To think this is a decent day of eating?

[jennyhumphreyseyeliner]

I have prepped food for tomorrow and my partner says it’s awful, but I think it’s decent!

Breakfast is baked oats - whey protein added and made with dark chocolate chips and some frozen raspberries. 420 calories and 33g of protein.

Lunch - chicken pie with baby potatoes. Lighter puff pastry used. 520 calories and 54g of protein.

Dinner - beef stew. Beef, potatoes, vegetables and gravy.

Snacks - light Greek yoghurt with stewed berries, and a packet of popchips.

Total - 1511 calories, 137g of protein and 37g of fibre.

I’m on a weight loss journey and will go to the gym before work tomorrow. I think it’s balanced, provides all my fruit and veg for the day (8 portions), hits my goals (im more worried about fibre than protein) and is genuinely tasty wholesome food.

YABU - this is unhealthy.

YANBU - it’s a good day of food.

You know you're talking absolute shite, right? I'm assuming that you just want to argue with the OP, but I hope no one is taking your nonsense on board.

PS: when it comes to weight loss, it absolutely IS "all about the calories". "Volume" my arse.

It's really interesting (to me) how peoples bodies are different- not just across ethnicities but within as well.

One of my friends (aged late 50s) and I (aged 52) are both trying to eat 'more healthily' which really means in a way that works for us. She does not touch any carbs except for plain white rice maybe once a week. (She is GF anyway). If she eats very plainly (pain fish, chicken etc) with salads, fat free egg white omelettes etc she feels satisfied, has energy and loses weight.

I turned vegetarian last year and relied too much on cheese and eggs then vegan more recently. I am high carb, high beans and lentils, massive volumes of fruit and vegetables and seeds (but I have had to cut back on nut butters which I love).

We both drink alcohol. We are losing weight roughly at the same rate of between 1 pound and 2 a week. Se is slightly shroter than me. I was slighlty heavier than her. But, she's happy with how she eats. I am EXTREMELY happy with how I eat. It' what works for us as individuals.

As pps up thread have said- the OP doesn't need 'advice' from someone who thinks Huel twice a day is a healthy diet. Now THAT is disordered.

I wouldn’t eat two hot meals in a day, I’d find that too heavy. I’m a normal weight and just have a salad with a few oat cakes or humous and oat cakes with some grapes afterwards for lunch. Sometimes we go out and have a bigger lunch but then I don’t want a full meal at dinner time.

As someone who cured insulin resistance naturally without dropping a single carb in my diet I can tell you that advice is outdated and irrelevant. How you eat is much more relevant to your blood sugar than what you eat

Please explain to me what “metrics”‘I need tk use to enable 1kg of muscle to weigh more than 1kg of fat?

Per cm2 I assume

A hot meal isn’t heavy though just because it’s hot? I mean soup, stir fry, an omelette with salad, a jacket potato

That is not weight though is it, that is density. A kilo of fat takes up more space than a kilo of muscle but it still weighs a kilo.

Yes you're right, but isn't that what people mean when they say something is heavier than something else? It's denser per cm2 and exerts a greater amount of gravitational force?

😂😂

Theres nothing thick sbout acknowledging that 800g of raw chicken is going to have less calories than 800g of cooked chicken and that the caveat to that is that if you are cooking that chicken yourself then measuring the weight raw is fine.

By Volume.

You are completely right that 1kg is 1gk no matter the substance you are weighing.

But when people talk of muscle weighing more than fat they are talking about VOLUME.

Go get yourself .5 cubic meters of fat and the same volume of muscle and then weigh them.

Or to put it another way - two equal weights of muscle and fat - the fat will take up approximately 15% extra volume.

Muscle weights more than fat BY VOLUME.

It’s really a shame you feel you need to be so condescending when you are in fact completely wrong.

Weigh it. Weigh equal volumes of muscle and fat.

Muscle will WEIGH MORE by volume because it is denser.

Or are you going to try to tell me that a denser substance by volume will weigh exactly the same as a substance that is the same volume but less dense?

Yes. That’s what people mean (but the metric is cm3 and not cm2 - because that’s area not volume)

😄 thanks (GCSE physics was a long time ago)

Yes but the word “weight” means how heavy something is. Not how dense it is. So saying muscle weighs more than fat by volume is true of course. But saying muscle weighs more than fat is not true.
and re the chicken thing that is exactly what I was trying to explain…
anyway.
enjoy your day everyone and OP please tell your husband he is a twat.

It’s true… when calculating quantitative diet assessments you have to specify if the food is cooked or raw on input because the calories of food change when cooked due to loss of fat, absorbance of oil/fat and loss of water. The change is fairly negligible of course but it is there. If you want to see the changes I’d recommend look at the McCance and Widdowson CoFid (it’s available as an excel database from gov.uk) and looking at the values for raw chicken vs grilled/fried/baked chicken. The micronutrients change too - vitamin C for example is particularly heat sensitive and you lose huge amounts of it through cooking.

Just because it’s not something often practiced by dieters doesn’t mean it’s nonsense.

That’s you not Op. Most of East Asia eats exclusively hot meals at every meal time and their obesity rate is far lower than ours.

You don’t see it on fresh fruit and veg, but you should. By the time it is harvested, shipped, bought, brought home and has been in your cupboard/fridge for a few days, it’s lost more than half of its nutrients. But people still spout on about fresh veg as if it’s the pinnacle of healthy eating. Frozen/tinned fruit and veg are way more nutrient dense than fresh. The vitamins which are used to fortify food are the exact same vitamins that are in the food you eat. It makes no difference to your body what the source is. The current war on “processed food” is absolutely ridiculous. It’s fine to say you should avoid eating ready meals every day, or having processed meats for every meal rather than fresh, but to start on that any food that has been processed in any way is automatically inferior to anything fresh is a fundamental misunderstanding of how food is produced.

Its guidance to encourage people to take in a variety of micronutrients. Of course the body doesn’t need all of those nutrients in 24 hours but it ensures people ‘eat the rainbow’ more than if they just ate carrots all day every day. Dietary advice cannot be too extremely specific as people’s preferences and cultural foods are so varied so saying all 5 should be from different sources increases the range of micronutrient intake.

And weight by volume matters when it comes to getting in the scales. Which is why it’s often recommended that you don’t go by the numbers on the scales but how your clothes are fitting - most particularly if you are lifting weights.

If you do not know that weight by volume is different between fat and muscle and you are solely relying on the scales which aren’t shifting or are in fact increasing and yet you are in. A calories deficit, you may be tempted to restrict calories further.

Muscle weighing more than fat by volume because it is a denser substance is useful information.

And it’s true.

You can argue it all you like and double down all you like but equal volumes of fat and muscle will produce different weights on the scales (and we’re going to limit that argument to weighing them on Earth before you start arguing about gravity). You cannot escape this fact.

And people who know this are not ‘thick’

Oo that sounds interesting. Please could you share more? I'm presuming it's eating carbs with protein?

Same. I bloody hated it.

You have actually explained, far better than me, what I was trying to express.