How about a shopping healthily with Tesco.ie thread?

Hey all,

I recently (about six months ago) discovered the Tesco online site/shopping/delivery service that they run. Not sure if it's a national thing (I'd assume it is) or if it's only certain areas it operates in, but I think it's a great service and I love the website.

One of the handy things about it is that you can view food on it, along with it's stats (most, if not all, products have their little Guideline Daily Allowance ticker on the site) so you can see how many calories, etc. are in a particular item.


Now, I eat very unhealthily, generally speaking. I've a holiday coming up and so I'm in the usual last minute rush to lose 10 stone in a week and all that jazz.

So what I was thinking was, if it's not already been done; how's about a thread where people can link to different low-calorie or filling healthy products on the Tesco website?

I'd imagine the Tesco online service gets a fair bit of usage (or it wouldn't exist) so I'd assume that there are a fair few of us here that may use it? I just think it'd be very, very handy to be able to buy the essential shopping items you need, and then have a thread to refer to for healthy items that you can try out that other people may suggest. May possibly find new favourite items, or, if nothing else, add a bit of variety to your diet?

Outside of "pizza" or "jam doughnut" my searches on the site don't go far. I don't really know what to be looking for. I've been eating healthier over the last two or three weeks, but despite it only being two or three weeks, I find I'm eating a lot of the same thing over and over (and getting tired of it) or eating the old crap I'd normally eat, but just trying to eat less of it.

So I just thought I'd throw the idea out there and see what happens.

For example, I recently tried out some Tesco cereal bars, which taste average at best, but just out of boredom added some Kellogg's Special K "Chewy Delight" bars to my shopping last week, and I just had the first one of the pack, and think they're lovely and actually a bit filling, for what they are (and they're 95 calories per bar).

They've also got a less healthier Chicken and Mushroom Pastry Slice thingy that is about 500 calories, not very good for you, but very filling.

(You have to be signed in to Tesco to view the products, I believe?)

Obviously I think it'd be a good idea, but it's possible I'm over-estimating the amount of people who use the site or who would find such a thread useful (though keep in mind if you shop in Tesco, then any product linked to on their site would be available in their physical stores, too...).



Just an idea.

Chancer3001

read the stickies on nutrition.

there are no scret healthy food you dont know about but will find in tesco.

look in the fruit and veg section!

Trust me OP, kelloggs anything is not healthy
special K is not even remotely anything near healthy

read the stickies
buy meat, buy mixed veg (i will say that you can get a bag of nothing-added asian stir fry mix, frozen, in tesco), buy spices (basic ones, not processed sauces), go nuts

rubadub

Deleted User wrote: »

Kellogg's Special K "Chewy Delight" bars to my shopping last week, and I just had the first one of the pack, and think they're lovely and actually a bit filling, for what they are (and they're 95 calories per bar).

bluewolf wrote: »

Trust me OP, kelloggs anything is not healthy

+1
Look at those cereal bars, and the trickery they use. They are only 24g so less than a mini twix or bounty, so thats what you should be comparing to. They often puff these bars out with air. Another trick is clever ingredients listing, to mask what is really the greatest. i.e. they list ingredients in order of greatest first.

Cereals (Oats {16%}, Rice Flour, Wheat Flour),Milk Chocolate (21%) (Sugar, Whole Milk Powder, Cocoa Butter, Cocoa Liquor, Skimmed Milk Powder, Emulsifier {Soy Lecithin}, Flavouring) ,Oligofructose ,Glucose Syrup ,Inulin ,Vegetable Oil ,Fructose ,Honey ,Cocoa Powder ,Cocoa Liquor ,Sugar ,Humectant (Glycerol) ,Salt ,Emulsifier (Soy Lecithin) ,Sodium Bicarbonate ,Calcium Carbonate ,Antioxidant (E320)

By bunching all the cereals as 1 item it gets up top of the list. Chocolate is probably the number 1 if they were split out. The items in bold are basically sugar. So they do the opposite, add various sugars in different guises so they move down the list.

The nutirional info shows "of which sugars" as 6g, per 24g, so the bar is 25% sugar.

rubadub

rubadub wrote: »

The nutirional info shows "of which sugars" as 6g, per 24g, so the bar is 25% sugar.

But still only 95 calories, which is all I currently care about.

Truth be told, I'm sure the stickies on here are massively helpful, and since I first discovered this forum about a year or so ago, I've always been meaning to sit down and read them, but there's just too much in them.

Too much information makes them a hassle to read, in my honest opinion (i generally find this is the issue with stickies in most forums though, so not specific to this forum). I doubt a day will come when I actually do sit down and read it. It feels like a chore.

I suppose the idea for this thread was just to help the average joe soap who doesn't have time or interest enough to spend ages reading up on everything, but that wanted to try something new or interesting out randomly, and that was somewhat either low calorie or healthy foods.

It's easy to flick through a suggestions thread and just randomly pick out an item or two to add to your shopping. Having to read a detailed explanation of what it's made of and how it affects you, etc. just takes the joy out of it, in my opinion.

Chancer3001

eat more meat.

less carbs.

simples

why do you make a thread in the health forum talking about shopping healthily if you're not going to listen to people informing you they aren't healthy?
it's not all about calories and you've been given one simple line so far: the bar is 25% sugar and that is NOT healthy. not exactly an information overload

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote: »

it's not all about calories

Ah, but to me, it is entirely about calories.

I'm not living with a clean diet. I'm aware of that. I'm not trying to have an amazingly healthy diet, just a lesser one. If I followed the constant stringent advice given on this forum regularly, I'd have no hope or interest in achieving an even mildly healthy weight.

That's not to say that the advice given on here isn't good, it's just far too technical and in-depth.

I'm a photographer. If someone asks me about photography I don't start banging on about 18% reflectance and the inverse-square law. It's too technical and puts people off.


This forum always seems to give me the impression that it's only really suitable for people who are hardcore dietary enthusiasts and have very strong interests in this stuff, or those who work in areas relating to it. Anyone who doesn't have a degree is repeatedly told "read the sticky", which is so packed full of information that it makes itself redundant to beginners or those with not a lot of time to spare.


So I thought a thread that, instead of getting lectured on foods, would instead give a practical opportunity to actually try some different foods, would make sense to me (and those who may be in the same position as me).

As someone who has a fairly crap diet as it is, I don't particularly care to give up all the foods i like because I'll go straight back to them after two or three days and will have achieved nothing. Whereas I feel that if I start to just try to eat them less, but incorporate newer low-calorie or filling foods that are healthier, then I may instead be able to slowly make changes to my diet.


But alas, no, instead, I get a lecture on a product I linked to.

mossym

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm a photographer. If someone asks me about photography I don't start banging on about 18% reflectance and the inverse-square law. It's too technical and puts people off.

no, but at the same time you wouldn't tell people if they just got the focal length right they could leave every other setting untouched and the picture would be good. it's a balance of all the settings that makes a good picture

which is the advice that's tried ot be given to you here. Low calories isn't the only factor, sugar level is just as important. your orignal post didn't jsut ask for low calorie, it asked for low calorie, you asked for low calorie, etc, meaning the other factors have to come into it, and you also asked for different low-calorie or filling healthy products.

people were pointing out that low calories isn't all it is about, which i the same as you telling someone a different iso speed would have given a better picture. low calories is better than high calories, low calories and low sugar is way better again. i like the idea of the thread, it's a good idea, but if anyone suggesting an item that may be healthy is not able to take some constructive criticism then it's pointless.

and i'm far from a hardcore dieter, or work in the industry, yet i'd rather someone pointed out the sugar levels in these products rather than consume them in ignorant bliss cause i was looking at calories only

mossym

mossym wrote: »

no, but at the same time you wouldn't tell people if they just got the focal length right they could leave every other setting untouched and the picture would be good. it's a balance of all the settings that makes a good picture

which is the advice that's tried ot be given to you here. Low calories isn't the only factor, sugar level is just as important. your orignal post didn't jsut ask for low calorie, it asked for low calorie, you asked for low calorie, etc, meaning the other factors have to come into it, and you also asked for different low-calorie or filling healthy products.

people were pointing out that low calories isn't all it is about, which i the same as you telling someone a different iso speed would have given a better picture. low calories is better than high calories, low calories and low sugar is way better again. i like the idea of the thread, it's a good idea, but if anyone suggesting an item that may be healthy is not able to take some constructive criticism then it's pointless.

and i'm far from a hardcore dieter, or work in the industry, yet i'd rather someone pointed out the sugar levels in these products rather than consume them in ignorant bliss cause i was looking at calories only

I see where you're coming from, and I agree completely that obviously a product that is low in sugar and calories is obviously better than one that is packed with sugar, but as I say, I know my diet is crap at the moment, so I'm not trying to focus too much on eating right, just eating less with a slow transformation.

So I suppose to try and revive the thread;

People are obviously against the bars I linked to, but I like them because they're so low in calories... could anyone link to a better alternative that would be somewhat similar in terms of caloric content, but with less sugar?

vard

mossym wrote: »

no, but at the same time you wouldn't tell people if they just got the focal length right they could leave every other setting untouched and the picture would be good. it's a balance of all the settings that makes a good picture

which is the advice that's tried ot be given to you here. Low calories isn't the only factor, sugar level is just as important. your orignal post didn't jsut ask for low calorie, it asked for low calorie, you asked for low calorie, etc, meaning the other factors have to come into it, and you also asked for different low-calorie or filling healthy products.

people were pointing out that low calories isn't all it is about, which i the same as you telling someone a different iso speed would have given a better picture. low calories is better than high calories, low calories and low sugar is way better again. i like the idea of the thread, it's a good idea, but if anyone suggesting an item that may be healthy is not able to take some constructive criticism then it's pointless.

and i'm far from a hardcore dieter, or work in the industry, yet i'd rather someone pointed out the sugar levels in these products rather than consume them in ignorant bliss cause i was looking at calories only

While it's correct that cereals are utter garbage, and every Kellogg's product is refined sugar ridden crap - you're incorrect in saying that "it isn't all about calories"

The OP goal simply seems to be weight loss. It doesn't matter what you eat; it doesn't matter where the calories come from, if your calorie intake is reduced and kept below whatever you happen to be burning you WILL lose weight.

Generally though people will find it easier to eat fewer calories through eating a healthy and balanced diet with plenty of added protein and veg. Obviously people tend to eat more if they're loading up on calorie dense foods, refined sugars and junk.

There's a lot of misinformation on these forums and people seem to think there's a lot more to it than there is. You'd be best off doing the research yourself OP. Half the replies here start with "I heard", "apparently" and "I read" - you'll find better sources if you really need them. Losing weight is one of the simplest and easiest things to do - it's breaking bad habits that can be hard.

El_Dangeroso

vard wrote: »

Losing weight is one of the simplest and easiest things to do - it's breaking bad habits that can be hard.

Sorry but you're contradicting yourself, it's either easy or it isn't.

The first sign of a charlatan in my eyes is claiming weight loss is easy and straightforward. Humans are not robots that can exactly control input and output.

That's what this forum tries to address. If straight up calorie counting paying zero heed to food quality was all that was required then we'd have literally nothing to discuss - it does work for a tiny minority I'll concede, but they tend not to need much help anyway. Most successful long term people on here have combined something else with counting, such as cutting back on processed food, eliminating sugar, upping protein, dealing with emotional eating etc.

However to address the point KKV made, here's a super simple redux devoid of technical details:

Eat food that IS ingredients, not MADE OF ingredients.

How simple can you get?

vard

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Sorry but you're contradicting yourself, it's either easy or it isn't.

The first sign of a charlatan in my eyes is claiming weight loss is easy and straightforward. Humans are not robots that can exactly control input and output.

There was no contradiction. I think I made it fairly clear - in fact, that was exactly the point I was making.

The methods/science behind weight loss are easy to understand, adhering to them can be difficult.

Davei141

vard wrote: »

There was no contradiction. I think I made it fairly clear - in fact, that was exactly the point I was making.

The methods/science behind weight loss are easy to understand, adhering to them can be difficult.

Even more difficult focusing only on calories no?

vard

vard wrote: »

The OP goal simply seems to be weight loss.

Maybe OP shouldn't have a thread about "shopping healthily" then.

I won't get into the photo forum and ask about the best disposable cameras for high quality pictures then give out to anyone who says they're rubbish and complain they're being "too technical" and I'm not interested

vard

bluewolf wrote: »

Maybe OP shouldn't have a thread about "shopping healthily" then.

I won't get into the photo forum and ask about the best disposable cameras for high quality pictures then give out to anyone who says they're rubbish and complain they're being "too technical" and I'm not interested

You're right there. A more appropriate title would have been to simply request low calorie foods.

In general low calorie foods will be healthier anyway... so long as you stay clear of the puffed air mixed with maltodextrin HFC's and other rubbish you should find yourself making healthier choices.

I'm still amazed that Kellogg's are allowed to market Special K as a health/diet food. It has minimal nutritional value; it has more sugar than most of their other cereals; it has no fibre, so they can't even bark on about that one... I mean the information is all there, just read the labels! There's no excuse to be falling for it.

OP best thing you can do is just stroll the aisles and read ingredient lists / nutritional values.

Personally, being a ****e cook, I find the best (and most importantly, easy) meals to be heaps of mixed veg, steamed until soft, then mixed with tuna and a dash of light dressing / extra light mayo.

Anyway, good luck shifting the weight.

mossym

vard wrote: »

While it's correct that cereals are utter garbage, and every Kellogg's product is refined sugar ridden crap - you're incorrect in saying that "it isn't all about calories"

if i listen to the logic in your post then, if it's all about calories, i can sit down in the morning, figure out how many calories i need, measure out exactly how much pure white sugar i need to fill that amount of calories, eat that and voila that'll do?

i won't argue on it being as simple as calories for weight loss, however i do believe whether you want to lose, maintain or gain weight a balanced diet is good, and as such eating lots of low calorie food with a lot of sugar is bad.

and i'm confused how me saying that the level of sugar in it is important as well as the calories is an issue, then you can question how they can sell special k? by your logic if it's for weight loss, it's irrelevant whats in it as long as it's low calories?

mossym

vard wrote: »

OP best thing you can do is just stroll the aisles and read ingredient lists / nutritional values.

this i agree with 100%..look at everything that is in it, not just the calorie count

scoob70

Deleted User wrote: »

Too much information makes them a hassle to read, in my honest opinion (i generally find this is the issue with stickies in most forums though, so not specific to this forum). I doubt a day will come when I actually do sit down and read it. It feels like a chore.

Geee - first world problems eh

Well I appreciate everyone's great advice and help. The various product suggestions will be a joy to try out and I thoroughly appreciate ye guys not going straight on the offence with a "don't ask us; read the labels you fool" attitude.

This thread has been a joy, and I feel I've gained a wealth of knowledge from it.

Ye guys really understood where I was coming from and made me feel comfortable. For that I can't thank you enough. Absolute gentlemen, the lot of ye!

DoctorMedicine

Deleted User wrote: »

Well I appreciate everyone's great advice and help. The various product suggestions will be a joy to try out and I thoroughly appreciate ye guys not going straight on the offence with a "don't ask us; read the labels you fool" attitude.

This thread has been a joy, and I feel I've gained a wealth of knowledge from it.

Ye guys really understood where I was coming from and made me feel comfortable. For that I can't thank you enough. Absolute gentlemen, the lot of ye!

KKV, from my experience, the Health and Fitness forum/sub-fora are one of the most biased, arrogant fora on boards.ie. A lot of the posters act as if they are the World's best nutritional experts and never eat a chocolate bar in their lifetime, but in reality they haven't a clue what they're talking about in most cases. They are ignorant and rude and their primary aim is to state their opinions and never listen to those of others.

Steer well clear of them, KKV-They're not worth it.

Gummy Panda

DoctorMedicine wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Well I appreciate everyone's great advice and help. The various product suggestions will be a joy to try out and I thoroughly appreciate ye guys not going straight on the offence with a "don't ask us; read the labels you fool" attitude.

This thread has been a joy, and I feel I've gained a wealth of knowledge from it.

Ye guys really understood where I was coming from and made me feel comfortable. For that I can't thank you enough. Absolute gentlemen, the lot of ye!

KKV, from my experience, the Health and Fitness forum/sub-fora are one of the most biased, arrogant fora on boards.ie. A lot of the posters act as if they are the World's best nutritional experts and never eat a chocolate bar in their lifetime, but in reality they haven't a clue what they're talking about in most cases. They are ignorant and rude and their primary aim is to state their opinions and never listen to those of others.

Steer well clear of them, KKV-They're not worth it.

Steer well clear yet you still read the forums?

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote: »

buy meat, buy mixed veg (i will say that you can get a bag of nothing-added asian stir fry mix, frozen, in tesco), buy spices (basic ones, not processed sauces), go nuts

Deleted User wrote: »

The various product suggestions will be a joy to try out

You're welcome.

:rolleyes:

El_Dangeroso

DoctorMedicine wrote: »

KKV, from my experience, the Health and Fitness forum/sub-fora are one of the most biased, arrogant fora on boards.ie. A lot of the posters act as if they are the World's best nutritional experts and never eat a chocolate bar in their lifetime, but in reality they haven't a clue what they're talking about in most cases. They are ignorant and rude and their primary aim is to state their opinions and never listen to those of others.

Steer well clear of them, KKV-They're not worth it.

Well where are all your helpful posts then? I mean you're not just one of those people who bitches about something and then doesn't bother their arse trying to improve it are you?

El_Dangeroso

Deleted User wrote: »

Well I appreciate everyone's great advice and help. The various product suggestions will be a joy to try out and I thoroughly appreciate ye guys not going straight on the offence with a "don't ask us; read the labels you fool" attitude.

This thread has been a joy, and I feel I've gained a wealth of knowledge from it.

Ye guys really understood where I was coming from and made me feel comfortable. For that I can't thank you enough. Absolute gentlemen, the lot of ye!

The funny thing is that you got a load of free advice, but it wasn't what you wanted to hear. Tough luck, this is a NUTRITION and diet forum. You're not going to get one without the other.

Chancer3001

its everybody elses fault. not hers.

g'em

The premise of your thread OP is exactly what is not wanted here. Quick-fixes, lazy eating - these are things that go against the ethos of N&D.

I wish you luck on your weight loss journey. The forum will still be here when you come full circle, realise how deeply flawed your thinking is, need more help, and I'll make every effort to keep the "I told you so" posts to a minimum.

Something to consider - there's more than a few people here who are passionate about the topic because they've already made the mistakes you're about to and want to help others not make same. Maybe swallow your pride and listen, it might have a slightly bitter taste but 0 calories guaranteed.