Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Good breakfast/lunch

  • 07-11-2014 10:04pm
    #1
    Pablodreamsofnew
    Registered Users Posts: 430 ✭✭


    Can anyone recommend a good and healthy breakfast and lunch to have? I'm really struggling to come up with idea. I want both to be under 500 cals. I am allergic to nuts so they are a no go.

    Thanks


«1

Comments

  • #2
    thegreatiam
    Registered Users Posts: 2,869 ✭✭✭thegreatiam


    eggs
    porridge
    yoghurt and berries
    steak and eggs
    chicken omelettes
    kippers
    beans
    almost anything unprocessed that you enjoy eating


  • #3
    madma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,773 ✭✭✭madma


    A whirly burger


  • #4
    generic2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    not recommending it or anything, but 2 blacks coffees every morning has served me well as a breakfast.


  • #5
    uberalex
    Registered Users Posts: 125 ✭✭uberalex


    Not to criticise your excellent advice, (I am a special fan of porridge as a solid, maintaining breakfast for very few calories), but I just want to point out a thing I've always found odd:
    thegreatiam wrote: »
    almost anything unprocessed that you enjoy eating

    It's a weird world where kippers, dairy products, even porridge oats count as 'unprocessed'.
    They all undergo extensive industrial preparation.

    I know it's short-hand for 'not the pre-pack, low-quality, high-sodium/high-fat/high-carb', but still.


  • #6
    generic2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    uberalex wrote: »
    Not to criticise your excellent advice, (I am a special fan of porridge as a solid, maintaining breakfast for very few calories), but I just want to point out a thing I've always found odd:



    It's a weird world where kippers, dairy products, even porridge oats count as 'unprocessed'.
    They all undergo extensive industrial preparation.

    I know it's short-hand for 'not the pre-pack, low-quality, high-sodium/high-fat/high-carb', but still.

    It's just a phrase some people throw about here. I just think of it as mening the types of foods that magazines and such call 'healthy', itself another somewhat arbitrary word.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    thegreatiam
    Registered Users Posts: 2,869 ✭✭✭thegreatiam


    uberalex wrote: »
    Not to criticise your excellent advice, (I am a special fan of porridge as a solid, maintaining breakfast for very few calories), but I just want to point out a thing I've always found odd:



    It's a weird world where kippers, dairy products, even porridge oats count as 'unprocessed'.
    They all undergo extensive industrial preparation.

    I know it's short-hand for 'not the pre-pack, low-quality, high-sodium/high-fat/high-carb', but still.

    semantics
    Read the list again with commas.

    eggs, porridge, yoghurt and berries, steak and eggs, chicken omelettes, kippers, beans, almost anything unprocessed that you enjoy eating

    But yes, in a way you are correct, smoking, mincing, slicing and any other preparation of food is a process.


  • #8
    uberalex
    Registered Users Posts: 125 ✭✭uberalex


    thegreatiam wrote: »
    semantics
    Exactly!

    I was thinking about the funny use of the word. Like a lot of the umbrella terms in nutrition, it can be deceptive. Arguably frozen vegetables are processed, but they are very high in nutritional content. On the other hand, honey is relatively unprocessed, but essentially sugar. I'm not saying don't eat honey. I am saying that whether it's processed or not is not a predictor of quality.
    But yes, in a way you are correct, smoking, mincing, slicing and any other preparation of food is a process.
    A good example is olive oil. The process of getting olives from their harvested state to oil requires a surprising number of steps.

    I don't think there's any argument against saying that an individual needs to exercise good judgement in what they eat. Any safe (i.e. not expired, contaminated, etc) food can form part of a healthy lifestyle, the hard part is moderation and balance (at least, for me).


  • #9
    uberalex
    Registered Users Posts: 125 ✭✭uberalex


    generic2012 wrote: »
    It's just a phrase some people throw about here. I just think of it as mening the types of foods that magazines and such call 'healthy', itself another somewhat arbitrary word.

    Yes, it often strikes me that it is arbitrary, but we all pretty much know what it means: pot-noodles or frozen pizzas come to mind as primary examples.


  • #10
    thegreatiam
    Registered Users Posts: 2,869 ✭✭✭thegreatiam


    uberalex wrote: »
    Exactly!

    I was thinking about the funny use of the word. Like a lot of the umbrella terms in nutrition, it can be deceptive. Arguably frozen vegetables are processed, but they are very high in nutritional content. On the other hand, honey is relatively unprocessed, but essentially sugar. I'm not saying don't eat honey. I am saying that whether it's processed or not is not a predictor of quality.


    A good example is olive oil. The process of getting olives from their harvested state to oil requires a surprising number of steps.

    I don't think there's any argument against saying that an individual needs to exercise good judgement in what they eat. Any safe (i.e. not expired, contaminated, etc) food can form part of a healthy lifestyle, the hard part is moderation and balance (at least, for me).

    we are having 2 different arguments here because youve misunderstood what I wrote, ill try and make it clearer.
    eggs, porridge, yoghurt and berries, steak and eggs, chicken omelettes, kippers, beans,
    and in addition to all of the above
    you may also choose to eat     almost else anything unprocessed that you enjoy eating


    but yes, your points are correct. any food is fine in a healthy diet as long as the individual understands their food and what is eaten in moderation.

    Perhaps the phrase should be avoid "overly processed" food or "unnecessarily processed"


  • #11
    Alf Veedersane
    Registered Users Posts: 24,551 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    It's used in a relative sense [/dictionary corner]


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    literally


  • #13
    Alf Veedersane
    Registered Users Posts: 24,551 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    bluewolf wrote: »
    literally

    "'W@nkers', Richard"


  • #14
    Gummy Panda
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,920 ✭✭✭✭Gummy Panda


    Ice cream!

    IIFYM or what i like to call it If it fits your mouth


  • #15
    uberalex
    Registered Users Posts: 125 ✭✭uberalex


    thegreatiam wrote: »
    we are having 2 different arguments here because youve misunderstood what I wrote, ill try and make it clearer.
    So we are.
    eggs, porridge, yoghurt and berries, steak and eggs, chicken omelettes, kippers, beans,
    and in addition to all of the above
    you may also choose to eat     almost else anything unprocessed that you enjoy eating


    but yes, your points are correct. any food is fine in a healthy diet as long as the individual understands their food and what is eaten in moderation.
    Now I understand. I didn't realise that the and in addition was exclusive. I think I had read the sentence as effectively meaning "here is a list of good unprocessed food, but it is not exhaustive." It's not a big issue though, I wasn't trying to correct or nit pick your excellent advice, merely remarking on the odd semantics of the use in general of the term.

    Perhaps the phrase should be avoid "overly processed" food or "unnecessarily processed"
    Yeah. Fair to say most people know that is what is implied.


  • #16
    purplecow1977
    Registered Users Posts: 2,877 ✭✭✭purplecow1977


    So how's about that healthy breakfast lunch advice??


  • #17
    thegreatiam
    Registered Users Posts: 2,869 ✭✭✭thegreatiam


    uberalex wrote: »
    So we are.

    Now I understand. I didn't realise that the and in addition was exclusive. I think I had read the sentence as effectively meaning "here is a list of good unprocessed food, but it is not exhaustive." It's not a big issue though, I wasn't trying to correct or nit pick your excellent advice, merely remarking on the odd semantics of the use in general of the term.

    Yeah. Fair to say most people know that is what is implied.

    :D No, you were right in your first thought. I was just teasing. :D


  • #18
    Alf Veedersane
    Registered Users Posts: 24,551 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    purplecow1977 wrote: »
    So how's about that healthy breakfast lunch advice??

    2nd post.

    Good selection there.


  • #19
    generic2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    thegreatiam wrote: »
    Perhaps the phrase should be avoid "overly processed" food or "unnecessarily processed"

    I pretty much agree but it comes back to the subjective nature of these terms. I think there is nothing wrong with cereals as a stable, obviously not ones laced with extra sugar, but all-bran, weetabix etc, but a lot of people would exclude them as they are heavily 'processed'.

    I think it would be best to discuss the type of processing. Like a lump of boiling bacon is less processed than sliced boiling bacon, and less again than minced. The amount of processing here has changed and it can be argued that slicing and mincing are 'unnecessary processes', but the nutrition/health effects haven't changed.

    So rather than say 'avoid boiling that's heavily processed' (which could be meant to mean anything, and could be picked up as meaning anything) you would say 'avoid bacon with added nitrates and salts as well as smoked bacon, as there seems to be data suggesting it is not healthy in the long term'.

    Everyone just saying 'avoid processed food' to everyone that looks for dietary advice, is relatively lazy approach unless the person recieving the advice knows what you are talking about'.

    I think it's in everyone's benefit, the amount of food that seems available to people trying to lose weight is very discouraging to these people, it is good to be specific to help these people. Also it will help the people giving the advice, 'when one teaches, two learn' or something like that.

    With all the new age and cult nutrition crap that's floating about it is no harm for people to research more specific types of processing rather than suggest a blanket ban on processed food. It may just be enough to stop people that are trying to get healthier for jumping on the pseudo-shortcut to health bandwagon.


  • #20
    Alf Veedersane
    Registered Users Posts: 24,551 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    generic2012 wrote: »
    I pretty much agree but it comes back to the subjective nature of these terms. I think there is nothing wrong with cereals as a stable, obviously not ones laced with extra sugar, but all-bran, weetabix etc, but a lot of people would exclude them as they are heavily 'processed'.

    I think it would be best to discuss the type of processing. Like a lump of boiling bacon is less processed than sliced boiling bacon, and less again than minced. The amount of processing here has changed and it can be argued that slicing and mincing are 'unnecessary processes', but the nutrition/health effects haven't changed.

    So rather than say 'avoid boiling that's heavily processed' (which could be meant to mean anything, and could be picked up as meaning anything) you would say 'avoid bacon with added nitrates and salts as well as smoked bacon, as there seems to be data suggesting it is not healthy in the long term'.

    Everyone just saying 'avoid processed food' to everyone that looks for dietary advice, is relatively lazy approach unless the person recieving the advice knows what you are talking about'.

    I think it's in everyone's benefit, the amount of food that seems available to people trying to lose weight is very discouraging to these people, it is good to be specific to help these people. Also it will help the people giving the advice, 'when one teaches, two learn' or something like that.

    With all the new age and cult nutrition crap that's floating about it is no harm for people to research more specific types of processing rather than suggest a blanket ban on processed food. It may just be enough to stop people that are trying to get healthier for jumping on the pseudo-shortcut to health bandwagon.

    I agree to an extent but if you start delving into it too far, you could just end up putting people off.

    It might be easier to establish a baseline or just suggest that the less processing the better. And the less added sh*te the better.


  • #21
    purplecow1977
    Registered Users Posts: 2,877 ✭✭✭purplecow1977


    Tangent!


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    generic2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    Alf Veedersane wrote: »
    I agree to an extent but if you start delving into it too far, you could just end up putting people off.

    It might be easier to establish a baseline or just suggest that the less processing the better. And the less added sh*te the better.

    Possibly, but is it more off putting than saying avoid any food you would call processed? Packaging is a process, although you wouldn't mean 'avoid packaged food' there is nothing to tell the person hearing that that. You could also mean 'avoid package food' but someone mightn't consider that a process. Obviously these are highly unlikely and extreme, but it's merely to point out how things can be taken the wrong way without specifics.

    Well added sh*te is a type of processing, but it is bad more often than processing itself, so I think 'the less added sh*te the better' would be a term that could replace 'avoid processed food'. More accurate, more beneficial and leaves a wider variety of food available.

    I think terms like that and 'foods with less than three (/2/4/5/...) ingredients' or 'don't have sugar in their first three ingredients' although not exclusively 'healthy' are more accurate. And seeing the types of questions and posts on these threads, I think accuracy and clarity are a good thing.


  • #23
    generic2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    purplecow1977 wrote: »
    Tangent!

    Most ironic post ever.


  • #24
    uberalex
    Registered Users Posts: 125 ✭✭uberalex


    I think the advice I have found most useful is to look at the degree of concentration. If you start with the idea that you want to eat low calorie-density, high-vitamin and mineral food, then that's where you work from.

    Food which you want to limit or avoid has significant added fat, sugar, salt and is probably not made with the freshest ingredients. For example you might say Crunch nut cornflakes, but equally many "natural" oatmeal/granola recipes have tons of honey, maple syrup and nuts. On the other hand, plain corn flakes or porridge are less dense and include many of the nutrients.

    You also need to think of the whole meal and the whole day. Lots of people smother their porridge in honey, nuts and seeds. Delicious but costly calorie-density.

    Another thing is the glycemic response. There's a bit of uncertainty about simple vs complex carbs, but suffice to say that where there is fibre (wholemeal), there is generally more satiety. Brown bread vs white, for example. It's also often wise to consider protein in the meal, for example egg, cheese, meat.


  • #25
    uberalex
    Registered Users Posts: 125 ✭✭uberalex


    Another nasty trick is fat free and sugar free.

    Butter is sugar-free, a bowl of white sugar is fat free. A glass of orange juice may have zero added sugar. You need to watch portion size very carefully. A suggested serving of corn flakes is 30g.

    I like this illustration of 200 kcal of different food imgur(dot)com/gallery/w9nHF


  • #26
    Alf Veedersane
    Registered Users Posts: 24,551 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    generic2012 wrote: »
    Possibly, but is it more off putting than saying avoid any food you would call processed? Packaging is a process, although you wouldn't mean 'avoid packaged food' there is nothing to tell the person hearing that that. You could also mean 'avoid package food' but someone mightn't consider that a process. Obviously these are highly unlikely and extreme, but it's merely to point out how things can be taken the wrong way without specifics.

    Well added sh*te is a type of processing, but it is bad more often than processing itself, so I think 'the less added sh*te the better' would be a term that could replace 'avoid processed food'. More accurate, more beneficial and leaves a wider variety of food available.

    I think terms like that and 'foods with less than three (/2/4/5/...) ingredients' or 'don't have sugar in their first three ingredients' although not exclusively 'healthy' are more accurate. And seeing the types of questions and posts on these threads, I think accuracy and clarity are a good thing.

    I'm all for clarity. But there's a balance to be found with brevity. People already find nutrition to be a minefield so all I'm saying is if you point someone in the right direction without getting too bogged down in it, they can hopefully get a good idea and come back with more targeted questions.

    You can't give a full and accurate answer without putting the majority off and if someone wants it all wrapped up in one question without having to do a little thinking and asking more questions, then they're less likely to heed the advice anyway.


  • #27
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    It's fairly obvious what processed food is. There is nothing wrong with telling someone to avoid processed food. Pretty much all food goes through some process but the difference with the real food is that it is recognisable or it doesn't come in a box, jar, tin etc. with a list of added ingredients. Probably 3/4 of all supermarket produce is processed food with added ingredients. I take it to mean a food product with added ingredients that didn't exist 70 years ago. Most people know what you mean when you say avoid it.


  • #28
    Alf Veedersane
    Registered Users Posts: 24,551 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    It's fairly obvious what processed food is. There is nothing wrong with telling someone to avoid processed food. Pretty much all food goes through some process but the difference with the real food is that it is recognisable or it doesn't come in a box, jar, tin etc. with a list of added ingredients. Probably 3/4 of all supermarket produce is processed food with added ingredients. I take it to mean a food product with added ingredients that didn't exist 70 years ago. Most people know what you mean when you say avoid it.

    There are a lot of people who don't have an understanding of food, it's provenance, quality, etc, that you would consider a basic understanding.


  • #29
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    MrsYelnekoff wrote: »
    Can anyone recommend a good and healthy breakfast and lunch to have? I'm really struggling to come up with idea. I want both to be under 500 cals. I am allergic to nuts so they are a no go.

    Thanks

    Avoid high HI foods ............


  • #30
    Talib Fiasco
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,428 ✭✭✭Talib Fiasco


    My breakfast everyday is two or three scoops of rolled oats with almond milk microwaved. I throw in a scoop of flavoured protein powder (chocolate mint is my favourite) and mix it in well. Of course the protein is optional but does add flavour as well as protein, obviously. Then I throw in a carton of blueberries on top and it's ready to go. I've made ones the night before, put in the fridge and eaten it cold the next day and still tastes great. You can swap around with the fruits for variety, try different protein flavours etc.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    amklo
    Registered Users Posts: 98 ✭✭amklo


    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057319893

    If you're looking for a tasty high protein breakfast\lunch try these. Handy as they can be made in advance and you can change around the veg etc to suit what you have in the fridge.


Advertisement