|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 49 responses total. |
zodiac
|
|
response 25 of 49:
| 
Aug 14 14:15 UTC 1997 |
Can somebody give me a calories list?
|
e4808mc
|
|
response 26 of 49:
|
Aug 21 03:55 UTC 1997 |
Calorie lists can be hundreds of pages long. Your most comprehensive source
is the USDA list, The Nutritive Value of Common Foods. Other, smaller lists
are available at every supermarket checkout counter.
There are probably websites that list calories as well (help me here, you
advanced technology types).
A word of advice though: Calorie counts are not very helpful when choosing
foods. If I could only get one piece of information about a food, I would ask
for grams of fat per serving. And usually you will want to know the
carbohydrate and protein content as well. A 100 calorie potato chip is NOT
an equal alternative to a 100 calorie apple, or carton of yogurt.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 27 of 49:
|
Aug 21 04:41 UTC 1997 |
Try http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/ You can get calories for
different quantitites of practically any food you can imagine. Also, all other
nutritional values of that food. (1 kumquat = 63 kcal...)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 28 of 49:
|
Aug 22 08:09 UTC 1997 |
I must be misreading that.. A single kumquat = 63,000 calories?
With that much energy I'd think there'd be some way to use them
as a weapon..
|
i
|
|
response 29 of 49:
|
Aug 23 00:52 UTC 1997 |
kcal = kilocalorie = Calorie. The calorie is the "natural" unit of
measure in physics and the defined scientific standard worldwide, but the
kcal is more convenient in dietary usage. Things get abbreviated with use,
and calorie has come to mean kcal when the subject is food.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 30 of 49:
|
Aug 24 20:28 UTC 1997 |
Exactly. I was pleased that that site has adopted correct terminology. A
calorie is 4.184 joules (exactly). The use of the term calorie for the
kilocalorie in diet needs to be abandoned. Perhaps the best thing would be
to just go directly to stating energy quantities in joules, and avoid the
confusion of calorie vs kilocalorie completely.
|
i
|
|
response 31 of 49:
|
Aug 25 00:36 UTC 1997 |
Given the bigger numbers that would result and America's generally high
stupidity inertial coefficient, I'd look for that change to be made about
the same time as the conversion to 100-minute hours...
|
rickyb
|
|
response 32 of 49:
|
Aug 26 13:14 UTC 1997 |
btw... here's another good site for food/nutrition info:
http://www.phys.com/
|
denise
|
|
response 33 of 49:
|
Jan 27 23:42 UTC 2007 |
re:0, I'm not sure that I have a favorite 'healthy' recipe yet. But in the
past few months, I've been doing a bit more cooking from 'scratch' instead
of strictly frozen, canned, or premade food items. I've also cut way down on
my pop and instead, am drinking a lot more water. So in the past couple months
or so, I've lost about 10-12 pounds. Which means I need to keep on cooking
on my own on a regular basis. Oh, and I've cut down somewhat on my fastfood
meals as well. :-)
|
keesan
|
|
response 34 of 49:
|
Jan 27 23:46 UTC 2007 |
Another grex lost even more than that by giving up pop and getting some
exercise. Congratulations on making these changes and sticking to it.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 35 of 49:
|
Jan 27 23:52 UTC 2007 |
congratulations denise!
|
denise
|
|
response 36 of 49:
|
Jan 28 00:18 UTC 2007 |
Thanks! :-) This is partly why I've been posting/asking so many questions
about cooking and food lately! Once I get a couple other projects out of the
way, I'll try and spend a bit more time trying to focus on the exercise thing,
too.
|
keesan
|
|
response 37 of 49:
|
Jan 28 03:53 UTC 2007 |
Muscles burn fat.
|
mary
|
|
response 38 of 49:
|
Jan 28 13:19 UTC 2007 |
That "fact" has recently come under scrutiny and is now being questioned.
|
denise
|
|
response 39 of 49:
|
Jan 28 13:34 UTC 2007 |
"Another grex lost even more than that by giving up pop and getting some
exercise." I'm sure there probably has been. :-) But as long as I'm not
gaining any more and even better is the losing some is fine with me. I'll be
even happier if it continues, even if its at a somewhat slower rate so the
weight will stay off. In time, I'll be trying to incorporate more exercise
in my day to day life. But for now, one step at a time [no pun intended]; I
want/need to be comfortable with my current goals [more goals than just the
food aspect] and keeping them going before I add something else. I'm prone
to getting overwhelmed pretty easily and then I'm apt to do nothing at all.
|
mary
|
|
response 40 of 49:
|
Jan 28 14:59 UTC 2007 |
Sounds like an excellent plan, Denise. I could do with a bit of your
philosophy.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 41 of 49:
|
Jan 29 16:16 UTC 2007 |
resp:39 I'll echo Mary and say that your 'one step at a time' approach
is great. :) And- "they" say that kind of approach means you're much
more likely to succeed.
|
denise
|
|
response 42 of 49:
|
Jan 29 22:19 UTC 2007 |
Thanks for the feedback and I do hope this will continue to be successful.
Though I do know it'll take a long time to lose the weight I should do to be
more healthy. However, it IS hard sometimes not to eat as I should during
times of stress, depression, or other rough times. Then I go into a not-caring
mode.
|
slynne
|
|
response 43 of 49:
|
Jan 29 23:48 UTC 2007 |
Denise, you might wish to look into the "Health at Every Size"
philosophy. It is kinder because it doesnt put a huge focus on what,
for many, is an unobtainable goal: weight loss. The HAES approach is
that if you get your body moving and eat a healthy diet, you will gain
pretty significant health benefits even if you dont happen to lose
weight. I know that when I am eating well and moving around, I feel a
lot better anyways :)
|
denise
|
|
response 44 of 49:
|
Jan 30 18:17 UTC 2007 |
Thanks for the suggestion, Lynne. I went and looked at a website that had a
lot of this information--and I plan on going back to read more of it when I
have a bit more time.
I do now that just food and exercise play a role in what someone weighs. I'll
have to enter a separate item about this sometime soon so that this item can
stay on track with 'Food' and not just about what a healthy size and/or
dieting is. :-)
|
denise
|
|
response 45 of 49:
|
Feb 1 02:55 UTC 2007 |
[I was planning on entering an item sometime about health/diet/weight stuff
especially/including stuff on obesity and other overweight related issues.
But for now I'm going to hold off while the discussion that's going on in the
current Agora conference. I might still post something in the future; though
if anyone else wants to go ahead and post something on this topic here and/or
in the health conference-and I can link it here- please feel free to do so.
I'd still participate.]
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 46 of 49:
|
Feb 1 13:57 UTC 2007 |
I read an article in the NYT last weekend which distinguished between
eating and "nutritionism". Essentially, the author claimed that nutrition
had become an "ism", a belief system that focused on such small elements of
eating that believers had unbalanced behaviors around eating.
I'll try to find the article and do a better summary.
|
remmers
|
|
response 47 of 49:
|
Feb 1 16:57 UTC 2007 |
You're thinking of the article "Unhappy Meals" by Michael Pollan (author
of the books _The Omnivore's Dilemma_ and _The Botany of Desire_).
Pollan views nutrition trends like "low fat" and "low carb", and crazes
for particular nutrients like "oat bran" and "omega-3 fatty acids", as
fads that miss the big picture and do little or nothing to promote
health. His article begins:
Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.
The rest of the article elaborates on this theme. By "food" he means
things that your great-great-grandmother would have recognized as food,
which rules out a lot of the things that people stuff in their mouths
these days.
Full article is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html
|
jadecat
|
|
response 48 of 49:
|
Feb 1 20:05 UTC 2007 |
Sounds similar to the 'if you can't pronounce the ingredients don't eat
it' kind of meal planning.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 49 of 49:
|
Feb 2 13:55 UTC 2007 |
Yes, remmers, that was the one. Thanks for the url and great summary.
One of the things I liked in his article is that meal times are important
parts of human interaction, and that those interactions themselves have health
impacts.
|
