Cheese and an Apple for Breakfast - Good or Bad!

Pembily

My mum has eaten this for breakfast for the last 10 years (is a healhty size 8 down from size 16) and I recommended it to someone on a calorie restricted diet as its quick and easy - is it good or is it bad???

Thanks

EileenG

It obviously works for her. Nice combination of protein, fat and low gi carbs. The main complaint is likely to be the saturated fat content of the cheese, but as anyone who reads Temple's excellent posts knows, saturated fats have been unfairly demonised.

corkcomp

Pembily wrote: »

My mum has eaten this for breakfast for the last 10 years (is a healhty size 8 down from size 16) and I recommended it to someone on a calorie restricted diet as its quick and easy - is it good or is it bad???

Thanks

it doesnt sound very filling but like eileen said if it works for her for 10 years how bad. cheese wouldnt be top of my list though if I was on a calorie controlled diet, especially if calorie allowance was low

juke

Pembily wrote: »

My mum has eaten this for breakfast for the last 10 years (is a healhty size 8 down from size 16) and I recommended it to someone on a calorie restricted diet as its quick and easy - is it good or is it bad???

Thanks

Can you say how much - a full apple? How much and what type cheese?

Coming up with ideas for quick breakfasts is the bane of my life - because if its cooking porridge or 5 minutes extra in bed...the bed always wins:mad:

Pembily

corkcomp wrote: »

it doesnt sound very filling but like eileen said if it works for her for 10 years how bad. cheese wouldnt be top of my list though if I was on a calorie controlled diet, especially if calorie allowance was low

She eats 100g which is 300 calories for Low Low cheddar and 50g would be sufficient which is 150 calories!! It keeps her going until lunch!!! I used to eat it but due to a dairy intolerance had to stop... Would 300 calories be high for a breakfast??

juke wrote: »

Can you say how much - a full apple? How much and what type cheese?

Coming up with ideas for quick breakfasts is the bane of my life - because if its cooking porridge or 5 minutes extra in bed...the bed always wins:mad:

She eat a whole pink lady with cheddar cheese from Lidl!!!

corkcomp

Pembily wrote: »

Would 300 calories be high for a breakfast??

not at all

Pembily

corkcomp wrote: »

not at all

Phew thanks - I don't count calories so I have no idea what is good or bad for breakfast!!!

El_Dangeroso

She should ditch the low fat cheese, it's not really even that low in fat, full fat cheddar is cheaper, more filling and nutritious all for an extra 50 cals per 50g.

I was reading 'bout ice-cream manufacture the other day (currently trying to perfect my own recipe ).

http://recipes.howstuffworks.com/ice-cream.htm

Higher fat content leads to better, richer taste and a creamier texture. Ice cream makers don't go higher than 16 percent because it would be costly and very high in calories. An ice cream with this much milk fat would also taste so rich that people would probably eat it in smaller amounts, which would be bad news for people who sell ice cream for a living.

I remember having some home made ice-cream in Italy, couldn't eat more than a very small scoop it was so rich.

Pembily

Ok coolies, thanks will say that to her! Best of luck with the ice-cream - soudns good!!!

El_Dangeroso

Pembily wrote: »

Ok coolies, thanks will say that to her! Best of luck with the ice-cream - soudns good!!!

Thanks! I've had five utter failures so far! Each batch cost 20 euro in ingredients so I eat it anyway

rubadub

Pembily wrote: »

Would 300 calories be high for a breakfast??

Some would say breakfast should be the biggest meal. I used to have over 1000kcal sometimes. Apples are also supposed to have something in them which wakes you up, I heard it was meant to be more effective than coffee! probably an urban myth though.

corkcomp

rubadub wrote: »

Some would say breakfast should be the biggest meal. I used to have over 1000kcal sometimes. Apples are also supposed to have something in them which wakes you up, I heard it was meant to be more effective than coffee! probably an urban myth though.

my 6.30 pre gym snack is one apple, and coffee with 3 spoons and no milk :eek: works though

ApeXaviour

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

She should ditch the low fat cheese, it's not really even that low in fat, full fat cheddar is cheaper, more filling and nutritious all for an extra 50 cals per 50g.

Good post but I wouldn't vilify low-fat cheese. As you say it's not really that low fat. When cutting I to try keep the protein high but control the calorie intake (so go for low carb, moderate fat, relatively high protein). Low fat cheese has way more protein per 100 calories than regular cheese, but you're still getting 50%-70% of them from fat.

And it's plenty filling.

I'd say the same about lean beef mince, you get more protein per euro, it tastes just as good, it's not that expensive, and you're still getting plenty of fat from it.

OP that sounds like a fine breakfast. Today for breakfast just there I had some frozen strawberries covered in yogurt, then on a different plate some large Edam slices (this was equivalent to low fat cheese 17g fat, 30g protein /100g) rolled up with cerrano ham <- delicious btw, like little protein swiss rolls, if it was for lunch I'd put a pickled clove of garlic or an olive in the centre.

corkcomp

agree with previous post.. nothing wrong with low fat foods on condition there isnt too much taste compromise, there are no nasties added to make up for fat removed and you are still getting enough good fats.
I always use low fat cheese, milk and yoghurt etc and im not even on a calorie controlled diet.. id imagine anyone on low cal diet (like 1200 per day for sedentary female) would want to get maximum bang for their buck.

rubadub

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

She should ditch the low fat cheese, it's not really even that low in fat, full fat cheddar is cheaper, more filling and nutritious all for an extra 50 cals per 50g.

Some low fat products are just literally watered down, like margarine type spreads or cream cheeses. But some cheeses must be just processed differently. Like tesco healthy living cheese is not watered down, it has about half the fat of normal cheddar, so therefore the extra weight must come from something else, which in this case is protein. Normal cheddar is around 1:1 protein:fat , while this cheese is around 2:1 protein:fat- so it is high in protein per 100g, about 30-35% protein, and as protein is said to be good for satiety some might find it more filling than regular cheese.

Dunno which is more nutritious, or if it has to undergo a lot more processing to get it that bit lower in fat.

brianthebard

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Thanks! I've had five utter failures so far! Each batch cost 20 euro in ingredients so I eat it anyway

Have you made regular ice-cream before? What problems have you had with the past batches? Pm me if you don't want to take this more off-topic, i'd be interested to hear more. Or you could post it in the off-topic thread for everyone's enjoyment.

EileenG

My low carb ice-cream

2 organic eggs, separeated.
60ml cream (or more if you want)
vanilla extract
Sweetener to taste.

Whisk egg whites in a big bowl till stiff and fluffy
Whisk cream till thick.
Whisk egg yolks, vanilla and sweetener till smooth.
Put everything into the egg white bowl and fold through till the whole mixture is yellow.

Divide into about four containers and freeze.

You can eat it straight out of the freezer, but it's best if you give it a couple of minutes.

El_Dangeroso

Going to OT thread now..

El_Dangeroso

ApeXaviour wrote: »

Good post but I wouldn't vilify low-fat cheese. As you say it's not really that low fat. When cutting I to try keep the protein high but control the calorie intake (so go for low carb, moderate fat, relatively high protein). Low fat cheese has way more protein per 100 calories than regular cheese, but you're still getting 50%-70% of them from fat.

I'm not trying to vilify that low low cheese per se, it seems pretty unprocessed by all accounts.

But considering that dairy fat is where most of the vitamins are, it seems a shame to cut it out for such a tiny calorie difference. Here's a new study showing that consuming high-fat as opposed to low-fat dairy resulted in a significant decrease in stroke and heart-disease. I put this down to the vitamin K2, which is a potent anti-calcification agent. Considering the calcium in cheese, it would be wise to consume the fat with the K2 in it to balance the calcium.

Just my 2c

ApeXaviour

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

But considering that dairy fat is where most of the vitamins are, it seems a shame to cut it out for such a tiny calorie difference.

I wouldn't call it a tiny calorie difference. In terms of cheese you get 850 calories per 100g of protein compared to 1500 for regular. That's nearly half!

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Here's a new study showing that consuming high-fat as opposed to low-fat dairy resulted in a significant decrease in stroke and heart-disease. I put this down to the vitamin K2, which is a potent anti-calcification agent. Considering the calcium in cheese, it would be wise to consume the fat with the K2 in it to balance the calcium.

Cheers for the link very interesting and possibly (hopefully) indicative of some good things. I'm always skeptical of epidemiological or survey studies (look up The China Study and you'll see what I mean), as a myriad of variables are unaccounted for. Though I hold out tentative hope for this one.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't advocate skimmed milk, or those "fat-free" abominations you can get in america that purport to be cheese; same with the fat free yogurt here! And if one isn't trying to actively lose weight, then whole dairy is definitely the way to go!
But, if you're dieting to lose body-fat, it requires controlling your calorie intake, but at the same time keeping your protein at least at (an approximate) 2g per kilo of bodyweight. If you were to keep to that and eat regular cheddar as a major protein source it'd throw you well over your deficit and you would not lose body-fat.

I'm all for eating lots of good healthy (delicious!) fat, but not if it comes at the expense of adequate protein when dieting. For those people, half fat dairy is a healthy and very useful tool.

corkcomp

ApeXaviour wrote: »

if you're dieting to lose body-fat, it requires controlling your calorie intake, but at the same time keeping your protein at least at (an approximate) 2g per kilo of bodyweight. If you were to keep to that and eat regular cheddar as a major protein source it'd throw you well over your deficit and you would not lose body-fat.

agreed.. it boils down to what you can fit into your calorie allowance.

2G of protein per kg is definately not necessary for sedentary people though, not by a long shot.

ApeXaviour

corkcomp wrote: »

2G of protein per kg is definately not necessary for sedentary people though, not by a long shot.

Yes, during the normal run of things it's not necessary for sedentary people... but if you're cutting (eating at a large calorie deficit to lose fat, not nuscle) then it's something you really need to aim for as it will minimise loss of lean body mass. Most people don't want to just lose weight, they want to lose fat, there's a difference.

Protein has an added side-effect of helping to stave off hunger.

addictedtoshoes

I think natural yoghurt with chopped apple would be a better option than cheese.

I go to the gym in the morning time and sometimes before I go I'll have apple slices with cashew nut butter but I'd have a proper breakfast when I get back from the gym.

You should try have some kind of complex carbs included in your breakfast.

ApeXaviour

addictedtoshoes wrote: »

You should try have some kind of complex carbs included in your breakfast.

Why? I'm not saying you can't, I'm just wondering why should you?

El_Dangeroso

ApeXaviour wrote: »

I wouldn't call it a tiny calorie difference. In terms of cheese you get 850 calories per 100g of protein compared to 1500 for regular. That's nearly half!

Yeah, but I wasn't talking about protein, I'm talking bout the OP, 50g of low low is 151 cals, compared to regular cheddar at 200cals, the difference is really negligible. Fair enough if you want more protein. Don't forget fat stimulates the same hormones as protein when it comes to satiety, so it's ideal for those trying to lose weight. The more satisfying food consumed the less overall calorie intake.

ApeXaviour wrote: »

Cheers for the link very interesting and possibly (hopefully) indicative of some good things. I'm always skeptical of epidemiological or survey studies (look up The China Study and you'll see what I mean), as a myriad of variables are unaccounted for. Though I hold out tentative hope for this one.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't advocate skimmed milk, or those "fat-free" abominations you can get in america that purport to be cheese; same with the fat free yogurt here! And if one isn't trying to actively lose weight, then whole dairy is definitely the way to go!
But, if you're dieting to lose body-fat, it requires controlling your calorie intake, but at the same time keeping your protein at least at (an approximate) 2g per kilo of bodyweight. If you were to keep to that and eat regular cheddar as a major protein source it'd throw you well over your deficit and you would not lose body-fat.

I'm all for eating lots of good healthy (delicious!) fat, but not if it comes at the expense of adequate protein when dieting. For those people, half fat dairy is a healthy and very useful tool.

Yep, that study is epidemiological, so cannot prove anything but it can be used to generate a hypothesis. It's interesting to see as people who buy low-fat tend to be overall more health conscious, which takes into account a lot of confounding factors. There's another study in Sweden showing the same thing and a load of primary intervention research on K2 preventing calcium building in the arteries, which most of us don't get enough of, and when we do get it, hard cheeses are the primary source, if they are not low fat.

I'm not a bodybuilder(;)) but the 2g protein per kilo bodyweight recommendation shocked me a bit. Are you sure you don't mean per kg lean bodymass? For an extreme example If you weigh 120 kilos, that's 240g protein, that's actually the lower threshold for a toxic amount of protein. Surely there's some limit in that equation?

corkcomp

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

I'm not a bodybuilder(;)) but the 2g protein per kilo bodyweight recommendation shocked me a bit. Are you sure you don't mean per kg lean bodymass? For an extreme example If you weigh 120 kilos, that's 240g protein, that's actually the lower threshold for a toxic amount of protein. Surely there's some limit in that equation?

The 2g of protein per kg is not necessary at all for a sedentary person, take my word for it! The hype about loss of LBM while dieting is also over played .. yeah extreme calorie restriction and not partaking in resistance exercise *can* be a problem.

if a woman on a 1200cal per day diet was to consume 2g of protein per kg there would be little room left for any fats or carbs... IMO 1g per kg for sedentary people and 2g for those who work out and / or want to build muscle.

ApeXaviour

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

I'm not a bodybuilder(;)) but the 2g protein per kilo bodyweight recommendation shocked me a bit. Are you sure you don't mean per kg lean bodymass? For an extreme example If you weigh 120 kilos, that's 240g protein, that's actually the lower threshold for a toxic amount of protein. Surely there's some limit in that equation?

You're right, it's originally 1g per lb LBM, but most people don't really get or know their LBM so I shorthanded it. Perhaps not so wise of me, that's way too much for the morbidly obese.

addictedtoshoes

ApeXaviour wrote: »

Why? I'm not saying you can't, I'm just wondering why should you?

This is what your body needs for energy. Protein sources repair muscle etc but you need complex carbs for energy especially in the morning time. Jumbo porridge oats, muesli would be good sources. If your in a hurry in the mornings soak the porridge overnight in water and it will cook really quickly the next morning.

EileenG

addictedtoshoes wrote: »

This is what your body needs for energy. Protein sources repair muscle etc but you need complex carbs for energy especially in the morning time. Jumbo porridge oats, muesli would be good sources. If your in a hurry in the mornings soak the porridge overnight in water and it will cook really quickly the next morning.

Carbs are handy for energy, but you don't need them. I haven't eaten carbs in the morning for ten years now, and I function just fine, thank you. Scrambled eggs are quicker than porridge any day.

rubadub

EileenG wrote: »

I haven't eaten carbs in the morning for ten years now, and I function just fine, thank you.

I used to be eating just chicken in work for lunch and one lad used to actually get irate with me insisting I needed carbs for energy, and telling me off for not eating any!

addictedtoshoes

rubadub wrote: »

I used to be eating just chicken in work for lunch and one lad used to actually get irate with me insisting I needed carbs for energy, and telling me off for not eating any!

It is recommended to eat a mix of complex carbs and protein at every meal, just because you dont doesn't mean your not going to function okay, that's just the recommendation. Carbohydrates produce glucose which is converted into glycogen and this is what the body uses for energy. This is why runners carb load before marathons and long runs because if their body is depleted of glycogen they would just hit a wall and probably collapse. It would depend on how much cardio you do as well, more active people need more glycogen supplies than others.

I exercise in the morning so I definitely need carbs at breakfast. Suppose it just depends on each person and what works for you, if no carbs works for you that's fine, but it's not recommended. Eating chocolate every day is not recommneded but people do it and they function fine!

dxhound2005

Addicted

I think you wandered in here innocently thinking you could offer some sensible advice. However you will find that the peope here who worship at the altar of Dr Atkins will have none of it.

Melia

Which people would they be, exactly, dxhound2005?

addictedtoshoes

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Addicted

I think you wandered in here innocently thinking you could offer some sensible advice. However you will find that the peope here who worship at the altar of Dr Atkins will have none of it.

I think I may as well just wander back out, I was suprised at some ratty replies for making a healthy suggestion! Must be lack of carbs affecting the mood.

columok

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Addicted

I think you wandered in here innocently thinking you could offer some sensible advice. However you will find that the peope here who worship at the altar of Dr Atkins will have none of it.

Sigh.

addicted to shoes wrote:

I think I may as well just wander back out, I was suprised at some ratty replies for making a healthy suggestion! Must be lack of carbs affecting the mood.

I understand what you're saying but I think the chocolate analogy is out of whack. The amount of carbohydrates I'd advocate at breakfast would be very low but it would still amount to a rake of veggies or some fruit. This amounts to a relatively low carb breakfast especially compared to muesli or porridge.

I try and eat a decent source of protein, carbs and fats at every meal. My priority though is to make sure I'm hitting 40-50g of protein at breakfast then i worry about carbs and fat. By carbs I mean a bowl of veggies or a piece of fruit. Fats would generally be some fish oils and some almonds/hazelnuts/walnuts or a generous blob of coconut oil to fry up some eggs.

Why would alpen or porridge be a nutritional necessity for me? And why would these things ever be recommended ahead of vegetables and a reasonable amount of fruit??? What nutrients do they add that my superunhealthy diet lacks?

EileenG

But Alpen has those ads with all the buff bodies doing exercises.... I LIKE that ad.

addictedtoshoes

columok wrote: »

Sigh.

I understand what you're saying but I think the chocolate analogy is out of whack. The amount of carbohydrates I'd advocate at breakfast would be very low but it would still amount to a rake of veggies or some fruit. This amounts to a relatively low carb breakfast especially compared to muesli or porridge.

I try and eat a decent source of protein, carbs and fats at every meal. My priority though is to make sure I'm hitting 40-50g of protein at breakfast then i worry about carbs and fat. By carbs I mean a bowl of veggies or a piece of fruit. Fats would generally be some fish oils and some almonds/hazelnuts/walnuts or a generous blob of coconut oil to fry up some eggs.

Why would alpen or porridge be a nutritional necessity for me? And why would these things ever be recommended ahead of vegetables and a reasonable amount of fruit??? What nutrients do they add that my superunhealthy diet lacks?

Hi Columuk, I think you might have replied to the wrong post? I never recommended anyone eat Alpen nor would I because it has sugar added. I would only eat sugar free muesli. Nor did I suggest that you, or anyone for that matter, had a superunhealthy diet or that they were lacking any nutrients. What have got against porridge? This, amongst others, is undeniably a healthy breakfast option. Maybe Goldilocks and the Three Bears brings back bad childhood memories. You asked about it's nutritional benefits:

Good source of protein
Rich in soluble fibre that may lower cholesterol
May have cancer fighting properties
Oats are also known to boost concentration (maybe something you're lacking as you misquoted me twice)
Really good for the skin as well which as a women is very important to me
Cheap - I get about 20 breakfasts out of a 1kg bag for about €3.

I eat them with chopped strawberries and ad Udos Oil for healthy fats. This is only one breakfast option, I would switch between this and scrambled eggs with McCambridge Bread or natural yohurt with sugar free muesli and chopped fruit.

If you refer to the first post, somebody asked whether or not cheese and an apple was a healthy option for breakfast and I made a suggestion that porridge or muesli could be good option. Thanks for detailing what you eat on a daily basis, however, I didn't ask for details of anyone's daily diet. Your diet would have no relevance to me anyway as being a man you have different dietary requirements and I dont know what your nutrition goals are. I think you've definitely replied to the wrong post. Maybe you should reply to the orginal person who requested advice and help her out with some of your breakfast options.

Anyway, hope you enjoy your 50g protein breakfast...sounds em...tasty.

columok

addictedtoshoes wrote: »

Hi Columuk, I think you might have replied to the wrong post?

It's columok. If you're going to try the whole personal attack thing about my concentration being off then at least make sure you quote my name correctly. My reply to you was reasonably civil so you might consider injecting some civility into your responses.

addictedtoshoes wrote:

I never recommended anyone eat Alpen nor would I because it has sugar added. I would only eat sugar free muesli.

I never mentioned alpen. I merely contested that oats or muesli are nutritionally inferior to fruit and vegetables so I don't understand why people would recommend them as "healthy". Oats are a not awful filler carbohydrate but you can do a lot better nutritionally. Also you'd have to eat an awful lot of oats to get a decent amount of protein. I find vegetables are similarly cheap and give you a great source of fibre, vitamins etc. etc.

Your assertion was:

addictedtoshoes wrote:

Protein sources repair muscle etc but you need complex carbs for energy especially in the morning time.

I don't believe this is true. My breakfast if veggieful is very low in complex carbs but serves me fairly well energy wise. How could this breakfast be inferior to a porridge heavy breakfast?

addictedtoshoes

columok wrote: »

I never mentioned alpen.

"Why would alpen or porridge be a nutritional necessity for me?" was your question so yes you did mention Alpen.

I merely suggested porridge or muesli as a good breakfast option to the original post relating to cheese and an apple for break. I never stated that porridge was superior or inferior to any other breakfast options.

In another post I also said that everyone is different and some people have enough energy from a very low carb breakfast whereas other people wont. I workout at about 7am and like to have porridge amongst other breakfast options as I have already exerted a lot of energy before breakfast.

Can we just leave it at that as this is possibly the most pointless exchange of posts that I have experienced in here.

columok

Can we just leave it at that as this is possibly the most pointless exchange of posts that I have experienced in here.

The internet is 50% pointless arguments and 50% porn.

rubadub

addictedtoshoes wrote: »

I was suprised at some ratty replies for making a healthy suggestion!

I didn't see any "ratty replies" all I saw was your 2 snide comments

addictedtoshoes wrote: »

I Must be lack of carbs affecting the mood.

addictedtoshoes wrote: »

Maybe Goldilocks and the Three Bears brings back bad childhood memories.

addictedtoshoes wrote: »

"Why would alpen or porridge be a nutritional necessity for me?" was your question so yes you did mention Alpen.

Alpen is a muesli, so thats probably why he mentioned it, you later went onto say sugar free muesli, after his comment.

addictedtoshoes

columok wrote: »

The internet is 50% pointless arguments and 50% porn.

I think it's time to find myself a hobbie...