Diet Thread

Forum rules
The information / discussion in the Cycling Health Forum is not qualified medical advice. Please consult your doctor.
CKinnard
Posts: 3459
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Fri May 15, 2015 9:27 pm

I wish I was nobody! :) he's on a mission....while I'm on my 3rd cab sav! :)

rapunzel
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 7:54 pm

Re: Diet Thread

Postby rapunzel » Fri May 15, 2015 9:31 pm

Nobody wrote:
rapunzel wrote:I confess to perusing this thread due to general interest in nutrition.
Nobody wrote:I need to be in control of my diet if I want to get to my goals.
Given what you post in this thread, you appear to spend a lot of time and effort in controlling your diet. But I haven't seen mention of your goals (or I've missed them somewhere). Out of curiosity... care to share? Do you mean cycling training goals?
This thread is an offshoot of the "BNA losers club - 2015" after some complaints of too many diet posts.

The not too ambitious goal in this post. Mainly as I didn't know how it would go.

Last posted results here. But I got the Jan starting weight wrong. It should have been 65.5Kg. As of this morning the waist is back down to 73cm or WHtR of 0.422.

My cycling goals in the past were often health driven and still are. So my diet goals are health driven rather than cycling driven. At the moment my primary goals are to get my cholesterol, blood pressure and blood test results as good as possible. Everything else is a welcome side effect.
Gotcha. Explains why I didn't see your goals there; I'm not interested in weight loss per se, so wouldn't generally be perusing the loser club thread. I find your initial goal interesting in that you say to do it without 'copious amounts of exercise' (although what 'copious' means to various people would likely vary widely...). I was thinking maybe your strict diet and weight regulation related to attaining specific cycling goals.... clearly not! (edited) Were you hoping that exercise is not the be all end all for weight loss (and your other sought after health markers) for you?

Funnily, your latest posted results in that link mirrored me in Oct last year (except the C-W-H & waist/hip ratio, which was quite different).

Nobody
Posts: 10316
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Fri May 15, 2015 10:10 pm

rapunzel wrote: I find your initial goal interesting in that you say to do it without 'copious amounts of exercise' (although what 'copious' means to various people would likely vary widely...).
To me, in the context of BNA would be 300Km or more per week. Usually people do that much are lean anyway.
rapunzel wrote:Were you thinking of showing that exercise is not the be all end all for weight loss?
Although exercise can control weight, it's still not the best primary path to health. I'm trying to show that diet is more important than exercise in controlling weight. I'm glad these threads are here because they do help. But if BNA were to disappear, it wouldn't change my goals.
rapunzel wrote:Or is the goal more 'for yourself'?
It's driven by the haters in my life primarily. The people who see my path to better health as bad, wrong, deficient etc. I brought it to the loser thread to give me a push and keep a record, like most people on there.
rapunzel wrote:Funnily, your latest posted results in that link mirrored me in Oct last year (except the C-W-H & waist/hip ratio, which was quite different).
So what are your results like now? Have they improved since then? A BMI under 21 or body fat around 10% or less isn't that common these days, even for cyclists. Are you using lots of cycling Kms to get it down or is cycling combined with diet?

Nobody
Posts: 10316
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Fri May 15, 2015 10:19 pm

CKinnard wrote:I wish I was nobody! :) he's on a mission....while I'm on my 3rd cab sav! :)
All you need is a bunch of haters in your life and you too can be on a mission. :mrgreen: At least you're enjoying yours. :)

warthog1
Posts: 14305
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
Location: Bendigo

Re: Diet Thread

Postby warthog1 » Fri May 15, 2015 10:37 pm

singlespeedscott wrote:Sounds similar to the lentil dish I have been serving up to the wife and family for the lst 15 years.

Red lentils are the easiest of the lentils to prepare but I prefer to rinse them off with cold water through sieve before cooking them. It helps to remove the starch.

Also at the end I usually tip a packet of washed baby spinach on the top of the lentils and cook them until they have wilted.

On the side I fry up the cumin seeds and then some onion and garlic until they are soft. I then fry some chilli and tumeric in the onion mix for a another minute. Next tip a can of organic plain diced tomatoes and cook it all up until its reduced. After it's cooked stir the whole lot through the lentils and greens. Serve it up with Basmati rice and some papadums. Yum
. An experienced dahl chef :), some good ideas for me there. Thanks mate.
Dogs are the best people :wink:

User avatar
singlespeedscott
Posts: 5510
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:35 pm
Location: Elimbah, Queensland

Re: Diet Thread

Postby singlespeedscott » Fri May 15, 2015 10:43 pm

warthog1 wrote:
singlespeedscott wrote:Sounds similar to the lentil dish I have been serving up to the wife and family for the lst 15 years.

Red lentils are the easiest of the lentils to prepare but I prefer to rinse them off with cold water through sieve before cooking them. It helps to remove the starch.

Also at the end I usually tip a packet of washed baby spinach on the top of the lentils and cook them until they have wilted.

On the side I fry up the cumin seeds and then some onion and garlic until they are soft. I then fry some chilli and tumeric in the onion mix for a another minute. Next tip a can of organic plain diced tomatoes and cook it all up until its reduced. After it's cooked stir the whole lot through the lentils and greens. Serve it up with Basmati rice and some papadums. Yum
. An experienced dahl chef :), some good ideas for me there. Thanks mate.
I have a cracking chickpea curry recipe too :D
Image

User avatar
toolonglegs
Posts: 15463
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!

Re: Diet Thread

Postby toolonglegs » Fri May 15, 2015 11:25 pm

Nobody wrote:To me, in the context of BNA would be 300Km or more per week. Usually people do that much are lean anyway.
I wish mate! ... plant based and over 5000 kms for the year so far, no weight loss :| This year isn't really going to plan!
Might have to pay more attention to this thread.
My weight goals are cycling based mainly ... but I realize I am a binge eater even though I only eat pretty healthily even when binging!. So I suppose my weiht goals are shifting as much to health goals as well as I get older.

rapunzel
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 7:54 pm

Re: Diet Thread

Postby rapunzel » Fri May 15, 2015 11:26 pm

Nobody wrote:
rapunzel wrote:Were you thinking of showing that exercise is not the be all end all for weight loss?
Although exercise can control weight, it's still not the best primary path to health. I'm trying to show that diet is more important than exercise in controlling weight. I'm glad these threads are here because they do help.
I am more about a happy medium re: diet and activity. Weight isn't necessarily an indicator of health, of course. My personal philosophy centres more around what my body can do for me. Hence my interest in nutrition, but less so in weight loss per se. I think more about what I should eat to do the things I want to do, as opposed to what I 'can' eat because of what activity I have done. And I tend to not even think of my activity in terms of 'exercise', but more about the activities themselves, because I love so much to be active. It's a reward onto itself.
Nobody wrote:
rapunzel wrote:Funnily, your latest posted results in that link mirrored me in Oct last year (except the C-W-H & waist/hip ratio, which was quite different).
So what are your results like now? Have they improved since then? A BMI under 21 or body fat around 10% or less isn't that common these days, even for cyclists. Are you using lots of cycling Kms to get it down or is cycling combined with diet?
I should clarify: I am one of those people who don't have to worry about my weight. The only time I've ever gained what to me seemed an inordinate amount of weight (BMI hit almost 24 I think) was due to medication, and as soon as I finished that, my weight worked its way back to my average without me changing anything else. Body composition was more an issue than weight. I cycle and run, and that keeps me to about 61-63kg without any dietary constraints. If I'm actually increasing levels of activity for an event preparation, I lose more. Last big prep in early 2014 saw me at 59kg without diet change other than eating more to meet energy needs. I think about my diet in terms of nutrition and meeting activity levels. And I love food.

I'm currently up 9kg from where I was in Oct because I'm 33weeks pregnant, so that has kind of thrown off my general ratio measurements :D I watch my diet now to make sure I'm getting enough nutrition and gaining adequately. Very different goal ATM...

Diet/nutrition research and debates interest me - e.g vitamins and supplements? individual variation in response to exercise and diet? genetics? diet effect on performance? on health? hormones and diet/exercise? Etc, etc.

Nobody
Posts: 10316
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sat May 16, 2015 12:06 am

toolonglegs wrote:
Nobody wrote:To me, in the context of BNA would be 300Km or more per week. Usually people do that much are lean anyway.
I wish mate! ... plant based and over 5000 kms for the year so far, no weight loss :| This year isn't really going to plan!
Might have to pay more attention to this thread.
My weight goals are cycling based mainly ... but I realize I am a binge eater even though I only eat pretty healthily even when binging!. So I suppose my weight goals are shifting as much to health goals as well as I get older.
You already know your solution, you just need to go cold-turkey with it. The things killing your weight loss are the bakery delights, the bread etc. [Yes I have been paying attention. :) ] I killed off the bread this year and I've lost about another 3.5Kg (BMI 21.9 to 20.7). Also are you eating any oil? Oil puts on weight where nuts don't as much. Don't you do smoothies as well? Eat like me, then tell us you're plant based and can't lose weight. :P

As it's getting colder here, I upped my beans and brown rice and my waist is still decreasing, or at least staying stable. So as you know, it's not the whole (high fibre) stuff that's usually the problem, but the processed.
Last edited by Nobody on Sat May 16, 2015 6:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
toolonglegs
Posts: 15463
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!

Re: Diet Thread

Postby toolonglegs » Sat May 16, 2015 12:50 am

Yes those pesky baguettes! ... need to go cold turkey on them!!!

Nobody
Posts: 10316
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sat May 16, 2015 7:15 am

rapunzel wrote:I am more about a happy medium re: diet and activity. Weight isn't necessarily an indicator of health, of course. My personal philosophy centres more around what my body can do for me. Hence my interest in nutrition, but less so in weight loss per se.
Agree. That's why I primarily use waist or WHtR as a primary indicator of health now instead of weight or BMI.
rapunzel wrote:I think more about what I should eat to do the things I want to do, as opposed to what I 'can' eat because of what activity I have done.
Agree. I think it's a trap to say, "I've been active so I can get away with eating whatever I want". Not only is it still doing harm, but if you have to miss the activity for whatever reason, you start increasing the fat again.
rapunzel wrote:
Nobody wrote:So what are your results like now? Have they improved since then? A BMI under 21 or body fat around 10% or less isn't that common these days, even for cyclists. Are you using lots of cycling Kms to get it down or is cycling combined with diet?
I should clarify: I am one of those people who don't have to worry about my weight. The only time I've ever gained what to me seemed an inordinate amount of weight (BMI hit almost 24 I think) was due to medication, and as soon as I finished that, my weight worked its way back to my average without me changing anything else. Body composition was more an issue than weight. I cycle and run, and that keeps me to about 61-63kg without any dietary constraints. If I'm actually increasing levels of activity for an event preparation, I lose more. Last big prep in early 2014 saw me at 59kg without diet change other than eating more to meet energy needs. I think about my diet in terms of nutrition and meeting activity levels. And I love food.
Sorry for the confusion, but almost always think I'm replying to a male when on these forums. It should have, but didn't occur to me otherwise until this post. :oops:
Yes it's good to not have to worry about weight. For me the up side of not being able to eat animal products without increasing fat, is that I now have a far better chance of avoiding a host of long term chronic illnesses.
rapunzel wrote:Diet/nutrition research and debates interest me - e.g vitamins and supplements? individual variation in response to exercise and diet? genetics? diet effect on performance? on health? hormones and diet/exercise? Etc, etc.
Well there's plenty in the loser thread from previous months. Especially if you follow the links. The problem with modern science is it's mainly industry driven and funded. So as you're probably already aware, you can't trust everything you read, even from scientific/academic sources these days.

warthog1
Posts: 14305
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
Location: Bendigo

Re: Diet Thread

Postby warthog1 » Sat May 16, 2015 8:13 am

singlespeedscott wrote:
warthog1 wrote:
singlespeedscott wrote:Sounds similar to the lentil dish I have been serving up to the wife and family for the lst 15 years.

Red lentils are the easiest of the lentils to prepare but I prefer to rinse them off with cold water through sieve before cooking them. It helps to remove the starch.

Also at the end I usually tip a packet of washed baby spinach on the top of the lentils and cook them until they have wilted.

On the side I fry up the cumin seeds and then some onion and garlic until they are soft. I then fry some chilli and tumeric in the onion mix for a another minute. Next tip a can of organic plain diced tomatoes and cook it all up until its reduced. After it's cooked stir the whole lot through the lentils and greens. Serve it up with Basmati rice and some papadums. Yum
. An experienced dahl chef :), some good ideas for me there. Thanks mate.
I have a cracking chickpea curry recipe too :D
Post it up please :)
Dogs are the best people :wink:

User avatar
matagi
Posts: 303
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 8:52 am
Location: In a parallel universe

Re: Diet Thread

Postby matagi » Sat May 16, 2015 8:23 am

Nobody wrote:Agree. I think it's a trap to say, "I've been active so I can get away with eating whatever I want". Not only is it still doing harm, but if you have to miss the activity for whatever reason, you start increasing the fat again.
Yet how many times do you hear someone say "I can eat this muffin/cake/biscuit because I've done x kilometres" and invariably overestimate the number of calories burned vs the number ingested?

I have finally accepted that eating processed carbs prevents me from losing weight and have been diligent (but not obsessive) about removing them from my diet. I still enjoy my Saturday morning croissant and coffee when I go to the market, but the rest of the week, no bread, pasta, rice, etc. Interestingly, when I tell people I avoid eating processed carbs, there is much consternation and questions about where my carbs come from. People seem to equate cutting down on processed carbs as going "no carb".

User avatar
kb
Posts: 2570
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 3:22 pm

Re: Diet Thread

Postby kb » Sat May 16, 2015 8:45 am

toolonglegs wrote:Yes those pesky baguettes! ... need to go cold turkey on them!!!
Whoops. I misread that as baguettes need cold turkey to go on them.
Image

Nobody
Posts: 10316
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sat May 16, 2015 9:24 am

matagi wrote:I have finally accepted that eating processed carbs prevents me from losing weight and have been diligent (but not obsessive) about removing them from my diet. I still enjoy my Saturday morning croissant and coffee when I go to the market, but the rest of the week, no bread, pasta, rice, etc.
I agree there is still a lot of confusion about what is a processed carb and what will and won't put weight on. A lot of the confusion often has to do with the associated dressings, rather than the product themselves. Below is what I currently believe from what I've picked up:

Bread - On average puts weight on for most people, including me. Probably because even "wholemeal" in AU is usually only ~50% wholemeal flour anyway. It usually has other junk in it too. That's without the high fat, sugar, salt stuff we usually put on them for flavor. I don't eat it anymore.

Pasta - Technically should put on weight but usually doesn't in isolation because it's slowly digested. It's a victim of the high fat, sugar and salt dressings typically. I don't eat it currently, but may in the future.

Rice - Can't fault it. Brown is better for you with more fibre and plant nutrients, but white rice is lower in fat. There is even a Kempner Rice Diet for maximum weight loss with really sick people. He used white rice. Rice is most likely the victim of the image of fried rice and other high fat rice based products. I currently eat 550 to 750g of brown rice a day.
matagi wrote:Interestingly, when I tell people I avoid eating processed carbs, there is much consternation and questions about where my carbs come from. People seem to equate cutting down on processed carbs as going "no carb".
You can thank Atkins and probably Paleo to some extent for that.
I'm high carb because for macro-nutrients we only have a choice of 3. So if I reduce carbs, then I invariably end up with more protein and fat because I need to get my energy from somewhere. Fat is an obvious problem and I've read that too much protein is bad for the kidneys. I just make sure my carbs are high fibre and as healthy as possible.

CKinnard
Posts: 3459
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Sat May 16, 2015 4:17 pm

Re carbs, it's not just a matter of processed vs unprocessed. It's how much!
And as I've said elsewhere, most people who have weight issues struggle to reel in inappropriate appetite.
Even having one extra cup of pasta beyond your energy needs, will result in most overshooting their energy needs by 10%!
Most people just don't comprehend how much energy is in starchy foods.

And this whole use of the term "carbs" is misleading too. fruit and vegetables are carbs, just as much as starch is.
Educated food experts should not refer to 'carbs' as a group. Rather, they should refer to the specific carbohydrate sub group - starch, fruit, fibrous.

The most powerful dietary and behavioral interventions for weight mgt are:
- drink adequate water regularly through the day
- stay calm, especially immediately before and during meals. eat slower. have conversation between mouthfuls.
- manage general stress levels better.
- if you are trying to lose weight, most people benefit from eating snacks so that they are having 5-6 meals a day. this subdues hunger pangs better.
- get a mix of light cardio, resistance, and stretching exercise most days. not so much as to lose weight, but to help blood flow and dump stress out of the body.
- don't skimp on fibrous carbs. nothing helps ease sugar cravings and prevent ingesting excessive Calories better.

I can see the day is coming closer when I am going to create a free website where people can construct their own healthy eating plan.
It's not rocket science. The guidelines are all there in the public domain but most don't know how to put it all together....and for whatever reason, most won't consult a dietitian....but will read a book by a slim celebrity!

Nobody
Posts: 10316
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sat May 16, 2015 8:29 pm

CKinnard wrote:And this whole use of the term "carbs" is misleading too. fruit and vegetables are carbs, just as much as starch is.
Educated food experts should not refer to 'carbs' as a group. Rather, they should refer to the specific carbohydrate sub group - starch, fruit, fibrous.
So it appears the educated food experts have a job to reeducate the general public. My understanding from what I've read is that in the '70s 'starch' was changed to 'complex carbohydrates'. Some argue it was a move that was designed to confuse. If it was, it has been effective in doing so. Yes for me carbohydrates are a food maco-nutrient, so everything I eat as some in it. But we all know 'carbs' is a common term for starch. Blame the food industry of yesteryear.
CKinnard wrote:I can see the day is coming closer when I am going to create a free website where people can construct their own healthy eating plan.
Good idea. I think it was the one thing missing from all the stuff I read. They gave you plenty of recipes, but no real plan. Maybe they thought it didn't need one, but I thought it was necessary at least find out if I'm getting all the essential components in my diet. As it turns out, I wasn't getting enough essential fats and zinc. So I added seeds and nuts about a year ago and just recently a low concentration zinc supplement.

CKinnard wrote:...most won't consult a dietitian....but will read a book by a slim celebrity!
Of course. Don't skinny celebrities who starve themselves, take diet pills and/or drugs and do copious amounts of exercise to lose weight, know everything? :wink: Maybe the dietitians should write books that appeal to the general public, or do they already?

CKinnard
Posts: 3459
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Sat May 16, 2015 10:39 pm

Nobody, one of the best nutrient trackers around 10 years ago was that put out by the CRON group. (calorie restriction optimum nutrition).
It reports back 50 odd micronutrients. However, it is a US thing.
I've just had another look at it and it seems they've jazzed it up a bit.
where a lot of these things get too anal, is in listing one zillion processed foods so people can painstakingly go through and pick whatever the hell they buy from the supermarket.
my preference would be to list unprocessed or minimally processed common foods. americans eat way too much processed and sweetened carp.


Nobody
Posts: 10316
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sat May 16, 2015 11:09 pm

Thanks CK, I'll have a look later. :)

I've replied to your post in the loser thread below and put a link there to keep the loser_data_only people happy.
CKinnard wrote:The more common problem is that most people, even when eating the right foods, eat them in the wrong portions and ratio. i.e. very very few people eat the recommended minimum 5 cups of fibrous carbohydrates per day.
Is there a link to the recommendation? The average person probably doesn't have a clue they are recommended to eat 5 cups a day of fibrous carbs. How much is a cup of fibrous carbs, 160g? If it's 160g, that would be 0.8Kg or salad type veg. I probably don't even eat two thirds of that. And sometimes I find the idea of that difficult as well. Once I start eating it I'm fine though.

Found the following which says 6 serves for an adult at 75g a serve. So 450g of veg.
http://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/food-ess ... ves-adults" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/food-ess ... erve-sizes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CKinnard
Posts: 3459
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Sun May 17, 2015 12:05 am

http://www.healthyactive.gov.au/interne ... d5book.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You'll note the ambiguity in your link that legumes and beans are included under vege AND protein. other nations don't do this.

In the link above, note it says "The Australian Government recommends that adults eat at least 2 serves of fruit
and 5 serves of vegetables per day"

salad vege is usually 1 cup per serve
cooked vege is 1/2 a cup per serve, on the assumption cooking reduces volume by 50%, which is anachronistic from decades ago when people boiled or steamed the carp out of vege.

hence, dietitians usually say 5 cups of raw vegetable as a minimum, whether you cook or not.

User avatar
matagi
Posts: 303
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 8:52 am
Location: In a parallel universe

Re: Diet Thread

Postby matagi » Sun May 17, 2015 8:56 am

CKinnard wrote:Nobody, one of the best nutrient trackers around 10 years ago was that put out by the CRON group. (calorie restriction optimum nutrition).
It reports back 50 odd micronutrients. However, it is a US thing.
I've just had another look at it and it seems they've jazzed it up a bit.
where a lot of these things get too anal, is in listing one zillion processed foods so people can painstakingly go through and pick whatever the hell they buy from the supermarket.
my preference would be to list unprocessed or minimally processed common foods. americans eat way too much processed and sweetened carp.
I've used several trackers over the years and the one failing they all seem to share is the poor options for logging fresh/unprocessed foods. Often they lump them into generic categories - "white fish" anyone?

Just had a look at the Cronometer - useless for Australian application, unless you create custom foods. However it does highlight how little nutritional information is available on most food labels. I looked at milk because I happened to be drinking a home made caffe latte and was surprised by how little information was on the label of the milk I drink.

Nobody
Posts: 10316
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Diet Thread

Postby Nobody » Sun May 17, 2015 10:58 am

Thanks for explaining it CK. :)

The difference between cooked and raw measures should be explained and it should be in the online AU Dietary Guidelines, rather than a previous campaign file. It may all be there, but it's not concise and clear IMO.

So it looks like 1 cup ~150g of raw veg and 75g of well cooked. So 5 cups is ~750g raw. If I include the 300g of mixed frozen veg then I get there.

User avatar
matagi
Posts: 303
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 8:52 am
Location: In a parallel universe

Re: Diet Thread

Postby matagi » Sun May 17, 2015 11:30 am

I hate cup measures with a passion - except when I'm baking (which is not that often). I much prefer to use weight.

I shudder to think what 150g of raw veg looks like when reduced to 75g cooked :shock:

CKinnard
Posts: 3459
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Diet Thread

Postby CKinnard » Sun May 17, 2015 12:51 pm

Nobody wrote:Thanks for explaining it CK. :)

The difference between cooked and raw measures should be explained and it should be in the online AU Dietary Guidelines, rather than a previous campaign file. It may all be there, but it's not concise and clear IMO.

So it looks like 1 cup ~150g of raw veg and 75g of well cooked. So 5 cups is ~750g raw. If I include the 300g of mixed frozen veg then I get there.
be careful weighing frozen vege. the usual trick is they freeze soon after washing, when a lot of water still clings to the vege.
as an experiment, weigh your frozen produce straight out of the packet, then again about 30 minutes later when it's thawed!!! :shock:

as for cooked vege vs salad vege, your link includes this page about serve sizes
http://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/food-ess ... erve-sizes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
this is highly ambiguous. most plant based eaters include their example of cooked veges, in raw salads (broccoli, spinach, grated carrot and pumpkin)

note also a govt standard serve of vegetables can vary by 250% (100-350kJ). this is ridiculous. it makes no sense at all to make a serve size based on a fixed weight, when it is energy content that is the elephant in the room.

This is yet again an example of public health being run by people who are not master communicators, and why I was motivated 15 years ago to get involved in this. I also had consults with 2 dietitians, and worked with many more, and was always stunned at how poorly they communicated.

User avatar
casual_cyclist
Posts: 7758
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: Diet Thread

Postby casual_cyclist » Mon May 18, 2015 1:23 pm

CKinnard wrote:And this whole use of the term "carbs" is misleading too. fruit and vegetables are carbs, just as much as starch is.
Educated food experts should not refer to 'carbs' as a group. Rather, they should refer to the specific carbohydrate sub group - starch, fruit, fibrous.
^^^ this. Think of eating these for example: fruit, sugar, white flour, brown rice, sweet potato, broccoli, pasta, oats. Obviously the sugar, white flour, pasta and oats need to be made into something can be eaten, but still, they are going to have vastly different impacts on energy levels, satsifaction from eating them and time until hungry again. They are all carbs but not at all comparable. Some would argue that it is the fat that is added to make the processed carbs palatable that is the problem. I don't accept that. I can make low fat/no fat version of foods with sugar (fat free icing), white flour (low fat pancakes), pasta (no fat pasta sauce with veg), and oats (low fat porridge). We have learned to identify different types of fat (saturated, trans-fats, polyunsaturated, monunsaturated). Time to learn to identify the different types of carbs too.
<removed by request>

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users