 3000-4000 calories. If I could swim, that would be my perfect job. Same calorie requirements as rowing but without the need to training outside in bad weather.

    His "guilty pleasure" is a raid on the pastry aisle at Tesco after morning training.
  • webboo
    webboo Posts: 6,087
    Stevo_666 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.
    You were so keen to claim your smartarse points that you didn't spot the humour ;)
    So that’s makes two of us then.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,820
    webboo said:

    Stevo_666 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.
    You were so keen to claim your smartarse points that you didn't spot the humour ;)
    So that’s makes two of us then.
    Better luck next time.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • webboo
    webboo Posts: 6,087
    B)
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,820
    :D
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    Hmmm, Pringles.
    I find it easier to ignore them in the supermarket than the house.
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    Which reminds me of a weird event.
    In Aldi a few years back and a large 50-60ish gent, very unkempt and smelly on a mobility scooter with a giant square mesh basket on the front. Approx 2ft x 2ft.

    He’s parked up next to the own brand Pringles and loading the basket to capacity with them.

    I genuinely fear that was his staple diet. For fear of judging, I really don’t believe he was hosting a social event.
  • focuszing723
    focuszing723 Posts: 8,154
    morstar said:

    Which reminds me of a weird event.
    In Aldi a few years back and a large 50-60ish gent, very unkempt and smelly on a mobility scooter with a giant square mesh basket on the front. Approx 2ft x 2ft.

    He’s parked up next to the own brand Pringles and loading the basket to capacity with them.

    I genuinely fear that was his staple diet. For fear of judging, I really don’t believe he was hosting a social event.

    Sour cream and onion?
  • bonk_king
    bonk_king Posts: 277
    This threads been a good read but we're all cycling guys and I bet not too many of us have real weight issues. And because we're into keeping fit and looking after ourselves I will wager that our diets are pretty good. So it's all one sided really.

    For a bit of balance we could do to go to the "sitting on the couch and eating crap all day" forum.
  • wakemalcolm
    wakemalcolm Posts: 943
    bonk_king said:


    For a bit of balance we could do to go to the "sitting on the couch and eating censored all day" forum.

    Dang, there's a forum for that? I could have done with reading that at Christmas: I put on half a stone.
    ================================
    Cake is just weakness entering the body
  • DeVlaeminck
    DeVlaeminck Posts: 9,108
    bonk_king said:

    This threads been a good read but we're all cycling guys and I bet not too many of us have real weight issues. And because we're into keeping fit and looking after ourselves I will wager that our diets are pretty good. So it's all one sided really.

    For a bit of balance we could do to go to the "sitting on the couch and eating censored all day" forum.

    I wouldn't assume nobody here has weight issues but if I want a useful perspective on staying at a healthy weight would it not be better to listen to people who have done it rather than yo-yo dieters or the clinically obese?
    [Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]
  • andyrr
    andyrr Posts: 1,823
    Very timely article in the Guardian today - https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/apr/30/can-drugs-fix-uk-adolescent-obesity-crisis
    Had a quick read of it and amongst a few points I found the one about the parents influence on their offspring particularly interesting: essentially babies born to obese mothers (and fathers possibly) already have high levels of fats and are subsequently more likely to develop into overweight children. Also other lifestyle factors before and during pregnancy can predispose a child to becoming obese.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,597
    bonk_king said:

    This threads been a good read but we're all cycling guys and I bet not too many of us have real weight issues. And because we're into keeping fit and looking after ourselves I will wager that our diets are pretty good. So it's all one sided really.

    For a bit of balance we could do to go to the "sitting on the couch and eating censored all day" forum.

    There may well be people on here who started off obese and have turned it around. If so they’d have more useful comments than some who is still overweight.

    This guy used to post on here from memory https://theamazing39stonecyclist.wordpress.com/about/

    I also run with I guy who was over 22 stone and lost 8.5 stone. He started off cutting his daily calorie intake from 3000 to 1200 and started walking a 3 mile loop. 10 years on he can now run a half marathon in 94 minutes and a marathon in 3:16, also does a bit of cycling.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,597
    That blog is really worth reading in the context of this thread by the way. It gives great insight into how he found himself so obese without appreciating how big he was as well as the effort it took to get the weight off.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,495
    Pross said:

    That blog is really worth reading in the context of this thread by the way. It gives great insight into how he found himself so obese without appreciating how big he was as well as the effort it took to get the weight off.

    gb155 was his user name on here.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • bonk_king
    bonk_king Posts: 277
    That's classic expend more energy than calories consumed. A sure fire way to shed excess weight. There's hundreds of fancy pants fad diets out there and it all boils down to that one fundamental really....and then of course having the self discipline to carry it all out.

    And that part of it is where too many people who want to lose weight fall flat on their face. Little self discipline and all the junk food temptations plastered everywhere.

  • bonk_king
    bonk_king Posts: 277
    edited May 2023

    That is a great read, fair play to the guy. Thanks for posting that.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    bonk_king said:

    That's classic expend more energy than calories consumed. A sure fire way to shed excess weight. There's hundreds of fancy pants fad diets out there and it all boils down to that one fundamental really....and then of course having the self discipline to carry it all out.

    And that part of it is where too many people who want to lose weight fall flat on their face. Little self discipline and all the junk food temptations plastered everywhere.

    So you’re at odds with the public health experts?
    _
  • wakemalcolm
    wakemalcolm Posts: 943
    andyrr said:

    Very timely article in the Guardian today - https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/apr/30/can-drugs-fix-uk-adolescent-obesity-crisis
    obese.

    Wow. Think I'll struggle to cheer for team Novo Nordisk after reading that.
    Thanks for posting, even if it's a depressing read.
    ================================
    Cake is just weakness entering the body
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    rick_chasey said:

    bonk_king said:

    That's classic expend more energy than calories consumed. A sure fire way to shed excess weight. There's hundreds of fancy pants fad diets out there and it all boils down to that one fundamental really....and then of course having the self discipline to carry it all out.

    And that part of it is where too many people who want to lose weight fall flat on their face. Little self discipline and all the junk food temptations plastered everywhere.

    So you’re at odds with the public health experts?
    I don't think he is. Your experts are saying that most people have more chance of finding the self discipline to eat less than they are to do more exercise

Categories