To think most family meals are low enough in caloroes and the diet industry is not necessary?

[ElderAve]

Obviously not if you're going to deep fry everything but we know that. A standard family menu at home.

A grab and go breakfast of cereal, porridge, toast, eggs or fruit and yogurt will be no more than 400 calories.

A sandwich lunch will be about 4/500 calories

A home cooked dinner based around lean protein, some carbs and veg will be about 500 provided you go easy on the oil and butter . Even an M&S beef lasagne is only 620

So, 3 meals a day = 1500 calories max. We don't need special products or cookery books.

We do need to stop with all the junk we eat and drink between meals. But we have to do that whether we foĺlow a diet book or buy diet products or not.

I have a glass of water with my dinner which means I can afford to eat a bit more food.

Congratulations! I had a glass of water too! ,..and am having another one now, this very moment, in fact.
MN is thirsty work!

Lots of skinny (healthy person) shaming on here

Eating is pleasurable. We are programmed to seek out highly calorific food, because that's what kept early humans alive. So the majority of people will eat more food than they need, or more calorific food than they need, if it is in plentiful supply and easy to get. People don't like being hungry.

Even if it were true that most modern family meals are low calorie enough to maintain a healthy weight (which it probably isn't), if people stop eating snacks they will probably eat larger meal portions to make up for it.

Traditional family meals might have been fine, but most people eat loads of processed food, highly refined carbs and lots of (sometimes hidden) sugar.

You'd hate hospital food, then!

Actually, when I was in hospital I was too ill to eat. So to be fair, when I started eating again, after about 5 days, I could only handle tiny portions. Maybe 600 kcal/day. Probably took another 5 days to get back to a normal looking calorie intake. It's fair to say if you're just lying in bed all day, you barely need any calories (I think I just about got to loo & back with IV attached).

Pleased, your better now, lijkk. I don't think I was ever that ill in hospital, thankfully. I just remember being a bit bored.

By the way, lijkk, if you don't mind me asking, how do you maintain your weight on 2500 calories a day? Are you very tall/muscular?

I'm kind of grateful I was so unwell in hospital. You sure can't get any sleep there if you aren't very ill.

I'm almost 5'8". One MN said that's quite tall. ~26% body fat says DH's fancy scales. Is that "muscular"?

It's myth to believe muscles burn much more calories than other body flesh. Can repeat the math here if anyone likes.

Fitbit says I do ~ 120 active minutes/day. Otherwise I work FT in a sedentary job. I guess the 120 minutes matter.

Well, I only burn 2500 on a very active day lljk, according to FitBit. So to burn 2500, for me, I would need to do a 50 minute run plus a much longer walk than I would normally do. Of course I'd reach it if I ran for longer but 50 minutes is about enough for me at the moment. As I said previously, I'm 32 percent fat and 5 foot 7. The last time I had 127 active minutes I burnt 2154 cals.

So something is making a difference. The extra body fat I've got on you won't be doing me any favours. You are certainly more muscular than me. I take it you aren't gaining weight so either the intensity of your activity is greater than mine or your muscles do mean you burn more energy.

I'm kind of grateful I was so unwell in hospital. You sure can't get any sleep there if you aren't very ill.

No, you can't. I was there for operations and once because I was at risk of being neutropenic during chemo. One stay in the post surgery ward was actually quite good, a bit of a party atmosphere. Bit like being on a dorm. We all chatted. The A & E ward was a bit more distressing as some people were in pain. But once morning arrived everyone was a bit happier and chatting. I was pleased to be able to go home, though. One thing, though I am very greatful to the NHS. My treatment would have run into tens of thousands!

It's myth to believe muscles burn much more calories than other body flesh. Can repeat the math here if anyone likes.

I'd be interested to know. All I've read is this kind of thing: (see below)

"When you exercise, you use muscle. This helps build muscle mass, and muscle tissue burns more calories even when you're at rest than body fat. According to Wharton, 10 pounds of muscle would burn 50 calories in a day spent at rest, while 10 pounds of fat would burn 20 calories.11 May 2007
https://www.webmd.com"

"One pound of muscle burns 4.5 to 7 calories per day, whereas one pound of fat may only burn a couple of calories. Your lean tissue makes up approximately 10 to 20% of your total daily calorie needs compared to only 4 to 5% for body fat (3,4,5).13 Mar 2019
https://www.trifectanutrition.com "

Very apologies for mixing you up with the OP.

Rather than all fat being the enemy, I really mean that saturated fat (butter, cream etc) and oil are the enemy. healthy fats from whole foods such as avocados, nuts and seeds are fine in moderation (although not great for anyone trying to loose weight).

Check out Dr Caldwell Esselstyn.

If I think back to the size of portions my grandparents served, they'd be very similar to what @veryvery has posted.

They were wartime generation, used to very limited amounts of animal protein and lots of veg. They lived until their 90s very healthily.

I inherited some of their crockery and was really struck by how much smaller their plates were in those days. Dinner plates look like a large side plates, their cereal bowls fit in about half the portion I'd normally serve.

Rather than all fat being the enemy, I really mean that saturated fat (butter, cream etc) and oil are the enemy. healthy fats from whole foods such as avocados, nuts and seeds are fine in moderation (although not great for anyone trying to loose weight).

Check out Dr Caldwell Esselstyn.

I'll have a look but on the surface of it seems like there is some conflicting information out there. And from experience I do know that ketogenic diets do work for weight loss.

ha, my mediterranean nana made hearty meals and big portions, and finished it off with bread. My mum however gives small portions. We are always starving when we go to stay

GetRid, I think you're right. I remember portions in the 70s and 80s being similar to what I eat now. And from what my DM remembers of rationing as a child, her portions, then, were similar. I do have more meat, fresh eggs, cream and butter, though!

I'd be interested to know. All I've read is this kind of thing: (see below)

"When you exercise, you use muscle. This helps build muscle mass, and muscle tissue burns more calories even when you're at rest than body fat. According to Wharton, 10 pounds of muscle would burn 50 calories in a day spent at rest, while 10 pounds of fat would burn 20 calories.11 May 2007

Thats exactly it veryvery. If you were to lose 10 pounds of fat, then gain 10 pounds of muscle, that would be a massive effort over months (10 pounds of muscle is a lot). And the difference in energy requirements is 30 calories a day - basically nothing.

"Lots of skinny (healthy person) shaming on here"

Where?

Ah, I see 1300. But I still don't understand why I don't burn more, taking into consideration my activity, really. Maybe I'm magic! Or at the very least my body is very efficient. Come a zombie apocalypse I'd be laughing!

Having been offered an anti-depressant (over the phone) that is given to people with anorexia as it is a known appetite stimulant, I do wonder how much of obesity is from medication (including hormonal contraception).

veryvery that is exactly what I was looking at, too!

So, At rest
10 lbs of fat burns 20 cal all day
10 lbs of muscle burns 50 cal all day

50 - 20 = 30.
Suppose a woman transforms her body from being 20% muscle & 30% fat to become 40% muscle & 10% fat. She turned 12 kg of fat into 12 kg of muscle (12 kg = 20% of the weight of a 60 kg woman).

12 kg = 27 lbs.
So, At rest
12 kg of fat would burn (2.720) = 54 kcal.
12 kg of muscle would burn (2.750) = 135 kcal.

135 - 54 = 79 kcal.
= One large tangerine.
Last time I worked this out, someone shrieked that a tangerine was a HUGE calorie difference in a single day. I guess we'll have to disagree. Ignoring that one needs to do a huge amount of (calorie demanding) exercise to maintain 40% body composition = muscle.

For women, muscle as 20% or 40% of total body weight both seem very unusual.

I agree in principle op.Portion control is an issue as is snacking and lack of physical exertion in daily life( driving everywhere, remote controls etc) and the explosion of fast food/ takeaway and apps.

As a child in 70s I thought Augustus Gloop in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was very fat, now he looks chubby.
In the 70s my diet probably was more plain but we rarely snacked so were hungry at mealtimes and ate well. Always playing ‘out’ must’ve clicked up steps.

Having grown up outside of the UK, it's striking how many seem so fixated on the blood 1970s and rationing. Gees, that was the past!

So your exercise must burn quite a bit more lljk, either that or you're more active when you are being sedentary than I am. If not then maybe I really am an extraordinarily energy efficient machine! (probably just on energy saving mode half the time) Incidentally, if I may ask, what sort of work outs do you do?

@eminencegrise it’s all I can compare with. I’ve seen a big change since my childhood in the way people eat and consequently their size.