21 new of 49 responses total.
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.
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.
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...
btw... here's another good site for food/nutrition info:
http://www.phys.com/
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. :-)
Another grex lost even more than that by giving up pop and getting some exercise. Congratulations on making these changes and sticking to it.
congratulations denise!
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.
Muscles burn fat.
That "fact" has recently come under scrutiny and is now being questioned.
"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.
Sounds like an excellent plan, Denise. I could do with a bit of your philosophy.
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.
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.
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 :)
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. :-)
[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.]
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.
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
Sounds similar to the 'if you can't pronounce the ingredients don't eat it' kind of meal planning.
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.
You have several choices: