So since we’ve been on Lockdown, I’ve become a bit more aware of my eating habits, especially as just day to day, I’m not getting as much exercise as when I’m commuting to work.
And so thoughts have inevitably turned to being a bit more discerning when it comes to food.
I wouldn’t say I’m on a diet as such, more just exercising better moderation? Examples include actually eating breakfast (cereal. Not necessarily healthy ones though), and swapping crisps for things like rice cakes (which I genuinely enjoy).
But I’m still pretty weak when it comes to my Tea. I’m too reliant on takeaway, having fallen out of the habit of cooking. When I can work up the effort, I’m pretty good rattling them pots and pans, so it’s not lack of ability. And when it comes to ready meal type options? Looking at the nutrition labels is pretty scary! Especially the sodium.
So I’m looking for tips from fellow Dakkanauts. Not a meal plan. Not a nutritional breakdown. Just....hints and tips for stuff that’s worked for you. Whilst I’m not fat fat, I could do with shedding some lard - but it needn’t be speedy. Quite happy with slow and steady weight loss.
Theyre all very easy to cook, most not even requiring an oven, and give you tons of variety. Then if you do have a takeaway once a week it's not so bad.
My wife has been indisposed for three weeks now (almost home, thank God), and I have a newborn son that I’m looking after by myself. So I have been LIVING out of the crockpot. Discovered that Caribbean Jerk and Carne Asada marinades mix well with apple cider vinegar and your choice of meat for pulling after 4-6hrs in the crockpot. My stomach has been shrinking this lockdown, but I haven’t gone hungry even once. Steamed veggies and boiled chicken? Hell no. But definitely healthier than fast food and takeout. I think I’ve lost a good 5-10lbs and serious visible drop in the belly I had (wasn’t ever big, I’m 5’10” and 195lbs at my heaviest). But I feel better and I’m taking good care of myself.
Since I've started working from home with all the recent craziness, I've pretty much just been picking up premade packs of salad for every meal along with precooked and precut grilled chicken and having that for most every meal M-Th, along with a couple bananas for each morning, and some sort of relatively low cal snack each day (~250 cal low cal ice cream, fruit popsicles, or a rice krispy treat) and then basically getting takeout of whatever I want Fri-Sunday (this can include gyros and curly fries and cake ) from places within walking distance to break up the monotony and help keep the places I like in business, though I'm also usually not eating 3 meals each day fri-sun the way I do M-Th.
So far, I've actually been edging slightly downward in weight even with less exercise (I've been keeping on getting about 6 miles of walking in a day, but no fencing practice or workout really), where I was floating more 175-180, I'm now more 170-175. Weight control (as opposed to fitness) is mostly about controlling intake than exercise, and without office snacks, people bringing in baked goods to share, food related office events, lunches paid for by suppliers, leftovers, etc and fewer hangouts with friends and family, it's been a lot easier to manage intake.
I’m 6’2”, and the last time I was weighed (four years ago?) I was just shy of 17 stone. Which....times by 14 would be...erm....238lbs
So I’m definitely a big fella. And definitely overweight. But not exactly flabby. At the risk of TMI, everything is firm, flesh wise.
According to BMI calculation, I’m apparently obese. But that simply doesn’t match my body shape. If I was to hit the upper scale of ‘normal’, I’d need to be 193lbs, or 13.7 stone....
Yeah, pretty sure I’d be skin and bone if I got to that weight, let alone the median (range is 145-193lbs) of 12 stone......
But hey. That’s the base calculation, not the full measurement stuff.
Back about 10 years ago, I was heavier then I would have liked. Was at the point where my “big” pants were getting tight. The phrase that kicked it of was when I saw the doc for a checkup. “You know how tired you get carrying your son around? Think of how much energy you would have if you were not carrying that around all the time?”
I didn’t do anything fancy.
Moderate increase in exercise. Just walking around the neighborhood once a day. It’s activity and calories burned. But not “I dread going to the gym so am going to skip it and feel bad” levels.
Cut the crap out of your diet. You don’t need soda. Drink more water. Cheese is evil. Most resultants and pre-made foods are PACKED with bad stuff. Makes it taste good, not good for you. Learn to cook, save money, loose weight.
Portion control. Read the box. Measure out one portion and see how many calories it it. Figure how how many calories you want in a day. You are not going to starve. But awareness is HUGE. Also measuring out keeps you from just grazing.
I viewed weight loss at a balance. Calories in vs calories burned. Make sure your ledger is slanted the way you want, and your body will find the new equilibrium.
That’s pretty much it. And I lost ~50 pounds.
I could have lost more, but didn’t want to make the lifestyle chances it would have taken. I like a drink from time to time. I have treats. But I try to keep the numbers of them down. And when I am bad, I try to compensate.
Another thing that helps is a buddy. My joke was my goal weight was 5 pounds less than my brother. We’re wargamers here. Harness that competitive spirit.
Give in to your inner WAAC. Game the system. Exploit the rules. Min/Max your flavor/calories.
The only thing you have to loose is weight.
But seriously. It helps to have company on the road. It’s one of the reasons I keep a blog here. I’m OK with letting myself down and missing goals. But I am NOT ok with failing others. So if I tell someone I’m going to finish painting that model by the end of the month, by the Emperor I will get it done. Left to my own devices, I’d just veg in the recliner and watch the goals drift away.
In my case it helped that my brother was doing Weight Watchers, and was convinced it was the only way. So I lost 50 pounds just to prove him wrong. Brothers do that.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I’m 6’2”, and the last time I was weighed (four years ago?) I was just shy of 17 stone. Which....times by 14 would be...erm....238lbs
So I’m definitely a big fella. And definitely overweight. But not exactly flabby. At the risk of TMI, everything is firm, flesh wise.
According to BMI calculation, I’m apparently obese. But that simply doesn’t match my body shape. If I was to hit the upper scale of ‘normal’, I’d need to be 193lbs, or 13.7 stone....
Yeah, pretty sure I’d be skin and bone if I got to that weight, let alone the median (range is 145-193lbs) of 12 stone......
But hey. That’s the base calculation, not the full measurement stuff.
Wouldn’t mind losing a stone or two over time.
BMI is bupkis. It loses focus after 5'11". I'm 6'4" and my BMI says I am borderline obese at 220# with a 35" waist. It also doesn't differentiate between fat and muscle, John Cena, Dwayne Johnson (The Rock) and the current Mr. Universe all fall into the "overweight/obese" category.
Cooking your own food helps a lot, "Set and forget" type dishes in a crockpot/slow cooker are an easy way to make dinners, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread. A rice cooker can help fill out a meal. Knowing a few basic cooking techniques opens a lot of possibilities.
YouTube has tons of vids available to help you learn: This has a lot of good basic info and simple recipes, as well as links to substitutions and such...
Daily Dinner with Michael Symon | Cook #WithMe
And this guy is a riot to watch and has some good info on some basics.... but SERIOUSLY NSFW.
Nat's What I Reckon
As for exercise, again a few basic can go a long way. Crunches, sit ups, squats, playing with the dog, washing the car, any activity that has you moving burns calories.
Don't recommend washing the cat, weight reduction might be from blood loss.
Off the top of my head? Deep fat fryer, George Formby Grill, Dehydrator Cabinet, Soup Maker, Steamer, Rotary Meat Slicer, Slow Cooker.
Only problem is, the slow cooker is a family slow cooker. With just the two of us in the flat, that’s.....too much. The food is of course tasty, and pretty decent health wise as there’s no added fat - but it’s wasteful, as you can only eat a certain dish so many days in a row.
Should probably seek out a new, smaller one. Pretty sure I can find a family I know who’d be happy to take the big’un off my hand.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, smaller Slow Cooker May help with portion control!
Off the top of my head? Deep fat fryer, George Formby Grill, Dehydrator Cabinet, Soup Maker, Steamer, Rotary Meat Slicer, Slow Cooker.
Only problem is, the slow cooker is a family slow cooker. With just the two of us in the flat, that’s.....too much. The food is of course tasty, and pretty decent health wise as there’s no added fat - but it’s wasteful, as you can only eat a certain dish so many days in a row.
Should probably seek out a new, smaller one. Pretty sure I can find a family I know who’d be happy to take the big’un off my hand.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, smaller Slow Cooker May help with portion control!
Jars and a freezer. I’ll make a big pot of stew/chili/soup whatever. Jar and freeze most of it, and just leave a couple days in the fridge for leftovers. Build up a stock of assorted stuff that you can thaw when you want something different later.
Saves you from eating the same thing for a week solid.
I think the key thing is be reasonable about your expectations and try to do things in small increments; I weaned myself off sugar in tea by gradually reducing it over a couple of months and it’s now at the point where I can’t drink it if someone accidentally sugars mine. I tried the same with coffee and I can’t quite do it, but I got myself down to half a teaspoon, so I took that as a win (~70% reduction), rather than having “failed” to stop using sugar.
Similarly, we were eating too many takeaways, so started limiting ourselves to one a week (at most). It’s a lot easier than saying “none at all”, but still much better than where we were.
Finally, and a little bit more technical, when cooking, try using smaller amounts of intense flavour; stuff like chorizo or smoky bacon can add a hearty, meaty flavour and texture to a dish, even if you’re only using a small amount. My wife is a non-strict vegetarian and I’m a full-on carnivore, but I find a lot of otherwise pure vegetarian meals fully satisfying with just a little bit of crispy bacon crumbled on to add a bit of flavour and crunch.
Off the top of my head? Deep fat fryer, George Formby Grill, Dehydrator Cabinet, Soup Maker, Steamer, Rotary Meat Slicer, Slow Cooker.
Only problem is, the slow cooker is a family slow cooker. With just the two of us in the flat, that’s.....too much. The food is of course tasty, and pretty decent health wise as there’s no added fat - but it’s wasteful, as you can only eat a certain dish so many days in a row.
Should probably seek out a new, smaller one. Pretty sure I can find a family I know who’d be happy to take the big’un off my hand.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, smaller Slow Cooker May help with portion control!
Ok, well, i do a lot of slow cooker meals.
I personally LOVE breeakfest burritos, so i make those in a crock pot, make a slurry, boom, breakfest burittos.
I also cook just shredded chicked too in it and save it for a simple lunch.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Do what i do.
Keto
Eat only fat and protein, so you body learns to burn fat.
Jesus, you must be constipated, your poor bowels. When you get home do me a favour and eat some fruit and vegetables it's most important food group for a reason, you need fibre ASAP.
Me, I love ovendishes, but those can be a lot of work. When I want something simple, I generally turn to either soup (chuck some veggies and pasta into a pot of broth. Add herbs and chicken or other meat to taste) or ye olde omelet.
Not egg-only omelet. What we call a farmer's omelet. Throw paprika, onions, mushrooms and whatever other vegetables you feel like in there. Some bits of bacon and/or ham are also nice. Eat with some bread.
And when I do get a craving for junk food, I generally make my own fries and burgers. It's extremely easy, and tastes better tgan anything you'd get at your preferred fastfood joint of choice anyway.
Chilis, pasta and stuff like jambalaya are also a favorite. Easy to make, and will last several days.
A number of principles of quitting smoking also apply to dieting. Make a routine that its easier to eat well than it is to eat poorly, and you will find its FAR more likely to happen. For example, (while most people don't consider it perfect) the macdonalds egg macmuffin is actually pretty healthy, as food breakfasts go. A cup of coffee with one taken through a drive through on the way to work isn't the worst diet breakfast in the world -- and its such a minimal effort level, its almost harder NOT to do it.
By comparison, if you set up a schedule where you have to lose an hour of sleep to get up early, clean some fracking vegetables, cut them up, slowly grill them in a zero fat skillet (which you will then have to clean) and add them to ultra low fat pork and egg whites (carefully throwing each egg yolk out, because you still believe that canard about yolks being bad dietetically) .. and create some flavorlessly bland zero fat high protein food. Oh, then get all the fruit out of the freezer and set up the blender -- can't do it without a protien shake -- and then you got to plan a perfect, healthy lunch...
Its almost like 40k, and doing something high effort that takes a lot of command points in a busy daily routine is a bad investement if the return is really marginal compared to something very low effort that gives you MOST of the same benefit. Sure, there will be days you can say "meh, I am up 2 hours early, maybe I want to make superfood breakfast today" but you don't have to force it every .. damn ... day ..
Similarly, its quite easy to get a fairly healthy (from point of calories and protien/fat/etc) lunch at places like "subway" if you pick a specific sandwich out, like a turkey with lots of vegetables. That way you don't find yourself struggling to cross town on the lunch break (ok, so that part isn't really an issue now!) to eat at a vegan ultra health food place that charges 20 bucks a plate for stuff they source from the farmers market. Is that marginally more healthy? Maybe. Farmer's market organic food isn't actually better for you than just food, in any way that science has ever been able to measure, with the possible exception of legacy fruits and vegetables carrying a slightly higher nutrition density than their grocery store (optimized for storage) equivalents.
But the point I make is, if you have fixed 2 meals a day that you don't have to put any effort into, you are already 2/3 of the way to victory, and you still have all your effort to do something healthy for dinner.
The most effective dieter I ever met was a guy who had dropped some 300+ lbs in fat by dieting alone. Long story short, his advice was.
1) start with salads and soups, but do not put high calory/greasy salad dressing on the salad. Use this phase of the meal to deliver high nutrient density food to your stomach but not high energy. This volume loads -- and will also give your body a chance to recognize and react to the arrival of the nutrients that grease/salt prevent you from sensing on the tongue as well, and prevent your GI tract from absorbing as fast. I more or less have to give a guy who lost more than I weigh credit for some wisedom there.
2) delay the rest of the meal a bit. Then eat, avoiding the greasy/salty combos that are so prevalent in fast cuisine. Suppressing satiation by suppressing recognition of the food's various trace nutrition (things like vitamins and such) on an empty stomach is a recipe for packing massive extra calories in, but preloading such things lets you feel adequately fed faster as your body signals "got enough B12, check! got enough volume, check!"
We have as a culture been socialized to place speed of consumption as a high value, and it destroys such internal signalling of satiety's normal value in telling us we have eaten enough. "Empty" foods can be quite nutritionally balanced from a protien and carb and lipid perspective, but still lack all the micronutrients, and thus you can eat your way through a diet of cheese, meat, bread, even a carefully orchestrated one, without feeling full, while a slightly differernt diet of the same things + dark green leafy vegetables and various other vegies in a salad with just a little vinegar and oil on it before, greatly reduces total caloric intake for the same feeling of being full.
Or so, anyway, that's what the guy said, when he was bragging about how he dieted down some 22 stone.
So the upshot is, maybe you get one partner to do "the salad" and the other one to do "the main course" .. so nobody feels overloaded cooking.
As far as exercise, while everyone thinks the gym is the standard, the "standard" for reasonable exercise is a half hour walk a day, usually, right after a meal. That, too, is a long and technical discussion, but the upshot of all this is.
walking is adequate baseline exercise for most humans, or if that is impossible, I know of some economists who pioneered a technique for calory reduction by ice baths.(1)
(1) That one sucks. Don't do it. Its frigging literally also a way the SS used to break prisoners in the steppes of Russia. Just trust me, it looks better on paper than it feels.
If you want to lose weight, cut down on the carbs. (the result enemy, not fat) Not totally mind. You need some, but reduce the amount. I lost 1.5 stone by keeping carbs to breakfast, and lunch, with dinner being mainly meat and vegetables. If you eat more veg in the evening, especially fibrous root veg like broccoli and cauliflower, you will feel full but have fewer carbs for your body to turn into fat overnight.
For my wife and I we made a conscious decision to just cook more meals now we're both at home. Just cooking more can be a huge help if you're currently relying on takeaways for a lot of your meals. Even if you cook the same sort of thing you might et as a takeaway you'll likely be eating healthier. We also found just the act of drawing up a menu for the next 3-5 days was very useful because it gives you a much better idea of what you're eating and you can plan to not have too many days eating unhealthy food.
You do need to watch how much fat and carbs you're eating but, as others have said, you don't want to cut anything out completely. Healthy diets require a balance of nutrients so I'd be extremely wary of anyone telling you to completely cut out carbs, or fat, or anything else. Cut down, yes.
We also started cutting up carrots to snack on as we were finding we were raiding the fridge too often or buying chocolate bars to eat while we worked. That's helped quite a bit.
Slipspace wrote: We also started cutting up carrots to snack on as we were finding we were raiding the fridge too often or buying chocolate bars to eat while we worked. That's helped quite a bit.
I eat a lot of carrot sticks for snacks.
Part of the awareness and portion control. A few months ago I was talking to The Boy about eating habits, as he needs to loose a few pounds himself. One thing he used to snack on was trail mix. Nuts/dried fruit/chocolate. We did some math, measured out some stuff into dish. It was crazy high, like 300 calories for barely covering the bottom of the bowl. (Makes sense, as it’s origins were to be light weight and calorie/nutrient dense) We then looked at some carrots. it’s like 30 calories for a good sized one. You could eat a whole bag of them for the same calories as a handful of nuts and fruit.
BMI is only a very rough guideline, its popular because its really simple to calculate, but its very crude and, as noted above, works only on weight rather than on the proportion of muscle to fat in a body.
It's also balanced around modern life-styles which likely promotes lower muscle mass than if you were physically working every day.
That said it can be a helpful, if crude measure.
I'd also say the big trick with losing weight isn't actually losing weight. It's shifting your life-style (your diet, activity, etc...) into a long term change. The big risk is that you go on a diet, lose loads of weight and feel really good* and then you "relax" because you've lost the weight and you reward yourself. The problem is before you know it you're living like you were before the diet and your weight piles back on once again.
Sometimes gradual changes, shifting one or two elements of what you eat; adding in 10 more mins to a walk a day etc.... These can all add up and become part of your normal life which encourage you toward a healthier lifestyle. Along the way you might then have a push every so often to help burn off fat and build up body condition; but the shift in life style is what will help maintain things.
Of course this assumes someone of fairly moderate overweight issues. Those who are into extreme situations will have to follow different advice and likely have more benefit to accelerated weight loss programs. Again best medical advice comes from a doctor not a mad person on the internet.
*a bigger risk yet again if you go on one of those diets that's basically built around not eating much so you end up losing weight, but also muscle and overall fitness.
I'd also say the big trick with losing weight isn't actually losing weight. It's shifting your life-style (your diet, activity, etc...) into a long term change. The big risk is that you go on a diet, lose loads of weight and feel really good* and then you "relax" because you've lost the weight and you reward yourself. The problem is before you know it you're living like you were before the diet and your weight piles back on once again.
Absolutely this. I work with someone who's constantly dieting then gaining weight then dieting again. It's a vicious cycle. The best way to break it is changing your habits and lifestyle long-term. If you just want to fit into your suit for your wedding or look good on the beach in the summer (probably not this summer!) a short-term diet might work but if the goal is to change your health overall you need to change your outlook on food and exercise, not just cut out takeaways for a month or two.
Reduce alcohol, expunge sugar from your life, avoid fried things and butter like the plague. Add a lot of salads. Exercise. Reduce the bread intake. Avoid rice and potatoes. Fatless meat is your friend. Learn to love lentils and beans.Remember that fruits have a lot of sugar so no more than 2-3 per day. Salt is not such a problem unless you don't exercise at all. So add exercise, walking or going places with the bicycle. Learn to poach eggs, you will need it. Try to eat a least 5 meals a day, avoid feeling hungry. Rye bread is your friend. Mushrooms are good. Drink a lot of water, tea and coffee are dehydrants so yo need to avoid them. These things will set you on a good path. And then you have to keep it going... That IS a bitch... Good Luck.
A simple thing I as a massive pasta junkie have managed to achieve: Replace your pasta with whole grain pasta. It's weird at the beginning, but by now it doesn't bother me anymore.
I also reduced my meat consumption by only getting organic/high quality meat instead of cheap meat from discounters. This means less meat overall, but better quality without potentially harmful additives.
Look for protein alternatives to compensate. Legumes are cheap and tasty.
Find a surrogate for white sugar, especially if you regularly drink sweetened coffee or tea.
Fermented food does wonders for me: Miso and Kimchi in particular have become regular ingredients for my everyday meals. My bowels have never been better.
Baby steps. Determine what macros you need. Literally any calculator will be sufficient to get started. You're not trying to win Mr Universe. Just google calculate my macros.
Download a calorie tracked. Off you go.
Actually knowing your precise intake isn't the important bit. Knowing what you're eating is. Quite quickly you'll find you have a solid idea of how calorific, and how calorie efficient, lots of foodstuffs are, and you'll be forced into avoiding foods that you can't find data for - which are generally empty ones. Having a solid grasp of that stuff, and the patterns that encourages, is half the battle. If you just want to eat a bit healthier and cook more (and save money on takeaways!) it's pretty much the whole battle.
Ignore any advice about low carbs, low fats, or whatever else. There are no fundamentally bad macronutrients or food groups, there are just more or less calorie efficient ones.
I had some issue with my weight and an inability to lose any despite working out for over an hour a day and eating what I thought was healthy.
Turns out high sodium intake can really have a negative impact on how your body manages a multitude of different things and it can inhibit weight loss.
BMI is bupkis. It loses focus after 5'11". I'm 6'4" and my BMI says I am borderline obese at 220# with a 35" waist. It also doesn't differentiate between fat and muscle, John Cena, Dwayne Johnson (The Rock) and the current Mr. Universe all fall into the "overweight/obese" category.
Muscle? The BMI doesn't even differentiate between fat and BONE. My wife, for example. She's of around average height, but has quite broad shoulders and hips. These are BONE STRUCTURES, not fat. She was down to 175 pounds when we met, and was positively skeletal. Her doctor was trying to get her to lose another 20 pounds, and the only way that was going to happen was by removing internal organs. I took her to another doctor, and he wanted to hospitalize her for malnourishment on the spot. His advice was for her to PUT ON 20 pounds, preferably muscle of course, to get back to a healthy weight for her height AND BUILD.
Never took BMI seriously again after that. It makes no distinction between a waif with 12" shoulders and someone like my wife with 20" shoulders. We won't even discuss differences in pelvic bones.
Off the top of my head? Deep fat fryer, George Formby Grill, Dehydrator Cabinet, Soup Maker, Steamer, Rotary Meat Slicer, Slow Cooker.
Only problem is, the slow cooker is a family slow cooker. With just the two of us in the flat, that’s.....too much. The food is of course tasty, and pretty decent health wise as there’s no added fat - but it’s wasteful, as you can only eat a certain dish so many days in a row.
Should probably seek out a new, smaller one. Pretty sure I can find a family I know who’d be happy to take the big’un off my hand.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, smaller Slow Cooker May help with portion control!
Seek out a deep freeze instead. Freeze the extras and have them next week. In the meantime, you can also save money by buying in bulk on sale and portioning at home, instead of paying extra to have it portioned for you.
Mad Doc, toss the deep fryer. Get an air fryer. Works even better, as you can do more with it. And I promise your wings will be even crispier in that than in the oil. Unless you like breaded wings. My favorite wings are made in the air fryer. And about 50% healthier. If not more. No oil, just the chicken’s natural fat.
We really need to get one of those air or 1 tablespoon fryers at some point; even if just to cut down on the cost of replacing the oil. Though never really looked into a good make/model of them.
Though this talk of fat and chicken reminds me of when I was living alone and decided to get one of those ready-cooked supermarket chickens. MY GODS it was soaked in oil! Dripping with it! It was a distinct disappointment.
My day job is a sport science lecturer, and whilst that is a fairly diverse field, and to be fair I am fairly diverse in my skills within it, diet and training is some of the domains I am fairly knowledgable and have experience and applied knowledge. For fighters at my gym, it's me that usually devises and manages the nutrition program they go on to make weight (or even put on size).
So any specific questions fire away.
Absolute basic advice I can suggest following is an optimum macro nutrient breakdown. Try and ensure you are having 1.1 -1.4g of protein per kg of weight as a minimum, more is better as protein has a thermic digestive effect (takes a fair amount of calories to digest it), however that gets super expensive.
Calorie control is the ultimate one, and unfortunately that means tracking food, and mainly calories, if you get into it, it becomes habit and you start being able to guesstimate fairly accurately in the end but yeah, calorie control is king to lose weight.
I make a new slow cooker meal every day for about 4 days then freeze the rest, I then have a choice of 4 meals to choose from over a few weeks that I know are correctly portioned and have the right macros I need. I just get them out the freezer the day before to defrost and heat them up on the following evening, most usually taste better as well after the reheat. I freeze the rice, or cooked potato etc with them as well so the meal is complete.
It's easy to do, it just takes planning a little effort and the will power to stick to it.
And then, if you want to eat more, make sure you are doing exercise to maintain the calorie deficit.
As I understand it, the body goes into starvation mode when you fast. It starts looking for ways to reduce energy use while maintaining as much stored energy as possible.
Muscle cells use WAY more energy than fat cells, and give a lot of protein when cannibalized. So the body starts scrapping muscle cells to reduce energy use, preserving fat for later.
This backfires when you stop fasting, as there are fewer muscle cells available to burn energy, but still plenty of fat cells to store excess...
Calorie control is the ultimate one, and unfortunately that means tracking food, and mainly calories, if you get into it, it becomes habit and you start being able to guesstimate fairly accurately in the end but yeah, calorie control is king to lose weight.
I can't emphasize this enough. Best thing I ever did was actually start using and committing to tracking. It's a daily habit now. My peak weight was once almost 370, and it took me about 4 years to shed the first 130 or so, then I plateaued for a bit, but once I started seriously tracking everything (literally everything, lots of seemingly minor snacks can add up to hundreds of calories a day) I was able to drop from 240ish to 175ish in about 8 months. It absolutely sucked for those 8 months, but it gave me goals to hit each week, gave me a way better idea of what to eat and conceptualize calorie content of different foods and adjust as necessary, as well as illustrated how *much* exercise was required to burn off excess calories (that extra slice of pizza is gonna mean an extra two hours of brisk walking ).
Never tried to eat only, or stay away from, specific types of food, still had the weekend junk food of burgers, cake, ice cream, burritos, fries, pizza, gyro, pasta, etc, but portion control became real for the first time to me.
The big problem now is finding *accurate* measures of what goes in, particularly anything that isn't from a big chain that puts up all their nutrition info or doesn't have a label
Jjohnso11 wrote: That makes sense to me. I thought that was how it worked which is why I was confused about the popularity around the 16hr fasting thing.
My wife is trying to get me into this latest fad and I didn't know anything about it.
I'm not a doctor, so take anything I post with the appropriate amount of salt and consult an actual professional.
Again, as I understand, 16 hours isn't long enough for the body to go into starvation mode. So in theory this might be workable, so long as the period of fasting is timed appropriately. I expect it's a 'have a big breakfast at, say, 7 AM, a decent lunch around 11, light supper around 3, and then when the body rests overnight there's not a lot of excess calories wandering around to be stored as fat' kind of thing.
What are your thoughts about intermittent fasting? I have conflicting feelings about it.
1. Doesn't it initiate your body putting away reserves to save for later? Building more fat?
or
2. You aren't intaking calories while still burning calories so it should work?
Thank you.
Starvation mode is garbage. It takes days to really start initiating. It's an absolute fad phrase that does not hold any scientific merit in such a small window.
It works because it ensures a calorie deficit. If you aren't eating for 16 hours a day, you aren't eating those small little snacks and biscuits (cookies) here and there that your forget about but absolutely add up.
Go and look how many calories are in 1x oreo (or any such thing) for example, then add up how many you could eat just for the sake of it... Those calories add up. Restricting your window to eat, restricts your ability to eat, and thus you eat less calories (in theory).
Some people put weight on with intermittent fasting, because they go crazy on calorie rich food.
In terms of during lock down food/cooking habits, one of the things the wife and I have done is far more experimenting.
Now, I'm not suggesting we're going so far abroad of our normal skillset/comfort zone. We are doing a lot more of things like making dish X, and one of our cookbooks makes dish Y look very similar. . .
One reason for stretching our skills, rather than outright pushing them is, obviously, if dinner goes wrong, we dont think it best to just pop out and get take out to solve that feth up, so we better make sure we do it right.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Some people put weight on with intermittent fasting, because they go crazy on calorie rich food.
Again, calorie deficit is key to lose weight.
Indeed, for all the research done, that I know of, it still all comes down, in some way, to CICO (calories in, calories out).
If you are taking in more calories than going out, you will gain fat. Like you say, you need a calorie deficit to actually lose weight (i.e. burn fat). You actually could lose inches though and gain weight in cases though where you are building muscle though, I think. Still, that is on the right track though.
Again, as you say, it is really trivially easy to eat 1,000 calories of cookies as a snack, it is much less likely that anyone would spontaneously eat 1,000 calories of broccoli though. So, if fasting helps you stay within limits and on track, I think it is likely fine. The key is staying on track, not snacking and so on. A macro plan is also good, if you are also exercising, so you make sure you are getting enough protein for muscle building, I think.
In the end though, if you somehow ate 6,000 calories a day of cauliflower, you'd gain weight if you only do enough to burn 2,000 calories . Just that no one is really likely to do that, because cauliflower is not calorie dense and also, does not really (to most people) taste nearly as good as cookies.
Sort of I guess? But it's basically just picking up heavy stuff. It's fun effort, not lame effort like running or something.
Picking up heavy stuff makes you feel awesome and gives you a sort of primal connection to our ancestors!
I was never one for general "exercise" at school or after. Never being that into sports most sports lessons were fairly "pointless" to me in so much as I didn't want too nor had any hope of being on a team so much of the training just held no interest.
I find quite a few people are the same and it makes sense - the body in general is lazy and if you don't have a reason to do it many won't bother exercising. Even if you know that its healthy and good for you at a logical level, for many it still doesn't penetrate that far into influencing our behaviour. Or if it does it only lasts in a very short window. A burst of activity, sweat and pain and then the reward "being fitter" is so intangible since you're likely feeling very unfit and not like you've achived so its easy to lose motivation - and go back to the more comfortable.
So to me just "picking up heavy stuff" is not only boring, but it holds no value. There's no end game.
I didn't really find any end-game interest until I did some conservation work. There I had a goal, I had work and you don't notice the exercise you're doing because its just part of the work. You also get to stop at the end of the day, turn around and you can see a tangible reward in what you've achieved for the day. Furthermore because it was voluntary work the majority of people around you are also keen and enthusiastic, which rubs off on your own attitude. It's not like the D-team in sports where everyone is mostly in the "we don't want to do it" camp and that thus reinforces that attitude.
So what I'm getting at is that if general exercise isn't your thing then you've got to find a way to connect with it. Basically to trick yourself into exercising without realising. I think then, once you've got a reason to have a healthier and fitter body; to perform better. Then suddenly spending time at the gym starts to make more sense. Even if you're just lifting a few rocks(weights) at home you're now seeing an end goal. You're working toward something and that exercise is helping you along. Sure the exercise alone hasn't got anything you've "done" at the end, but you've already seen a general improvement in the work you do - that's your motivation.
So you've got to go out there (appreciate that during corona times this is darn hard) and find some connection. Perhaps its conversation work; perhaps its an outdoor activity like photography. Perhaps its hiking or exploring around your area; rowing, sailing, kayaking swimming, riding, running, bog swimming, mud runs, etc... , . Whatever it is I think finding a connection point is critical for anyone to succeed. Once you've got that connection and that positive reinforcement in the short term; the long term changes are much easier to adopt and (importantly) maintain. Don't be afraid to experiment, there's loads of options out there in the world.
I've lost about a kilo a week on average during lockdown. The secret is not snacking, and healthy meals controlled by my wife and daughter. We eat a very good variety of recipes ranging from Japanese to modern British/European. I let myself down by drinking too much alcohol. If I cut that I would lose faster.
I'm probably getting more exercise than before, because I have to stand all day as I don't have room for a sit-down desk. I try to walk 30 minutes everyday. It's hard on work days because I'm working so long, longer than before the crisis, actually. At weekends and holidays I can get a longer walk with the family. I am lucky to live in a market town with country walks in easy reach.
I miss my bike. I had to leave it in Oxford when we were sent to work from home. It's difficult to pick up by car because it's a big old ex-post office delivery bike with huge cargo panniers. I hate to think of it sitting there in the quad, getting rusty. Maybe I should disassemble it and bring it back. We're going to be working from home until September, probably.
Like Mad Dog I'm a beefy guy. The BMI calculator says I should get down to 72 kg which is about 12 stone. I haven't weighed that little since I was a child. And I used to be super fit and hunky as a teenager because I rowed at school.
I'm at 103 kg right now. My target is to get to 100, then reassess things. I am almost 58 years old, so I'm allowed to be a bit plumper than you young guys. It's not like I need to get my body beach ready to cruise for chicks.
But I would like to be healthy and do more sports.
The food my family eats is we always have a fruit and veg smoothy at breakfast, together with a slice of toast and laver bread or maybe avocado, and an egg, fried or poached or perhaps omelette or scrambled. Maybe some melted cheese, or bacon or a sausage. My wife's a fishitarian so she has smoked salmon. Sometimes we add fried mushrooms.
We don't have lunch. We have a snack of yoghurt and fruit, with a bit of biscuit and a small piece of dark chocolate. My daughter sometimes bakes microwave cake recipes, which is nice, or maybe we have a scone or something like that, bought in.
Dinner is much more varied. A couple of nights a week it will be full on Japanese. The other nights it's stuff like salad with some extra veg, or braised veg, and a selection of salume, a little bit of cheese, a main course of pasta or risotto or just fish or meat with maybe braised lentils or potato salad or coleslaw.
Sometimes we cheat and use a ready-made pizza. Sometimes we make our own curry.
When I read all this back now, I realise I actually have a really good diet with a lot of variety, plenty of fruit and veg and so on.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: When I can work up the effort, I’m pretty good rattling them pots and pans, so it’s not lack of ability. And when it comes to ready meal type options? Looking at the nutrition labels is pretty scary!
One strategy that myself and my ex-wife used to do was to batch cook the basics on a Sunday afternoon. This was for lunches during the week, rather than dinner, as cooking dinner whilst I sorted the kids out was her daily time out, but I digress.
We'd whip up a large batch of rice and/or quinoa (or occasionally I'd chop up potatoes or sweet potatoes and make chips), and to use as a base, and cook up a bunch of different vegetables (eg onions, sprouts, cauliflower, broccoli, peppers/capsicum, carrots). Then each day we'd mix it up by adding a third ingredient, and some healthy condiments (eg saurkraut, proper tomato relish) - the third ingredient might be some roast chicken (we'd have one at the weekend and use it for us and the kids at various times during the week), eggs, fish (again perhaps by cooking extra for dinner, sometimes tinned if it's decent quality), flavoured tofu, sausage or burger (sometimes meat, sometimes vegan) etc etc. Could also throw in things like pine nuts or olives to a particular meal if it went with it (or go Greek salad style if we fancied it and had the extra 5 mins to use those veggies instead).
Soup and lasagne we also did regularly as the kids would eat them too, so we didn't have to eat so many portions it became boring.
Since this 'rona outbreak, I started eating only one meal a day. Works good for me.
Before, I use to eat twice a day (no breakfast) but the lack of exercise and moving around felt like I had too much energy (sleeping less hours and stuff) and put on 2-3 kg in the first few weeks.
Switched to concentrating all food into one meal (albeit a bit less quantity) and seems to have regulated everything. Back to the usual sleeping schedule and the extra-kg are gone.
I didn't change the diet itself, I still eat absolutely all types of food. Even some sweets from time to time (restricting-food diets miss all the fun!). And always drinking loads of water (I tend to not like alcohol or sugar drinks).
Most americans are not exactly sure what to do with vegemite or marmite, and are trying it (usually) for the first time.
Now imagine you spread it like jam, or peanutbutter, and then took a big old bite of it? That's I think how the stuff gets a really sketchy reputation.
Also, look up mushrooms marmite, which I reckon would be fairly helathy as snacks go.
Marmite is properly one of YOUR indigenous cusine items, from a time when british cooking wasn't yet all entirely indian curry, and it was a big item in the UK WWII kitchen. I believe it was even an ingredient in lord woolton pie.
If you really want "healthy" eating? Look up the rationing scheme they used during WWII and just do a month following it as if it were still in force. Many old recipes exist. From what I remember reading, it was very well thought out and balanced.
If you really want "healthy" eating? Look up the rationing scheme they used during WWII and just do a month following it as if it were still in force. Many old recipes exist. From what I remember reading, it was very well thought out and balanced.
Rationing wasn't exactly built on health but more on just what there was left to eat. Portions were smaller not out of health considerations but because there just wasn't anything else. Indeed whilst being overweight wasn't typically an issue, the opposite was likely more of a potential risk depending on your area and the time during the war.
Also there were a lto of things replaced for other things in ingredients not based on health, but again, based on what it was possible to get .
I'd say that cooking books pre-war would likely be a better bet if you want older recipies..
Continuing to move forward healthier scran. Note not necessarily health food. Just swapping out say, skimmed milk for full fat, reducing my salt intake etc.
Simple garden salad for lunch, tarted up with sliced chicken, croutons, some bean sprout things and french dressing (not too much, and a lower fat one)
Also swapped to brown bread.
Expect it’ll take a bit to show the benefits, but if nothing else it makes me feel better about my eating habits!
Never understood those that sacrifice enjoyment for health.
Far from having a death wish or being maudalin, we’ve all got a one way ticket. So enjoy yourself a bit whilst your young, slow it down as you get older. No need to count every calorie or what have you.
Same with food ‘fads’. I buy organic meat from the butcher, because I can afford to, and it’s generally a decent cut above supermarket fare. That it’s ‘organic’ isn’t a consideration. That it’s local is a plus (supporting local business, and reduction in food miles).
Let's face it. A lot of us learn bad eating habits from our parents, and these get reinforced by bad eating habits when we're college age and broke with not enough time.
For us, eating healthy is not an overnight change. It's an endless stream of small changes over time as we learn how to do better... ideally without sacrificing all the things that make eating enjoyable.
For instance? Nachos tonight. No sour cream or avocado (can’t stand either), and a lower fat cheddar.
Still not good for me, but better then it could be.
I mean, unless you're using the gelatinous "cheese" that sports stadiums use, or gas station nacho cheese, I would say that even home-made nachos will tend to fall on the "infintely healthier than buying straight from the store" end of the spectrum. I've found as a very general rule, the more "basic" a food is, the healthier it is. So, we're all familiar with freezer section lasagna, no? Wonderful meal option. . . Turn on the oven, pop it in, follow the direction, and an hour later your family has a nice meal to enjoy together. . . Its not really healthy, we know this. Its loaded with sodium and whatever other preservatives and "not food" stuff there is in there. Buying Mozzarrella, parmesan cheeses, jar of whatever tomato sauce, box of lasagna noodles, ground beef/sausage. . . This has varying degrees of "healthier than freezer section" depending on what brand you buy, the meat option you go for (ie, pre-packaged sausage from a major meat company is likely to be less healthy than buying the same style sausage from your local butcher shop).. . But, this way takes more time to make. . . and the "healthiest" way to make lasagna is to get the tomatoes/basil and whatever else goes into tomato sauce, make that by hand. Get chunks of whatever meat, grind it up yourself, season it to make the sausage, (I'd probably say you can still buy the box of noodles, as that's still kinda the same. . . unless youre really a masochist. . . or a grandma) and do almost everything from complete scratch, by hand.
Any how, one of the things in the journey toward healthy/healthier eating I've found that really helps, is really 2 things.
-Write out your weekly dinner plan. For the wife and I, we looked at our budget before and after doing this, and its crazy how much we were spending on take-out/restaurant food, simply because we didnt "feel like" cooking, or couldn't figure out what to cook, despite a pantry full of options. Writing out the plan helps us not only with eating out, and grocery shopping, but it keeps things on track. . . If for instance, we're having steak and potatoes on wednesday, "breakfast" on thursday, etc. . . And we get home from work wednesday and see we didn't thaw the steaks out. . . Well, now we can pull them out, do breakfast on wednesday, and move steak night to the next night.
-Second thing we do that helps: plan out nights where you still deliberately eat "junk" . . . whether its ordering delivery pizza, or store bought freezer section hot wings and mozza sticks, it helps us stay on track throughout the week(s) when we reward ourselves, or the kids by dining out or doing something that doesn't really involve us cooking. For us, this works best at the end of the week, usually a friday (which is best for the kids and wife) or saturday (which is the last day of my work-week). . . Im sure some psychologist will point out how Pavlovian this may look, seeing the junk food night at the end of the week as a "reward" for, well, whatever is being rewarded . . . but it is kind of that one small thing to look forward too each week.
For instance? Nachos tonight. No sour cream or avocado (can’t stand either), and a lower fat cheddar.
Still not good for me, but better then it could be.
I wouldn't advocate someone eat something they don't like, because that actually makes it harder to eat healthier, but avacado is one of the best foods you can eat in terms of the nutrition it gives your body -- just the way you've phrased it implies that's not the case.
Also as someone else said, you have to be careful with "low fat", it oftens really means "we swapped fat for sugar". Only certain types of fat are bad for you, the rest are needed by your body, and cutting too much fat from your diet can lead to snacking and overeating because it's the fat that's the key driver in your body determining that your full.
There's some great documentaries on Netflix about food and the food industry if that lockdown time is leaving you without things to do.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Im sure some psychologist will point out how Pavlovian this may look, seeing the junk food night at the end of the week as a "reward" for, well, whatever is being rewarded . . . but it is kind of that one small thing to look forward too each week.
Ofc you're completely right, but as with everything, it's about moderation. If you live with requirement and reward in terms of food on a daily basis, it's going to damage your relationship with food and anyone learning off you, but a case of "well on this night of the week, relaxing the mind/body is more important than what we eat" is taking a balanced and holistic view of your health.
Home Cooking is also expensive in the short term, because you need equipment.
Not just pots and pans. Those are Basic Essentials, as are things like wooden spoons, spatulas etc.
But for making home made sauces and spice mixes? You’re gonna want some form of blender. Something I still don’t own (no, I’m not entirely sure why not either!)
Now for me, not a problem, I can just waltz over to Sainsbury’s (literally, I’ve got a condition called Sinatra Knee, which means I have to prance and dance everywhere*) and buy one. Could even splurge a bit and get a middle of the range one (where I feel the best mix of cost and quality lies).
For a young family? Or those with low income for whatever reason? Not so much,
Same with my soup maker. Didn’t cost a huge amount, but it still has to be a lump sum. Yet overtime, it’ll save me a decent amount of money buying tinned soup - and the end result will be healthier. I mean, you chop and bung in your veggies. They’re full of good stuff. So for a basic soup, the only real nasty are the stock cubes - and even then I buy the lower sodium version.
Sorry, I’m whimbriling somewhat!
*this may or may not be a complete lie. It’s actually Flatley’s Ankle, which causes my legs to flail wildly about, whilst paralysing my upper body.
For home cooking all you need is a sharp knife, a frying pan, a saucepan and a wooden spoon or spatula. That's literally all I used for 3 years as a singly in my barrack block.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh and a plate to eat off
I disagree that a lot of specialized hardware is required. Sure, it can be required for some very specific things, but for most thing is unneeded.
I have a big stand mixer. It makes a lot of things easy. Could I do most of what I use it for with a hand mixer? Yes. With a spoon/whisk/elbow grease? Also yes. Remember a lot of the things we cook have their roots in a time without electricity/home appliances.
I have an immersion blender, I use rarely. Lost the regular blender in the divorce; never replaced it. Only time I really miss it is when I crave eggs benedict. You can make a blender hollandaise stupidly easy, where the alternative is whisking over a double boiler.
A few basic tools and a little know-how will take you very far in the kitchen. Specialized appliances are mostly just trendy junk that will take up space in a few months before finding it’s way to a yard sale.
A more relevant start up cost for home cooking is building up your spice rack. If you want to try a new recipe, you might end up dropping $20-30 for a bunch of little bottles you use 1/2 tsp. Now once you have them, they are good for a while (they do degrade over time, but if you are cheep/lazy, just add a bit more) but branching out of your normal routine can get pricy.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Home Cooking is also expensive in the short term, because you need equipment.
Not just pots and pans. Those are Basic Essentials, as are things like wooden spoons, spatulas etc.
But for making home made sauces and spice mixes? You’re gonna want some form of blender. Something I still don’t own (no, I’m not entirely sure why not either!)
Now for me, not a problem, I can just waltz over to Sainsbury’s (literally, I’ve got a condition called Sinatra Knee, which means I have to prance and dance everywhere*) and buy one. Could even splurge a bit and get a middle of the range one (where I feel the best mix of cost and quality lies).
For a young family? Or those with low income for whatever reason? Not so much,
Same with my soup maker. Didn’t cost a huge amount, but it still has to be a lump sum. Yet overtime, it’ll save me a decent amount of money buying tinned soup - and the end result will be healthier. I mean, you chop and bung in your veggies. They’re full of good stuff. So for a basic soup, the only real nasty are the stock cubes - and even then I buy the lower sodium version.
Sorry, I’m whimbriling somewhat!
*this may or may not be a complete lie. It’s actually Flatley’s Ankle, which causes my legs to flail wildly about, whilst paralysing my upper body.
We pretty much do all our own cooking, rarely buying anything pre-made and I can tell you it's absolutely not the case you need any fancy equipment. We also have a soup maker, but we just call it a pan because, honestly, I'm not sure what else you really need for making soup. So much so I'm actually going to go and Google it after writing this. I'm sure the makers of all these gadgets would like you to think you need them but all you really need is a sharp knife or two and a decent selection of pans and utensils. Sure, it's not nothing, but it's all pretty cheap on its own and you can buy it gradually. The same applies to ingredients. You don't need a fully stocked spice rack right now but if you buy herbs and spices as you need them for your recipes you eventually end up with a good selection that just needs renewing one at a time.
There are loads of kitchen gadgets, some work and some are just a fuss that are more trouble than they are worth.
I think some gadgets are actually more useful when you do casual cooking. Eg you can get potato slicers that let you fine slice potato - great if you're only using it once a month. Meanwhile a professional cooking every day can likely achieve the same result faster with a choppingboard and a really good knife that's been well kept and sharpened regularly.
As for those on lower income you can grab a lot of things at secondhand. Heck the mixer we use was pretty cheap and picked up secondhand and works fine (brand new it would be £300+). Market auctions, car boot sales even ebay (though the latter can get more pricey because its got national appeal). Provided you pick it up when you need it rather than trying to get it all at once you can get some quality equipment at affordable prices. Heck right now (or at least before lockdown) you can easily pick up a full dinner service of crockery for tiny amounts. Even some of the really fancy stuff is dirt cheap. Sure you can buy new at £30 a plate or you can get a whole set secondhand for £40 (plates, bowls, fishplates, serving plates, gravy boats etc...)
If you know what you're after and are patient you can find a surprising amount of quality stuff at affordable prices. Though for market auctions it means time viewing the stuff; for cardboots it means getting there at 5-6am when it opens etc...
That said I'd say you always want to aim for medium to upper end for quality. Quality tools and equipment pay for themselves in reliability and performance. Cheaper stuff can work fine, but it might break more easily; it might dull or degrade faster; it might not be possible to sharpen or maintain and it might fail you more often .The result being with cheap you pay for it in lowered performance and a higher chance of having to pay out more to replace it. So you end up spending more in the long run.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: But for making home made sauces and spice mixes? You’re gonna want some form of blender. Something I still don’t own (no, I’m not entirely sure why not either!)
I am really not sure what you mean at all. I actually make my own sauces and spice mixtures, because I can't properly digest onion or garlic, so I have to make everything from scratch if I don't want it to make me feel sick.
I never touch our blender. I don't even know how to use it, frankly, or where it even is in the house. Might well be gone for all I know. I make my own ketchup with a crock-pot and a strainer (I do hit it with an immersion blender, but that can easily be skipped). I make my own pasta sauce, from crushed tomatoes, using a food mill, but I never touch the blender for that.
While my wife is the one that usually bakes anything, frankly, I'm a luddite when it comes to it and I don't even use a mixer. I think the answer on how to make things is mostly just quality ingredients and techniques, not really having gadgets at all.
Most of my gadgets and gizmos are labour saving. Soup Maker is a ‘fill it, press button’, allowing me to crack on with other stuff. George Formby is likewise a ‘just chuck the meat on and come back in a bit’ jobby.
Edit - forgot the smiley, and without it I read like a conceited knobber.
I tend to get well with my basic stuff of a cast iron, Carbon steel and stainless steel.
If you want to make your own crust and pasta maybe, a stand mixer.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: George Formby is likewise a ‘just chuck the meat on and come back in a bit’ jobby.
Those grills are neat and nice for cooking up a couple of burgers and such. The issue I find with them is the same as those cheese toastie makers which have the line that cuts the bread in half. The non-stick coating comes off on the ridges. Esp for the George Formby because you're scraping the burgers up to flip them every so often (at least if you want nice cooked ones with huge lines of burnt charcoal running all over them).
We've shifted to using one of the flatpan toastie makers and its far superior; no more issues with the bread being too big (wasted edge) or too small (dribbling escaping cheese); no more ridges that chip and shave off their non-stick and it can even do regular toast if you want. Only downside is it can be a bit squishy on a toasted teacake; but you can just lift the lid and only toast with one side if you want to avoid that. Still doesn't beat an AGA (nothing beats and aga), but then again Aga's are insanely inefficient on oil in the long run.
The George Formby we've adopted using oil and wiping it generously over the grill before cooking; helps at lease preserve some non-stick and you've still got the majority draining down its surface so its not quite the same as cooking in the pan.
I wouldn't advocate someone eat something they don't like, because that actually makes it harder to eat healthier...
Which is the ultimate problem when teaching kids to eat healthy, especially for school lunches where the parents are watching over the kids to make sure they eat. The healthiest food in the world does a child no good if it winds up in the trash can instead of in the kid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nevelon wrote: I disagree that a lot of specialized hardware is required. Sure, it can be required for some very specific things, but for most thing is unneeded.
I have a big stand mixer. It makes a lot of things easy. Could I do most of what I use it for with a hand mixer? Yes. With a spoon/whisk/elbow grease? Also yes. Remember a lot of the things we cook have their roots in a time without electricity/home appliances.
I have an immersion blender, I use rarely. Lost the regular blender in the divorce; never replaced it. Only time I really miss it is when I crave eggs benedict. You can make a blender hollandaise stupidly easy, where the alternative is whisking over a double boiler.
A few basic tools and a little know-how will take you very far in the kitchen. Specialized appliances are mostly just trendy junk that will take up space in a few months before finding it’s way to a yard sale.
The fun part is, NOT having the tools to make it easy means instead it's hard, and takes more time. If you don't have a lot of money, odds are you're working multiple jobs and have even less time than you have money...
Question. . . are y'all referring to a crock pot, an instant pot, or something entirely different? Which, I guess goes into there being too many silly made for TV kitchen gadgets, and the naming differences on each side of the pond.
im not exactly sure how it works, but a soup maker is different, i think it uses high pressure and heat to cook soup.
Honestly, its like an ice cream machine, yeah you can make ice cream with tools at home, but it requires work.
Nevelon wrote: I disagree that a lot of specialized hardware is required. Sure, it can be required for some very specific things, but for most thing is unneeded.
I have a big stand mixer. It makes a lot of things easy. Could I do most of what I use it for with a hand mixer? Yes. With a spoon/whisk/elbow grease? Also yes. Remember a lot of the things we cook have their roots in a time without electricity/home appliances.
I have an immersion blender, I use rarely. Lost the regular blender in the divorce; never replaced it. Only time I really miss it is when I crave eggs benedict. You can make a blender hollandaise stupidly easy, where the alternative is whisking over a double boiler.
A few basic tools and a little know-how will take you very far in the kitchen. Specialized appliances are mostly just trendy junk that will take up space in a few months before finding it’s way to a yard sale.
The fun part is, NOT having the tools to make it easy means instead it's hard, and takes more time. If you don't have a lot of money, odds are you're working multiple jobs and have even less time than you have money...
Don’t get me wrong, labor saving devices are there for a reason. If you don’t have all afternoon to slow cook something, you can do it in a fraction of the time in a pressure cooker. And I would not want to whip egg whites by hand to make meringues. But you can do a LOT with basic tools. You don’t need a bread maker. I had never heard of a soup machine until this thread. I’ve alway just used a big pot.
My point is that people shouldn’t think “I can’t cook/bake at home, I don’t have the fancy tools” Sure, there are some things you probably don’t want to attempt. But a much larger selection of stuff you can make with just a pot/pan and a little time.
Question. . . are y'all referring to a crock pot, an instant pot, or something entirely different? Which, I guess goes into there being too many silly made for TV kitchen gadgets, and the naming differences on each side of the pond.
It’s pretty much part kettle, part blender.
Mine gets it all done and dusted, ready to serve in about 15 minutes, not including prep time (for leek and potato, I tend to use New Potato’s, as no need to skin them first).
Whether with a dedicated maker or not, soup is a great way to use up veg that’s on the turn. I’d include so called ‘ugly veg’. But that’s such a bloody pretentious, idiotic thing it’s not even funny.
So its its pretty much just blender soups with the cooking part put right in.
I might need to get one.
I personally make stock with bad vegetables or frozen ones.
Nevelon wrote: I disagree that a lot of specialized hardware is required. Sure, it can be required for some very specific things, but for most thing is unneeded.
I have a big stand mixer. It makes a lot of things easy. Could I do most of what I use it for with a hand mixer? Yes. With a spoon/whisk/elbow grease? Also yes. Remember a lot of the things we cook have their roots in a time without electricity/home appliances.
I have an immersion blender, I use rarely. Lost the regular blender in the divorce; never replaced it. Only time I really miss it is when I crave eggs benedict. You can make a blender hollandaise stupidly easy, where the alternative is whisking over a double boiler.
A few basic tools and a little know-how will take you very far in the kitchen. Specialized appliances are mostly just trendy junk that will take up space in a few months before finding it’s way to a yard sale.
The fun part is, NOT having the tools to make it easy means instead it's hard, and takes more time. If you don't have a lot of money, odds are you're working multiple jobs and have even less time than you have money...
Don’t get me wrong, labor saving devices are there for a reason. If you don’t have all afternoon to slow cook something, you can do it in a fraction of the time in a pressure cooker. And I would not want to whip egg whites by hand to make meringues. But you can do a LOT with basic tools. You don’t need a bread maker. I had never heard of a soup machine until this thread. I’ve alway just used a big pot.
My point is that people shouldn’t think “I can’t cook/bake at home, I don’t have the fancy tools” Sure, there are some things you probably don’t want to attempt. But a much larger selection of stuff you can make with just a pot/pan and a little time.
Which is the point, if you've just come home exhausted from your second job and have to get up too early in the morning for your next day's work, 'a little time' is a LOT more effort than you want to put into it.
Thinking about it, I'm getting way off subject here. Probably best to either agree or disagree in your own head or PM me and let the thread get back on track...
Fresh, home made bread is a wonderful thing. But, it takes time to prepare, with that time increasing the fewer doodads and gadgets you have, especially getting your dough ready.
But, if you can cough up a couple of hundred for a bread maker? You’re golden. Load up the ingredients, set the timer, and you wake up to freshly baked bread the next morning. Minimum of fuss, maximum benefit.
This opens it up more to the ‘time poor’. Such as myself. In the general run of things, I only really have the time to make bread at the weekends. But given it’s got no preservatives added, it simply doesn’t last through the week,
But the health benefits of fresh, multigrain whole meal bread more or less on demand is too good for me to pass up. Hence I’m desperately trying to source a bread maker. Naturally given the current Times I’m struggling there somewhat! But I’d love one to go with my soup maker. Easy, more nutritious lunches? Aye, go on then!
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: George Formby is likewise a ‘just chuck the meat on and come back in a bit’ jobby.
Those grills are neat and nice for cooking up a couple of burgers and such. The issue I find with them is the same as those cheese toastie makers which have the line that cuts the bread in half. The non-stick coating comes off on the ridges. Esp for the George Formby because you're scraping the burgers up to flip them every so often (at least if you want nice cooked ones with huge lines of burnt charcoal running all over them).
Ugh, tge toasties that come off those things are just terrible. They're too closed; a proper cheese toastie is crispy (not black! Just crispy) on the outside with melted cheesy goodness in the center.
How is making soup in a pan timeconsuming though? I make it the exact same way MDG does, except I don't have a soupmaker, I just chuck all the ingredients in a pan, and leave that to simmer on a low heat for a time while I go off and do other things.
I find a lot of people want to cook things too fast. To get flavour in something takes time.
Anyway, was feeling a little homesick, so I decided to go for an old family recipe hunter's stew with whatever I could find locally. Going to make it again for the missus when I get back home. It was sooooo good. I woukd post a picture, but it's against dakka rules. Pretty healthy too. I think. I can give the recipe if anyone's interested.
Fresh, home made bread is a wonderful thing. But, it takes time to prepare, with that time increasing the fewer doodads and gadgets you have, especially getting your dough ready.
But, if you can cough up a couple of hundred for a bread maker? You’re golden. Load up the ingredients, set the timer, and you wake up to freshly baked bread the next morning. Minimum of fuss, maximum benefit.
This opens it up more to the ‘time poor’. Such as myself. In the general run of things, I only really have the time to make bread at the weekends. But given it’s got no preservatives added, it simply doesn’t last through the week,
But the health benefits of fresh, multigrain whole meal bread more or less on demand is too good for me to pass up. Hence I’m desperately trying to source a bread maker. Naturally given the current Times I’m struggling there somewhat! But I’d love one to go with my soup maker. Easy, more nutritious lunches? Aye, go on then!
I gave up on making bread TBH,
ESPECIALLY sourdough.
My paternal grandparents were dab hands, my Dad not so much. Dear Old Mumsie tried to learn, and kinda got there. My brother and I? We can bake pretty much whatever we fancy, and get it right second, maybe third time around- and we’ve never been taught how.
Seriously. Take five random people. Give them identical ingredients, recipes and ovens. Some will get it spot on, others will just sort of fail. It’s Just One Of Those Things!
Seriously. Take five random people. Give them identical ingredients, recipes and ovens. Some will get it spot on, others will just sort of fail. It’s Just One Of Those Things!
It's also because a lot of cookery books are very simplistic and are made as guidelines not teaching instructions
Like almost any subject there's the general pattern of behaviour, but underlaying it there's often a subset of small things. Little quirks and bits that you pick up doing something over and over that you often don't realise that you do. Things that on their own mean very little, but when added together and put into the right place at the right time, result in an improved end result.
There's also familiarity with equipment and the practice itself. If you're not used to cooking to start with chances are you don't even have a lot of the really basic little skills and know what you're looking out for - so following the recipe can still fail because you slip up on the little stages. You can see this often enough growing up if you go through school sciences - even following simple formulas you can still get a few in the class who will follow them and get the "wrong result" because they've made tiny mistakes along the way that don't get spotted. Or there are tiny differences in the equipment or setup that send results awry that they, again, don't spot.
For cooking it might be as simple as learning that the oven doesn't heat perfectly even and that you've got to turn things 3/4 toward the end of the cooking time. It's learning the difference between a flan being cooked and one being just undercooked and still a little wobbly. etc...
Like I said a lot of cookery books are guidelines that provide a formula, but often don't include lots of the little bits of information. In fact in any hobby or interest picking up the little bits can be darn hard, and yet its often some of the most valuable information. It's the little bits that click together and bring a whole process up a whole level. Heck I'm trying (once again) to learn painting of models - if I just follow the recipes from the GW video guides (or any video guide) I still don't get a perfect result. Same model, same paint, same brush, same model holding tool. However there's a whole slew of little quirks that don't make it into guides - even video where you can see minor hand adjustments and shifts (that aren't mentioned) which clearly aid steady holding; small bits on how to sweep the brush across the model; how to load the brush, etc.... Again there are lots of little bits, small and on their own not a big element, but when you add them all together they make or fail a process.
My Granny had a cook book comprised of cuttings and written notes. Of the hand written notes, they’re a mix of precise measurements (200g of this, 45g of that) and then ‘a bit of X, splash of Y’ type things.
Best of all? Cook it until it’s done. What a gloriously imprecise instruction.
And many are from before we enjoyed such luxuries as temperature controlled ovens, with things like gas marks and dials and that.
Maybe that’s where my knack comes from? Maybe not, as it’s hard to tell. But one thing I do know is that I cannot replicate her or Grandad’s shortbread.
Forget the store bought stuff, which is kinda hard when you bite it. This stuff was so soft and crumbly and pretty much dissolved on your tongue. Try as I might, I just cannot get it that right. Sure it’s still better than store bought. But it’s far from Granny’s. That is a solid loss to the human race right there!
Spesh when she made Millionaires Shortbread with it.
Yeah my mother cooks with a bit of "splash of this dash of that" approach. Thing is that can work really well when you've an organised mind and approach because your splash and dash are precise to you, you just don't think or know how to convey them to others (or have no need and thus never make them formal). My mother's really are splashes and dashes of a random nature which can be very hard to interpret. 1 cup of flour can vary a lot when you use different cups and even a mug!
Certainly its these little experience things that make huge differences and its a goldmine if you ever find someone willing to teach you them and/or write them down for others.
Otherwise the only other option is experimentation and repetition. If you've an organised approach you can achieve a lot if you dedicate yourself to it because you can structure your little changes and subtle elements and spot them to repeat.
Some are hotter, others cooler. And the ‘sweet spot’ in terms of shelf placement also varies.
Once you’ve figured that out, things markedly improved. Even if it involves ‘OK, so many minutes with the shelf here, then a very. very quick change around so the shelf is [i]there[/i).
Still not sure that fully explains my knack for just sort of getting it right after a couple of tries though ;’
Best thing to cook with is an aga - horribly inefficient on oil [they were born of a time when home heating oils were better quality and significantly cheaper - these days not only is it way more expensive its also not filtered as well and you really see this in carbon build up inside which you never got in the past]. They tend to achieve a much better unified heat over the whole cooking area and they are simple too. You've got a hot oven and a slightly less hot oven to cook with. None of that "gasmarks" and stuff and moving temperatures up and down and left and right - its hot oven and slightly less hot (ok its roasting and cooking ovens). Plus the hot plats on top are the BEST at toasting.
The electric is good, don't get me wrong, but you've got to move most things 180 degrees around to get an even cook over the whole surface.
See, that’s the problem my wife has; she can actually cook quite well, but she tends to follow recipes slavishly, particularly in terms of timing, rather than looking at colour/texture/consistency, which sometimes leads to...disappointment.
funniy about this thread, cooking is another passion of mine and i contemplated to start a recipe and cooking thread during the lockdown period.
Still unsure if i should do it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jadenim wrote: See, that’s the problem my wife has; she can actually cook quite well, but she tends to follow recipes slavishly, particularly in terms of timing, rather than looking at colour/texture/consistency, which sometimes leads to...disappointment.
"recipes are there to be changed" Grandma of mine.
Starting to feel some benefits of a more ‘aware’ diet. My visits to the Smallest Room is testament, and I’m just feeling more energy overall. Which is pleasing.
Dunno about actual weight though, as I neither own nor want to own scales.
Starting to feel some benefits of a more ‘aware’ diet. My visits to the Smallest Room is testament, and I’m just feeling more energy overall. Which is pleasing.
Dunno about actual weight though, as I neither own nor want to own scales.
Easy enough to tell by the fit of your clothes changing over time.
Not Online!!! wrote: funniy about this thread, cooking is another passion of mine and i contemplated to start a recipe and cooking thread during the lockdown period.
Still unsure if i should do it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jadenim wrote: See, that’s the problem my wife has; she can actually cook quite well, but she tends to follow recipes slavishly, particularly in terms of timing, rather than looking at colour/texture/consistency, which sometimes leads to...disappointment.
"recipes are there to be changed" Grandma of mine.
Recipe threads have shown up here in the past, always nice to see what people are cooking.
My mom will follow a new recipe to the letter the first time she makes it. After that, the gloves are off and she will tweak it as appropriate.
Learning at someone’s side is a great boon to being a decent cook yourself. You pick up things that might not be written down, or even cant’s be. I can tell you that you can gauge how well done meat on the grill is (touch your fingers to your thumb and feel the firmness of the thumb muscle; it will give you a range approximating rare-well done) but that’s no substitute to poking something and saying [i]that[//i] is done. Same with doughs. Too sticky? Needs more kneading? A lot of tactile cues are best learned hands-on.
Baking is a different skill-set to cooking. With cooking, you can get away with improvising and adjusting recipes to taste and in many cases, experimentation can yield wonders. With baking, it's all about precision. You have to measure ingredients precisely and cook things precisely otherwise it invariably goes wrong. Just the slightest difference in the amount of flour or baking powder used, for example, can result in a cake not rising properly and leads to frustration. Cooking is an art, baking is a science in that respect. One thing that irritates the hell out of me when looking online for recipes is this annoying habit (mainly from US websites, sadly) of using 'a cup' as a unit of measurement. Who the hell measures a baking recipe in 'cups'? What is a cup anyway? I have dozens of cups in the cupboard and they are all different volumes and sizes. And don't get me started on Delia Smith who prefers to express rice measurements as liquid volumes for some ungodly reason.
Baking is a science, but at the same time there is room to tweak things even there. It's just that you can't just tweak things at random and you've got to have a fundamental understanding of the balance of ingredients and how they relate to each other. Experimenting with science is totally a thing and sometimes you want to pour the "wrong" amount in just to see what does happen.
Starting to feel some benefits of a more ‘aware’ diet. My visits to the Smallest Room is testament, and I’m just feeling more energy overall. Which is pleasing.
Dunno about actual weight though, as I neither own nor want to own scales.
Not Online!!! wrote: funniy about this thread, cooking is another passion of mine and i contemplated to start a recipe and cooking thread during the lockdown period.
Still unsure if i should do it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jadenim wrote: See, that’s the problem my wife has; she can actually cook quite well, but she tends to follow recipes slavishly, particularly in terms of timing, rather than looking at colour/texture/consistency, which sometimes leads to...disappointment.
"recipes are there to be changed" Grandma of mine.
Recipe threads have shown up here in the past, always nice to see what people are cooking.
My mom will follow a new recipe to the letter the first time she makes it. After that, the gloves are off and she will tweak it as appropriate.
Learning at someone’s side is a great boon to being a decent cook yourself. You pick up things that might not be written down, or even cant’s be. I can tell you that you can gauge how well done meat on the grill is (touch your fingers to your thumb and feel the firmness of the thumb muscle; it will give you a range approximating rare-well done) but that’s no substitute to poking something and saying [i]that[//i] is done. Same with doughs. Too sticky? Needs more kneading? A lot of tactile cues are best learned hands-on.
Aye, the elderly are often a great boon in that, have picked up my capabilities from ma and grandma's, allbeit the recipe i started out the other thread is one i more or less adapted out of tastememeory from a Restaurant i went too.
filbert wrote: Baking is a different skill-set to cooking. With cooking, you can get away with improvising and adjusting recipes to taste and in many cases, experimentation can yield wonders. With baking, it's all about precision. You have to measure ingredients precisely and cook things precisely otherwise it invariably goes wrong. Just the slightest difference in the amount of flour or baking powder used, for example, can result in a cake not rising properly and leads to frustration. Cooking is an art, baking is a science in that respect. One thing that irritates the hell out of me when looking online for recipes is this annoying habit (mainly from US websites, sadly) of using 'a cup' as a unit of measurement. Who the hell measures a baking recipe in 'cups'? What is a cup anyway? I have dozens of cups in the cupboard and they are all different volumes and sizes. And don't get me started on Delia Smith who prefers to express rice measurements as liquid volumes for some ungodly reason.
But a 'cup' is a standardized unit of measurement? It's 250ml.
But a 'cup' is a standardized unit of measurement? It's 250ml.
So say 250ml in the recipe then. Then it is clear and unambiguous.
A cup is a useless term of measurement because it entirely depends on how much you fit in the cup and how much you pack it in. A measurement in grams or mls is completely transparent.
But a 'cup' is a standardized unit of measurement? It's 250ml.
So say 250ml in the recipe then. Then it is clear and unambiguous.
A cup is a useless term of measurement because it entirely depends on how much you fit in the cup and how much you pack it in. A measurement in grams or mls is completely transparent.
Agree. And a lot of serious cooks do list recipes by weight. But a lot of old ones are by volume. Which as you point out is quite variable.
Sometimes old handed down recipes take that farther. My Ex had some from her grandmother that listed some ingredients as a “spoon”. Not a measuring spoon, like a teaspoon or tablespoon. It wasn’t until later, when talking to her aunt (who had inherited her mother’s spoon) that those recipes could be made without a lot of guesswork. Turns out a spoon was a wooden mixing spoon, heaping. So probably closer to a 1/4 cup.
My mom has a similar story about things measured with a “glass”. Turns out it was the glass from a memorial candle that everyone used.
One of these days I should get myself a kitchen scale.
Just wing it. I made some black bean brownies last year. Didn't measure anything out properly, just by eye. First batch, meh. Second batch, tweaked the ingredients, a little less oil, few minutes less in the oven. Perfect.
But a 'cup' is a standardized unit of measurement? It's 250ml.
So say 250ml in the recipe then. Then it is clear and unambiguous.
A cup is a useless term of measurement because it entirely depends on how much you fit in the cup and how much you pack it in. A measurement in grams or mls is completely transparent.
It's not a useless term of measurement. In baking and cooking, a cup is a precise unit of measurement. It's not just any cup in the house, it's a specific measuring cup, measured either using a liquid measuring cup for liquids or a dry measuring cup for dry ingredients, such as flour, sugar, etc. Dry measuring cups often come in sets with 1 cup, 1/2 cup, 1/3 cup, 1/4 cup, 1/8 cup.
If it calls for 1 cup of an ingredient, you fill up the measuring cup either by sifting or scooping the ingredient or pouring it into the measuring cup. If it's a dry ingredient, you ensure that the top is completely flat so it's only one cup (you brush any excess off with your hand, a knife, or whatever utensil is handy). If it calls for a heaping cup, then you should scoop the ingredient and leave a heap on the top - it will specify that in the recipe if it is required. If you are supposed to pack as much into the cup as possible, it will specify that in the recipe (brown sugar for example, will sometimes call for a packed cup).
But a 'cup' is a standardized unit of measurement? It's 250ml.
So say 250ml in the recipe then. Then it is clear and unambiguous.
A cup is a useless term of measurement because it entirely depends on how much you fit in the cup and how much you pack it in. A measurement in grams or mls is completely transparent.
It's not a useless term of measurement. In baking and cooking, a cup is a precise unit of measurement. It's not just any cup in the house, it's a specific measuring cup, measured either using a liquid measuring cup for liquids or a dry measuring cup for dry ingredients, such as flour, sugar, etc. Dry measuring cups often come in sets with 1 cup, 1/2 cup, 1/3 cup, 1/4 cup, 1/8 cup.
If it calls for 1 cup of an ingredient, you fill up the measuring cup either by sifting or scooping the ingredient or pouring it into the measuring cup. If it's a dry ingredient, you ensure that the top is completely flat so it's only one cup (you brush any excess off with your hand, a knife, or whatever utensil is handy). If it calls for a heaping cup, then you should scoop the ingredient and leave a heap on the top - it will specify that in the recipe if it is required. If you are supposed to pack as much into the cup as possible, it will specify that in the recipe (brown sugar for example, will sometimes call for a packed cup).
And for flour, you should fluff the flour in the container a bit so it’s a little aerated and not too dense, scoop out with a cup measure, and then level it with a knife across the top, not packing it in.
Because you need to get the correct amount and be consistent with it, so you don’t want it packed -too- much, but also not too little.
A problem that would be solved by weight.
I use cups and teaspoons all the time. But let’s be honest. Baking is a science that requires precision. And for that, weight is far more accurate than volume.
I can play 40k using the old red whippy sticks to measure things. Or I can use an actual tape measure. Both get the job done, one just does it better.
And for flour, you should fluff the flour in the container a bit so it’s a little aerated and not too dense, scoop out with a cup measure, and then level it with a knife across the top, not packing it in.
Because you need to get the correct amount and be consistent with it, so you don’t want it packed -too- much, but also not too little.
A problem that would be solved by weight.
I use cups and teaspoons all the time. But let’s be honest. Baking is a science that requires precision. And for that, weight is far more accurate than volume.
I can play 40k using the old red whippy sticks to measure things. Or I can use an actual tape measure. Both get the job done, one just does it better.
I'm not saying weight won't work, because it certainly can, but using cups is extremely convenient and will not give you any trouble as long as you use them properly and consistently. There is a science to baking, yes, but like cooking there is an art to it as well.
filbert wrote: One thing that irritates the hell out of me when looking online for recipes is this annoying habit (mainly from US websites, sadly) of using 'a cup' as a unit of measurement. Who the hell measures a baking recipe in 'cups'? What is a cup anyway? I have dozens of cups in the cupboard and they are all different volumes and sizes. And don't get me started on Delia Smith who prefers to express rice measurements as liquid volumes for some ungodly reason.
A 'cup' is a unit of volume measurement in the old British Imperial system. If you poke around in consignment or thrift stores you might find a set of measuring cups. Or you can order them from America where they're still in common use.
To be honest, though, ever since I started using a kitchen scale to weigh out my flour for recipes, I'll never go back to using measuring cups for flour. Sooo much easier with the scale.
filbert wrote: One thing that irritates the hell out of me when looking online for recipes is this annoying habit (mainly from US websites, sadly) of using 'a cup' as a unit of measurement. Who the hell measures a baking recipe in 'cups'? What is a cup anyway? I have dozens of cups in the cupboard and they are all different volumes and sizes. And don't get me started on Delia Smith who prefers to express rice measurements as liquid volumes for some ungodly reason.
A 'cup' is a unit of volume measurement in the old British Imperial system. If you poke around in consignment or thrift stores you might find a set of measuring cups. Or you can order them from America where they're still in common use.
It doesn't matter how or where it originated, it's a pointless and archaic way to measure something for the same reason we don't construct buildings using cubits. A gram, millilitre or ounce or whatever if you insist on using imperial measurements is a known and standardised unit across the globe so that someone from Karachi to Arkansas can accurately reproduce a recipe without having to buy a 'measuring cup' and hoping the guy who made it built it to the same tolerance as the cup owned by the guy who made the recipe. This is of particular importance when you are posting recipes online for others to follow. There is no guarantee a measuring cup in the UK is in any way the same as a US one yet a gram is the same everywhere.
Tannhauser42 wrote:To be honest, though, ever since I started using a kitchen scale to weigh out my flour for recipes, I'll never go back to using measuring cups for flour. Sooo much easier with the scale.
Quite. You can get a digital scale for next to nothing these days and they are invaluable.
filbert wrote: One thing that irritates the hell out of me when looking online for recipes is this annoying habit (mainly from US websites, sadly) of using 'a cup' as a unit of measurement. Who the hell measures a baking recipe in 'cups'? What is a cup anyway? I have dozens of cups in the cupboard and they are all different volumes and sizes. And don't get me started on Delia Smith who prefers to express rice measurements as liquid volumes for some ungodly reason.
A 'cup' is a unit of volume measurement in the old British Imperial system. If you poke around in consignment or thrift stores you might find a set of measuring cups. Or you can order them from America where they're still in common use.
It doesn't matter how or where it originated, it's a pointless and archaic way to measure something for the same reason we don't construct buildings using cubits. A gram, millilitre or ounce or whatever if you insist on using imperial measurements is a known and standardised unit across the globe so that someone from Karachi to Arkansas can accurately reproduce a recipe without having to buy a 'measuring cup' and hoping the guy who made it built it to the same tolerance as the cup owned by the guy who made the recipe. This is of particular importance when you are posting recipes online for others to follow. There is no guarantee a measuring cup in the UK is in any way the same as a US one yet a gram is the same everywhere.
That's just it though. A cup is a standardized measurement used in cooking and baking. Yes, I am aware that the word "cup" can be used for a drinking cup of many different sizes, but in the context of a recipe, a cup is a specific measurement. If you buy a measuring cup labeled with cup measurements on it, you don't have to worry any more about it being "built to the same tolerance" than you would have to worry about a measuring cup labeled with millilitres or ounces on the side. Plenty of cups have markings in cups, millilitres, and ounces on the side and if you are that concerned about it that is the type of cup I would recommend. If you're reading an American recipe and it's referring to a 250ml cup, and you're in the UK and you have a 240ml cup, you can either not worry about it because it's very unlikely to affect the recipe unless you're making a huge amount of something, or you can add an extra 10ml and then still not worry about it.
A foot is a standardized imperial measurement as well, and when talking about measuring in feet no one gets concerned about everyone's feet being different sizes because it's not referring to any random person's foot, it's referring to a defined unit of measurement. You can prefer the metric system and that's fine, you can prefer measuring ingredients by weight, and that's fine. But that doesn't make a cup any less a standardized unit of measurement that is easy to use with a simple measuring cup that is readily available. It's not rocket science or mechanical engineering, if you're worried about the tolerances of a measuring cup you are almost certainly overthinking it.
That's the point though; measuring cups are not made to any standard - it varies from manufacturer to manufacturer - and aren't particularity accurate either. Also, it varies depending on whether you are trying to measure a liquid (and what type) or a solid and it varies by all the variables pointed out already; how much you fit in, whether you pack it tight and so forth.
And yes, it *does* make a massive difference - not with cooking, unless you mistake a teaspoon of chilli for a tablespoon, but with baking, absolutely. I have been baking a lot with my kids recently and I can absolutely assure you that the slightest inaccuracy in some recipes can mean the difference between a nice, moist cake and a dark, un-risen horror.
As I said, it's the whole point of having a standardised unit of measurement. It's why most recipes not from the US use grams, millilitres or whatever.
filbert wrote: That's the point though; measuring cups are not made to any standard - it varies from manufacturer to manufacturer - and aren't particularity accurate either. Also, it varies depending on whether you are trying to measure a liquid (and what type) or a solid and it varies by all the variables pointed out already; how much you fit in, whether you pack it tight and so forth.
And yes, it *does* make a massive difference - not with cooking, unless you mistake a teaspoon of chilli for a tablespoon, but with baking, absolutely. I have been baking a lot with my kids recently and I can absolutely assure you that the slightest inaccuracy in some recipes can mean the difference between a nice, moist cake and a dark, un-risen horror.
As I said, it's the whole point of having a standardised unit of measurement. It's why most recipes not from the US use grams, millilitres or whatever.
What do you mean they are not made to any standard? Are you saying that manufacturers are purposely creating measuring cups in which 1 cup is a different amount (other than the previously mentioned 240ml vs 250 ml difference between American and UK cups)?
To be clear, I'm not saying that anyone should switch to measuring cups if they prefer something else. If you like using a scale, or some other means, that's fine. You are right that an inaccuracy in measurement can spoil a cake or other baked dessert or dish. That being said, I have been baking for many years - my first job was as a baker and I've baked at home since I was a kid. I'm not saying I'm God's gift to baking by any means, but I know my way around the kitchen. I have always used measuring cups, even in my previous job as a baker, and have never had an issue caused by inconsistencies in measuring cup tolerances. I think you are significantly overestimating the risk involved with using measuring cups. Have you used measuring cups and had issues with how something turned out that you believe were due to issues with the measuring cups themselves? I'm not trying to minimize your experiences baking or overstate mine - I'm simply saying that I've baked a fair bit with measuring cups, never had nor heard of anyone having an issue due to them, so I am curious if you've actually had an issue with them or if you're just assuming that they would cause an issue?
I have seen more baked goods ruined by things like over mixing, which I would argue falls more into the art side of baking. You definitely need to develop a feel for it.
When you are baking something that requires very very very specific measurements, or it goes completely off the charts messed up, cups are not useful.
I use cups in the UK, but I do it mainly for recipes, if I'm baking, the digital scale comes out. Just adding 'and extra 10ml' is not good enough if the recipe requires precision and accuracy, are you eyeballing that 10ml? Or are you bringing out another measuring device? If its the former you are asking for trouble, if it is the latter it is then inefficient as you are using an additional container.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: When you are baking something that requires very very very specific measurements, or it goes completely off the charts messed up, cups are not useful.
I use cups in the UK, but I do it mainly for recipes, if I'm baking, the digital scale comes out. Just adding 'and extra 10ml' is not good enough if the recipe requires precision and accuracy, are you eyeballing that 10ml? Or are you bringing out another measuring device? If its the former you are asking for trouble, if it is the latter it is then inefficient as you are using an additional container.
Cups are great, but not for serious baking.
What type of recipe or serious baking have you done in which the tolerance of a measuring cup has caused the baked good to turn out poorly?
I lost quite a bit of weight by cutting out soda. I just drank water, black coffee, and would treat myself maybe twice a week with sweet tea (and I'm very picky about my sweet tea, so it's not like it's always available to tempt me).
By boiling a few eggs and taking them with me to work, I managed to slim down to a weight I hadn't seen since my early 20's (and at this time, I was a Jarhead fresh out of boot camp).
So some basic very simple tips?
-If you are hungry, you need to eat.
-Eat small, eat frequently. If you're eating once a day, your body is panicking and hoarding all the stuff from your food (especially some of the bad stuff) because it's trying to go into survival mode because we evolved to do that when we weren't sure if we'd be getting our next meal.
-Just because you are hungry does not mean you should eat a lot. (Boiled eggs were perfect, because I'd eat one and wait half an hour to see if I was still hungry, and if so- eat another egg).
-Do not mix beef and potatoes. They are 'filling' because they are preventing one another from breaking down properly and just sitting heavily in your stomach.
-Refrain from drinking a beverage as long as you can when you eat. Saliva is a catalyst in your digestive process, so washing that away impairs your ability to process it.
-Check out your turds. If your turds are darker brown and sinking, you've got good fiber. If they're lighter and floating, you might wanna consider a bit more fiber.
-Soda is terrible for you.
-Just walk somewhere once a day, at least. Even if you're walking to go get a pack of smokes or something.
-You need a cheat day once a week.
-Green and red veggies are 'free'- you can pig out on them and get full, they won't make you fat (unless you drench them in butter or something).
endlesswaltz123 wrote: When you are baking something that requires very very very specific measurements, or it goes completely off the charts messed up, cups are not useful.
I use cups in the UK, but I do it mainly for recipes, if I'm baking, the digital scale comes out. Just adding 'and extra 10ml' is not good enough if the recipe requires precision and accuracy, are you eyeballing that 10ml? Or are you bringing out another measuring device? If its the former you are asking for trouble, if it is the latter it is then inefficient as you are using an additional container.
Cups are great, but not for serious baking.
What type of recipe or serious baking have you done in which the tolerance of a measuring cup has caused the baked good to turn out poorly?
It's not the measuring cup itself, but how you fill the cup with flour that causes the problems in baking. That's why measuring flour out by weight is more precise, as it allows you to follow the proportions of flour to water to yeast more accurately.
To change a bad diet you need to start cooking for yourself and learning how to cook, otherwise you'll be spending a fortune trying to get healthy options of things which usually aren't that healthy.
Edit: Changing a bad diet is literally like a drug addict coming off drugs. You need to rewire your brain and pick PURPOSE over pleasure. Good luck with it.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: When you are baking something that requires very very very specific measurements, or it goes completely off the charts messed up, cups are not useful.
I use cups in the UK, but I do it mainly for recipes, if I'm baking, the digital scale comes out. Just adding 'and extra 10ml' is not good enough if the recipe requires precision and accuracy, are you eyeballing that 10ml? Or are you bringing out another measuring device? If its the former you are asking for trouble, if it is the latter it is then inefficient as you are using an additional container.
Cups are great, but not for serious baking.
If you say so. I'll tell my wife she's been doing it all wrong despite the magnificent results she gets.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Regulator wrote: To change a bad diet you need to start cooking for yourself and learning how to cook, otherwise you'll be spending a fortune trying to get healthy options of things which usually aren't that healthy.
Edit: Changing a bad diet is literally like a drug addict coming off drugs. You need to rewire your brain and pick PURPOSE over pleasure. Good luck with it.
And when eating is the one pleasure you can afford, that makes things even more difficult.
Sure Bacon etc isn’t especially healthy. But eating healthier just means making it a once a week, maybe once a fortnight treat. For sweet reads, B&J’s Moophoria offers a lighter option.
What I’ve been working on is my snacking. My work day is spent ploughing through various documents, including electronic banking records. That does tend to lead to snacking, more out of habit than peckishness.
To that end, gone are regular crisps and sweets etc. In come rice cakes (marmite ones are to die for) and seaweed thins (Itsu, Wasabi flavour).
That bit has been pretty easy. I’ve actually surprised myself at just how easy it was for me to change that habit.
Just need to work on my dinners a bit - ideally working first on portion control!
Portion control is absolutely key. I've actually had bacon in most of my meals over the last couple months, but most of those days it's basically half a slice crumbled into a salad, and a couple strips on a club sandwich or something on the weekend.
Snacking can definitely do one in, it's easy to accumulate hundreds of extra calories a day without realizing it, once I started tracking my intake and logging everything I put in my mouth, at the start I found there were some days I'd end up with with almost a thousand extra calories in snacks without even realizing it, and it's really hard to actually avoid that in many circumstances. The cupcake the office baking enthusiast brought in (~250), the small pack of chips (~300), a couple bite sized snickers or a small handful of M&M's from the communal office jar (~80-100), an extra banana (~100), and a can of sugared soda (~150) will net you ~900 extra cals right there, and until I started logging all of it, none of that would have registered at all, but over a 5 day work week that's 4,500 calories.
It's really hard to avoid those things a lot of the time, they're easy to partake in, easier to forget about and dismiss, and really hard to abstain from.
Working From Home is definitely an advantage during the re-learning stage, as there’s no temptation.
If I’ve not bought crisps/cake/sweets/snacks in general? Well, I ain’t gonna be eating them!
Also helps I’ve always been a fan of quite light salads. Freshly sliced iceberg lettuce provides bulk, onion, carrot, celery and rocket or water cress for taste, with a wee splash of Balsamic Vinegar will do me nicely as a lunch. And all for pretty cheap too, which is nice.
And if any of those start wilting or getting a bit iffy? Into a soup they go! Bit of water cress adds some tasty zing to a humble leek and potato.
I drink a lot of water. Hungry? Try drinking a glass of water. If you are still hungry after that, have a snack. Odds are you are just board a/o fidgety.
And we should all drink more water.
WFH means I don’t have candy dishes to raid. It also means I am not restricted to the snacks I packed in the morning. Bit of a two edged sword.
Nevelon wrote: It also means I am not restricted to the snacks I packed in the morning. Bit of a two edged sword.
On this particular point, I only pick up exactly what I plan to eat for the week at the store, and don't really keep anything else around. If I end up snacking on anything else, it means I'm out of a meal later in the week, my food willpower is *really* poor otherwise
One crutch I do rely on a lot is 0cal/diet sodas of various sorts. While probably not the greatest thing, they do scratch the itch for something sweet and with a little bit of texture without actually containing any calories, and most of the fears over them are grossly exaggerated clickbait. I tried to do Tea, but I've just never really gotten to like it. Thankfully I've never developed a coffee habit, it does...dark and terrible things to my guts.
Nevelon wrote: It also means I am not restricted to the snacks I packed in the morning. Bit of a two edged sword.
On this particular point, I only pick up exactly what I plan to eat for the week at the store, and don't really keep anything else around. If I end up snacking on anything else, it means I'm out of a meal later in the week, my food willpower is *really* poor otherwise
One crutch I do rely on a lot is 0cal/diet sodas of various sorts. While probably not the greatest thing, they do scratch the itch for something sweet and with a little bit of texture without actually containing any calories, and most of the fears over them are grossly exaggerated clickbait. I tried to do Tea, but I've just never really gotten to like it. Thankfully I've never developed a coffee habit, it does...dark and terrible things to my guts.
To minimize my exposure to the outside world, I’ve been doing 3 weeks of shopping in one go. It’s not a fixed period, but when I start running too low on too many things, I venture out. And push comes to shove, I’ve got enough food stashed away I could go a lot longer. But I try to keep a decent reserve in case I get sick.
But even before the current situation, I bought big bulk things of snacks and divvied them up. In the morning I packed a snack sized ziplock of goldfish crackers, another of pretzels, and at least one of fruit/veggies, depending what was on sale. Plus a sandwich. And that was all I could eat (unless I picked up candy from the dishes people have on their desks, which I tried to avoid) Now I’m just a quick, bored trip to the kitchen to grab something.
So my portion control is out of control. What I should do is go back to measuring out the day’s snacks again. Just in bowls. But I know if there is food in front of me, I’ll graze until it’s gone. At the office, I knew I was restricted. Now I’m not.
I know a lot of diets are unfriendly to carbs. Some work on cutting them out totally. I think they are being demonized as much as fat and sugar these days as “evil”
But I love them too much to give up. Plus they are cheep. Which helps a lot on the budget.
Like most things, they can be a part of a healthy diet, but in moderation. Recognize that bread is very calorie dense. One thing I’ve found is with homemade bread, I tend to cut it thicker then store bought. So portion control is a little deceptive. And there are few things as enticing as fresh baked bread, You are going to want to eat it all. Before it goes stale.
With home baked bread I found it helps to cut it inn daily portions as soon as it gets cold and freeze them in zip bags. Every night I place a portion from the freezer to the fridge and by morning it is now simply cold ready to be cut and toasted... I bake once a week and each morning i have portion of nearly fresh bread. And yes the trouble with fresh still warm bread is not to break out the cheese and butter and eat a whole loaf while it is still hot.
Oh yeah I'm not demonising carbs in a diet, although I do think it is excess carbs that leads to most overweight people becoming that way. I know I put weight on when I was eating too much rice each day. Basically bulking without the strength training.
I try to eat fewer carbs in the evening. Keeping them to morning and lunchtimes.
To be honest there’s so many fad diets and outright quackery, I find it very difficult to know what’s what beyond the basics of Less Cake, More Exercise.
Does the exercise have to be high impact cross training insanity? Probably not, no. Unless you’re wanting to shift the weight rapidly.
Are lunchtime sandwiches going to cause an early death? Not on their own (unless you choke on them)
All I’m trying at the moment is cutting out excess. Excess sugar, fat, salt etc. Showing a bit of restraint, and make sure I’m going for a wander once I’m done with work for the day.
Hence the breadmaker. Get some multigrain type flour for a tastier loaf, without the preservatives.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: To be honest there’s so many fad diets and outright quackery, I find it very difficult to know what’s what beyond the basics of Less Cake, More Exercise.
The answer is "it kinda doesn't matter". All these fad diets (and I've got a list of 100 here) control for factors: the balance of the 3 macronutrients (carbs, protein, fat), timing (ie when to each which macronutrient), and source. And some of them are totally contradictory eg Vegan vs Paleo or Macrobiotic vs Zero Belly Fat, then there's Potatoes not Prozac or Seratonin Power Diet, both of which have you eating carbs at night..............
It's literally just a case of trial and error to find one your body responds to if you go down the fad diet route.
I know a guy who's lost a fantastic amount of weight over the last two years, he tried keto for two weeks after Xmas, first week had a real change, 2nd week his body didn't respond at all and he didn't lose any more.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Does the exercise have to be high impact cross training insanity? Probably not, no. Unless you’re wanting to shift the weight rapidly.
A thirty minute walk, ideally midafternoon, would be sufficient because of how it gels with the body's circadian rhythms.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: All I’m trying at the moment is cutting out excess. Excess sugar, fat, salt etc.
You have to be careful cutting fat. Cutting trans-fats yes. Cutting other fats may be counter-productive because if your body doesn't get enough it will demand more food, then you end up snacking, binging or over-eating further down the line. Fats are the main driver of your body telling your brain that you're full.
I can’t remember whether it was a BBC article or a Food Unwrapped episode, but I saw something a few months ago about a study that had looked at a whole range of the so called “fad” diets; ultimately they all reduced your calorie intake by about 25%, which was why they worked, not particularly which calories you cut.
Yup, weight loss is all about reducing intake. You can lose weight eating nothing but bacon grease slathered french fries and milkshakes, as long as your portions are correct (and likely very small on such a diet).
Now, your health is likely to suffer due to poor nutrition, but you can in fact lose weight that way
Vaktathi wrote: Yup, weight loss is all about reducing intake. You can lose weight eating nothing but bacon grease slathered french fries and milkshakes, as long as your portions are correct (and likely very small on such a diet).
Now, your health is likely to suffer due to poor nutrition, but you can in fact lose weight that way
There's a lot more to weight loss than just the physical aspect of "eat less", not addressing that is why these diets have ended up in the "fad" bucket.
But yeah, which calories you cut will potentially have significant impact on your health and energy levels. My ex-wife had a horrible second pregnancy because she'd switched to a vegan diet (a fair while earlier, not during or as a result of being pregnant), and although she accounted for the need to get protein from other sources, she didn't account for the loss of iron, and subsequently ended up in a lot of trouble.
Vaktathi wrote: Yup, weight loss is all about reducing intake. You can lose weight eating nothing but bacon grease slathered french fries and milkshakes, as long as your portions are correct (and likely very small on such a diet).
Now, your health is likely to suffer due to poor nutrition, but you can in fact lose weight that way
There's a lot more to weight loss than just the physical aspect of "eat less", not addressing that is why these diets have ended up in the "fad" bucket.
But yeah, which calories you cut will potentially have significant impact on your health and energy levels. My ex-wife had a horrible second pregnancy because she'd switched to a vegan diet (a fair while earlier, not during or as a result of being pregnant), and although she accounted for the need to get protein from other sources, she didn't account for the loss of iron, and subsequently ended up in a lot of trouble.
It's probably the protein as well to be honest. Just because a food says it has x amounts of protein, does not mean it is a complete protein. Vegans and vegetarians miss out on certain EEA's (essential amino acids) in sufficient quantity (or completely) some days due to the food choices they make. There is not an extensive list of foods outside of animal products that are a complete protein, so mixing foods is essential to have all (Rice and Beans are a prime example).
Interestingly, there has been a study released recently that links a meat free diet with certain mental health issues (anxiety, depression mainly), noting a correlation with those on meat free diets having a higher prevalence of such mental health issues. However, I must stress that correlation is not causality and it will take further studies to truly understand and decipher whether the correlation is caused by a meat/animal product free diet (and then the optimisation of the diet which would be most likely the specific issue). However other studies, have found links between a lack of vitamin B12 and mental health issues also (nearly exclusively found in animal products naturally, foods can be fortified with B12 though) so they are probably onto something.
The specific interesting part about B12 is its function with amino acids, specifically as it is necessary to metabolise them. Meaning Vegans and Vegetarians can be at risk of a double whammy of not eating all of or enough of the EEA's, and then not having enough B12 to metabolise correctly what they do have.
In 10 years time we will know so much more about topics, and just to be clear I am not bashing vegetarian or vegan diets, but if you are going to be either, you must be clued up on your foods, and the absolute worse advice to take is from other vegans/vegetarians usually. Spend a bit of money on a nutritionist who can ensure you are maintaining a healthy diet and stick to their rules.
On the topic of carbs, there really is no need to eat a high carb diet unless you are very physically active, you need some carbs (30-35% of calorie intake) but pushing into the 60% as the NHS recommends will genuinely make you feel like crap most of the time unless you have the activity levels required for it (which ironically, if you are highly active and low carbs you will also feel like crap).
Balance is key, and again, if you want to lose weight you must have a calorie deficit, no matter the diet. Additionally, Food Unwrapped and the BBC version are usually full of crap, it's mainly because they dumb down and generalise the content so much for the layman it just isn't accurate or beneficial advice that you can genuinely follow for long term results. It will work in the short term, but not long. Their little experimental studies are genuinely horrendous.
Last point referencing baking and being accurate above, souffle's is why you must be accurate, or well, anything you require to be light or not too dense.
Her iron levels were tested and came back as "holy cow, you need a blood transfusion right now and we have to keep monitoring them in case you can't raise them enough, because the baby will have to be taken out at the earliest opportunity otherwise". (She made it to full term naturally and the little one is fine, but that was a pretty bad experience). I'm not saying protein played no part. but definitely iron was the issue.
The protein/depression thing is very interesting, I've definitely had a very strong correlation between the two, but there's a lot of background noise that means I'd need science to confirm it independently for me. Will have to look out for more on that.
Ahhh Keto diet - on another site that's a regular spambot topic that gets removed!
I agree when it comes to diet fads, every few years someone pens a new book, gets on morning TV and suddenly its all the crazy to be on their diet. I still swing back to what I said earlier - diets aren't the solution (excepting extreme situations). The real solution is shifting lifestyle.
A shift in your diet can be part of that, but many of the "fad" diets are more aimed at being short term "eat less" approaches that, far as I can tell, aren't designed and aren't always healthy to consider long term. They are often pitched and aimed at those looking to lose weight for the summer or a wedding or other event. They aren't out to change their lifestyle, just lose some fat in the short term.
Your body is lazy and adapts to its situation as lazily as it can. Gradual weight loss through shifts intended to be long term and maintained is healthier for you and also easier. Because once you make the changes you've more chance that they stay and that, as a result, you keep the weight off.
Mental wellbeing and food are certainly linked; though I agree that its never going to be a simple relationship. Especially as some links won't be direct to the brain but will be influencing other areas of the body that then have a knock on effect.
Baragash wrote: Her iron levels were tested and came back as "holy cow, you need a blood transfusion right now and we have to keep monitoring them in case you can't raise them enough, because the baby will have to be taken out at the earliest opportunity otherwise". (She made it to full term naturally and the little one is fine, but that was a pretty bad experience). I'm not saying protein played no part. but definitely iron was the issue.
The protein/depression thing is very interesting, I've definitely had a very strong correlation between the two, but there's a lot of background noise that means I'd need science to confirm it independently for me. Will have to look out for more on that.
I'm not discounting that iron was a huge issue at the time, I was speaking generally about plant based diets.
A lot of the time (in terms of non extreme cases like your partners evidently was) the issue is placed firmly at the doorstep of lack of iron, and an increase in iron is required.
It just so happens that lots of iron rich foods are also loaded with B12 and protein... The treatment works, but is the causality for the specific issues the person is having correct?
Like I said, in 10 years time we are going to know so much more.
Overread wrote: I agree when it comes to diet fads, every few years someone pens a new book, gets on morning TV and suddenly its all the crazy to be on their diet. I still swing back to what I said earlier - diets aren't the solution (excepting extreme situations). The real solution is shifting lifestyle.
A shift in your diet can be part of that, but many of the "fad" diets are more aimed at being short term "eat less" approaches that, far as I can tell, aren't designed and aren't always healthy to consider long term. They are often pitched and aimed at those looking to lose weight for the summer or a wedding or other event. They aren't out to change their lifestyle, just lose some fat in the short term.
Your body is lazy and adapts to its situation as lazily as it can. Gradual weight loss through shifts intended to be long term and maintained is healthier for you and also easier. Because once you make the changes you've more chance that they stay and that, as a result, you keep the weight off.
You're right, the key issue is that many of them are based on deprivation, which is a battle most people lose (98% of people, according to studies).
I've just announed to the world (ie everyone on my social networks) that I've changed career out of being a management accountant/financial analyst into being a health and life coach, so this is a subject close to my heart.
Baragash wrote: Her iron levels were tested and came back as "holy cow, you need a blood transfusion right now and we have to keep monitoring them in case you can't raise them enough, because the baby will have to be taken out at the earliest opportunity otherwise". (She made it to full term naturally and the little one is fine, but that was a pretty bad experience). I'm not saying protein played no part. but definitely iron was the issue.
The protein/depression thing is very interesting, I've definitely had a very strong correlation between the two, but there's a lot of background noise that means I'd need science to confirm it independently for me. Will have to look out for more on that.
I'm not discounting that iron was a huge issue at the time, I was speaking generally about plant based diets.
A lot of the time (in terms of non extreme cases like your partners evidently was) the issue is placed firmly at the doorstep of lack of iron, and an increase in iron is required.
It just so happens that lots of iron rich foods are also loaded with B12 and protein... The treatment works, but is the causality for the specific issues the person is having correct?
Like I said, in 10 years time we are going to know so much more.
Sorry, when you quote someone it's sometimes hard to tell the point when you move from the specific to the general
Anecdotelly for me I'm inclined to think it was more a protein issue because I was already eating eggs most days, and I brought in fish much more often, but not the type of fish that's high in iron. (I'm not vegetarian or vegan, I just found that only eating meat a couple of times a week improved how I felt physically).
I think a lot of the fad diets work because they give people an easy target to concentrate on: don't eat carbs, for example, is a simple instruction and gives people an "enemy" to avoid. The fact they usually work just by reducing your calorie intake then goes pretty much unnoticed. I'd always be wary of any diet that tells you to cut out any particular food group or nutrient though. It may be easier to do but it's almost always more effective long-term to alter your diet in a more balanced way.
Slipspace wrote: I think a lot of the fad diets work because they give people an easy target to concentrate on: don't eat carbs, for example, is a simple instruction and gives people an "enemy" to avoid. The fact they usually work just by reducing your calorie intake then goes pretty much unnoticed. I'd always be wary of any diet that tells you to cut out any particular food group or nutrient though. It may be easier to do but it's almost always more effective long-term to alter your diet in a more balanced way.
Cutting out carbs also depletes your glycogen stores and water retention. I think that initial weight loss (it's been anywhere from 5-20 lbs for me in the first 1-2 weeks when I've done it) is very effective at motivating people to stick to it even though the loss will slow down dramatically and you will regain that water weight after a couple of days of eating carbohydrates. Also, many people consume high quantities of carbohydrates that they don't digest well and bloating isn't something I'd wish on anyone. That going away also leads to a feeling of being slimmer, which in turn, is another great motivator. Lastly, people, especially in America, consume a massive amount of simple carbohydrates and little fiber, which may provide a lot of energy and isn't remotely filling. Now, cutting at all carbs is naturally insane for most people, but in terms of simplicity and effectiveness just reducing carbs without making any other dietary changes has got to be the best 'fad' diet. Particularly in comparison to some other things, like liquid diets.
Starting the third week of healthier eating, with the goal of feeling better.
Proud to say that I've ditched the fizzy drinks and chocolate for more fruit & veg. Three mornings a week I'm out the door and won't come back for an hour, walking, jogging, running - its all in there.
Organic Blueberries are what made this happen as they provide just as much pleasure as if eating dark chocolate. If I hadn't picked up the "wrong" blueberries that morning I'd still be eating crap. Thank you universe for divine intervention!
I severely injured my back 4 and a half weeks ago and was not able to do my usual 55km running per week (I am aiming at 20-25 this week)and put on 2kg in the first week after the injury
So I removed 12-16 biscuits per day, ice-cream cone per day, 3-4 chocolate bars per week, museli bar per day, pack 200g lollies each weekend plus whatever else was around the house.
Now my diet is Banana in a shake breakfast, 2 oranges, 2 mandarines through the day and a regular dinner, no desert. I have 1 museli bar and a dessert on Sunday.
I have lost 7kg since starting and last 3 weeks have been grinding out a kg per week.
Very happy with progress.
Amazing what happens when you stop eating high calorie/low nutrition food.
Waaagh_Gonads wrote: I severely injured my back 4 and a half weeks ago and was not able to do my usual 55km running per week (I am aiming at 20-25 this week)and put on 2kg in the first week after the injury
So I removed 12-16 biscuits per day, ice-cream cone per day, 3-4 chocolate bars per week, museli bar per day, pack 200g lollies each weekend plus whatever else was around the house.
Now my diet is Banana in a shake breakfast, 2 oranges, 2 mandarines through the day and a regular dinner, no desert. I have 1 museli bar and a dessert on Sunday.
I have lost 7kg since starting and last 3 weeks have been grinding out a kg per week.
Very happy with progress.
Amazing what happens when you stop eating high calorie/low nutrition food.
That's great progress. Hope the back injury is on the way to recovery. Probably also worth pointing out that I think people would also be amazed to see what they eat in a given week. The above looks like quite a lot of bad food (it did to me at first) but sitting down and honestly writing out everything you eat, including all those little snacks you conveniently forget about, can add up the calories very quickly. That honest calculation of what you're eating is the first step to getting control of your diet.
One of my hobbies i playing in the kitchen. I’ve been binge watching the Great British Baking Show. I don’t have coworkers to foist experiments on. This is not a good combo.
Plus side, I know I can make choux pastry and croissants from scratch. Bad side is I don’t like wasting food, and there is a LOT of butter in those guys. The croissants in particular, which are basically pure butter, with just enough other stuff added to give it a nice flaky texture.
I should try harder to find new fun healthy recipes to experiment with. But most require odd ingredients I don’t have on hand. Flour/butter/sugar I always have.
Ignore the title as the principles it outlines are the same for any person losing weight.
It will firstly allow you to understand your bodies genuine base needs in terms of calories and macro nutrients, but will also allow you to accurately pre determine weight loss when factoring in exercise and activity.
For the sake of an hours reading and a little bit of calculations, it can make your weight loss journey a hell of a lot easier.
For those going with the 'eat less cake and go for a walk approach' it probably won't work (sorry to say that), losing weight (or fat specifically) should have a consistent method that can be accurately assessed after a week or two. You don't have to measure your food, but you do need to know what your body actually needs so you can work out what should be going into it.
My daughter is losing weight much more slowly than me, although she eats less and does more exercise. The differences are that she weighs less, and I am a man and we have higher metabolism.
I calculated I need to eat 66% more food than her to have the same balance of calorie intake. Actually I probably eat 20% more, and drink more booze, and that's why I'm losing weight faster.
Exactly why, though you need to be careful with booze, those calories catch up quick if a person is quite a social drinker...
If she is doing lots of exercise, she may be gaining some weight lost in muscle... Other factors come into play as well, inflammation from DOMS means you can hold onto water and if you are in a constant state of that, you will retain more and more water as muscles grow, meaning you will be heavy but it won't be fat...
General daily activity as well is a factor, you don't just burn calories during exercise as I'm sure you know, but day to day activities you may not consider exercise will burn more calories than someone who sits around on their bum all day.
It's amazing how much my BMR calorie requirement has changed during lockdown whilst I haven't been at work, my step count is roughly the same still but the amount of time I spent on my feet at work (FE lecturer) really makes a difference, around 250cals extra a day on average it seems....
Whilst there's nothing wrong with that ebook, there's virtually nothing in it dealing with issues around the psychology and mechanics of actually eating, which make a huge difference.
Diet has been an easy one for me, went vegan 3 years ago, best life decision I've ever made.
Loads of fresh vegetables, leafy greens, fruit, nuts, beans, mushrooms and wholegrains make up the bulk of what I eat. I try for the whole foods approach as much as I can (which cuts out processed foods and oils), but that gets made difficult by the amount of delicious vegan junk food that keeps coming out, it's sometimes too tempting but I try to limit it.
I take a multivitamin as well, but that's something everyone should ideally do.
Main benefits I've noticed are my skin clearing up completely and better cardio (my walking speed increased about 20% completely unconsciously, I just noticed that I was arriving early at places).
For anyone interested in nerding out on peer-reviewed scientific studies and analysis I'd definitely recommend https://nutritionfacts.org/ as a good reference, it tends to analyse the methodology used in studies and how reliable/ well supported they are. Always go with the science and not the newspaper headlines which love to portray the whole thing as somehow associated with left-wing politics when it's really not political at all.
In short, plant based diet very good, but not so good if you're still eating loads of vegan pizza, donuts, cheese, burgers etc. instead of blueberries/walnuts/kale. There is some effort required to get the most out of it and with the commercialisation of it there's a lot more vegan junk food out there than 5 years ago, something like vegan ice cream doesn't suddenly become healthy, it's still a giant block of sugar and fat void of nutrition.
) from places within walking distance to break up the monotony and help keep the places I like in business, though I'm also usually not eating 3 meals each day fri-sun the way I do M-
).
