How bad is bread, wraps etc for you when trying to lose fat

Wizard!

Today's article
http://authoritynutrition.com/why-refined-carbs-are-bad/

Penny Tration

mada82 wrote: »

Cheers for all the feedback. So if I stay in a calorie deficit this week while including a sandwich for lunch I could see a weight gain due to water?

At what point will the water weight remain constant?

I don't know at what point water weight will remain constant, but I've lost 27lbs over the last 11-12 weeks, and eat a sandwich most days. To keep the calorie count relatively low, I use two slices of Brennan's Be Good wholemeal bread (60 cals per slice), no butter or spread, some chicken breast pieces (from a grilled chicken breast) at about 60ish calories, and about 50 calories worth of cheese. So it's working out at about 230 ish calories.

caveatemptor1

starlight09 wrote: »

On the subject of bread, how would one rate home-made soda bread

I usually make soda bread at least once per week and always though it was really healthy. I went on a bread course this weekend and it turns out, soda may not be as healthy as I thought.

The baker said that because there is no fermentation involved (only the bicarb/ acid reaction) to break down some of the gluten, it can be harder to digest than most yeast breads. Thats not necessarily a bad thing but for people with gluten intolerances or irritations, its actually one of the worst homemade breads for you. It is also quite dense in comparison with yeasted breads so nutritionally you need less of it. I wont stop making it but its very interesting!

Sourdough seems to be far the best option as the long process of making the starter culture and then slow proving of the bread means it is more digestible. Also the yeast used is naturally occurring and you usually make the culture yourself so you have control over what you put into it, It is much more work though.

The ultimate point he made is that any bread you make yourself at home will be better for you than a commercially produced sliced pan as you will know exactly what is going into it.

fussyonion

I've lost 12kg in 7 weeks and I've been having muesli/cereal for breakfast and a sandwich most days for lunch.

It's watching the amount of food overall that you're consuming which is key.
Eat three sensible meals a day, with healthy snacks, drink water and exercise.

ThunbergsAreGo

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with bread as such. Take a wholemeal slice...comes in about 90 kcals.

But people usually have two with all sorts jammed between and a sandwich, especially one made up in some shop for a lunch, could have 400-500 kcals.

Again, not a problem if you're aware of that and you account for it over your day or week.

Ultimately, the two important factors getting your nutrition right are the calories in/calories out and the carb/protein/fat breakdown. That's why people love MyFitnessPal and have great success with it.

So no, there's nothing wrong with bread, per se. If you have 1 or 2 slices a day and you have a weight problem, it's not because of the bread.

Isnt 400-500 calories on the low side for a lunch?

Diamond Doll

naughtb4 wrote: »

Isnt 400-500 calories on the low side for a lunch?

Can't really say that without taking it in the context of the other meals eaten on the day. E.g. if you're someone who eats little but often, with plenty of filling snacks throughout the day, 400-500 might fit into that perfectly. Or some people like a big breakfast and dinner but a light lunch.

Alf Veedersane

naughtb4 wrote: »

Isnt 400-500 calories on the low side for a lunch?

That depends on what you have over the course of a full day and on what your calorie allowance/target/goal is

_davidsmith_

fussyonion wrote: »

I've lost 12kg in 7 weeks and I've been having muesli/cereal for breakfast and a sandwich most days for lunch.

It's watching the amount of food overall that you're consuming which is key.
Eat three sensible meals a day, with healthy snacks, drink water and exercise.

12kgs in 7 weeks?! 3.7 pounds a week, thats some amount of exercise i imagine

fussyonion

_davidsmith_ wrote: »

12kgs in 7 weeks?! 3.7 pounds a week, thats some amount of exercise i imagine

It averages at around 3lbs a week, yeah.
I'd exercise 4 times a week; just bike, treadmill and cross trainer at the moment.

granturismo

_davidsmith_ wrote: »

12kgs in 7 weeks?! 3.7 pounds a week, thats some amount of exercise i imagine

Calorie intake is the major factor.

mada82

mada82 wrote: »

You hear off most fitness instructors to cut bread, pasta, rice etc when trying to lose fat.

Is there no room for these at all in your diet?

Personally I have found over the years that I do seem to put on a few pound when bread is in my diet.

A lot of bread actually has fat in it these days, to make it longer lasting.

The instructors ask you to avoid carbs cos they want your body to burn its own reserves, sugars and fats, to replace those carbs.

Tar.Aldarion

naughtb4 wrote: »

Isnt 400-500 calories on the low side for a lunch?

My lunch is 120 calories generally so I don't think so!

PinkLemonade

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

My lunch is 120 calories generally so I don't think so!

What % of your daily calorie intake is that? Seems extremely low to call a meal

fussyonion

PinkLemonade wrote: »

What % of your daily calorie intake is that? Seems extremely low to call a meal

It could be something like 3 cream crackers though which are filling.

Viduka

Whatever else about bread, doesn't it lead to 'wheat belly', essentially a beer belly?

_davidsmith_

fussyonion wrote: »

It could be something like 3 cream crackers though which are filling.

3 cream crackers for a meal when your exercising seems like an incredibly small amount, if you starve yourself you will pile weight back on once you inevitably fall off the diet wagon. Everything should be in moderation and 70% of each plate should be vegtables, 100kcal meals are not sustainable long term.

Alf Veedersane

_davidsmith_ wrote: »

3 cream crackers for a meal when your exercising seems like an incredibly small amount, if you starve yourself you will pile weight back on once you inevitably fall off the diet wagon. Everything should be in moderation and 70% of each plate should be vegtables, 100kcal meals are not sustainable long term.

They might not be considering it a 'meal' and they might not be starving themselves. Having something that's 120 kcals at lunchtime doesn't automatically mean they're in a massive calorie deficit across the whole day.

Penny Tration

_davidsmith_ wrote: »

3 cream crackers for a meal when your exercising seems like an incredibly small amount, if you starve yourself you will pile weight back on once you inevitably fall off the diet wagon. Everything should be in moderation and 70% of each plate should be vegtables, 100kcal meals are not sustainable long term.

It's totally sustainable, once you're not in starvation mode (ie a massive calorie deficit) for the entire day.

I regularly skip breakfast, my lunch is approximately 230 calories. My dinner makes up for it because I prefer to eat very little during the day and a big meal at night.

Once the person isn't actually starving themselves, or at too big a calorie deficit, a tiny lunch is fine.

_davidsmith_

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

They might not be considering it a 'meal' and they might not be starving themselves. Having something that's 120 kcals at lunchtime doesn't automatically mean they're in a massive calorie deficit across the whole day.

She was originally referring to someone who was having a 100-200kcal lunch, and i dont think that 3 plain cream crackers is a lunch, this is only my opinion, and i know everyone is entitles to theirs. Iv done all the fad diets keto, shakes, carb cycling and the only thing thats sustainable is eating things that were grown in the ground or was alive at one point, not processed junk and diet fizzy chemical drinks and no fast food, no matter how healthy the option, things in a packet are designed not to go off therefore are filled with sugar or salt. And certainly not starving myself to see the scales plumet.

_davidsmith_

Penny Tration wrote: »

It's totally sustainable, once you're not in starvation mode (ie a massive calorie deficit) for the entire day.

I regularly skip breakfast, my lunch is approximately 230 calories. My dinner makes up for it because I prefer to eat very little during the day and a big meal at night.

Once the person isn't actually starving themselves, or at too big a calorie deficit, a tiny lunch is fine.

The op lost 7kgs in 12 weeks and does cardio 4 times a week, that is fairly drastic weight loss providing the op wasnt morbidly obese to begin with

Penny Tration

_davidsmith_ wrote: »

The op lost 7kgs in 12 weeks and does cardio 4 times a week, that is fairly drastic weight loss providing the op wasnt morbidly obese to begin with

I lost 23lbs in 9 weeks. It's not that difficult to do without starving yourself. Big changes to your diet and lifestyle will incur big losses at the start, which will slow down soon enough.

_davidsmith_

im not a doctor or a personal trainer and fair play to you for your achievment but youre not changing my opinion that get up early eat breakfast exercise have a balanced lunch exercise again and then have a nice dinner lots of veg small carbs and meat, will provide sustainable results and better health than randomly skipping meals throughout the day, or eating random small amounts of food

molly09

Three cream crackers for lunch ...... Will that actually keep you satisfied until dinner

Alf Veedersane

_davidsmith_ wrote: »

She was originally referring to someone who was having a 100-200kcal lunch, and i dont think that 3 plain cream crackers is a lunch, this is only my opinion, and i know everyone is entitles to theirs. Iv done all the fad diets keto, shakes, carb cycling and the only thing thats sustainable is eating things that were grown in the ground or was alive at one point, not processed junk and diet fizzy chemical drinks and no fast food, no matter how healthy the option, things in a packet are designed not to go off therefore are filled with sugar or salt. And certainly not starving myself to see the scales plumet.

It's not a fad diet. Eating 100-200 kcals at lunch is neither good nor bad without context. What's the caloric intake over the ocurse of the day? You can't say anything about someone's diet based solely on the snippet of information that is that they have 100-200 kcals at lunchtime.

Dard23

I'm reading a lot here about calorie deficit and one balancing out the other. The reason you don't swap 200 calories of lean meat, veg, fruit for 200 calories of chocolate, sweets is also the fact that the latter are empty carbs. If you want to be healthy it's about more than just weight loss!! If you're swapping good meals for equivalent intakes of crap than you are not getting any proper fats, nutrients, protein or other things essential for your body to function correctly. You may be the same weight but with poor muscle mass, bad skin, hair and a low immune system getting sick all the time! Quality not quantity is more important in your diet!

Alf Veedersane

molly09 wrote: »

Three cream crackers for lunch ...... Will that actually keep you satisfied until dinner

Depends what you've eaten before the 'lunch' and what you wat betwene then and 'dinner' and what time your 'dinner is at.

People don't necessarily stick to the breakfast before work, lunch at 1 and dinner at 6-7 model.

_davidsmith_

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

It's not a fad diet. Eating 100-200 kcals at lunch is neither good nor bad without context. What's the caloric intake over the ocurse of the day? You can't say anything about someone's diet based solely on the snippet of information that is that they have 100-200 kcals at lunchtime.

Read my posts before jumping on me, j*sus youd swear i was telling her she was a moron, Im saying its my OPINION that i THINK its healthier to eat 3 square meals a day. Would you put 3 cream crackers in your childs lunch box and tell them that they can have the rest of their calories at another point in the day? if so than grand because thats your decision, and i wont judge you on it. I still dont THINK it constitutes a meal, but again its my OPINION

Tar.Aldarion

PinkLemonade wrote: »

What % of your daily calorie intake is that? Seems extremely low to call a meal

I probably eat 2000 calories+ per day. Meals are different sizes, most my calories are not had at lunch, tend to be in the evening.

_davidsmith_ wrote: »

3 cream crackers for a meal when your exercising seems like an incredibly small amount, if you starve yourself you will pile weight back on once you inevitably fall off the diet wagon. Everything should be in moderation and 70% of each plate should be vegtables, 100kcal meals are not sustainable long term.

I don't eat crackers and am not on a diet, I don't think that would be a good meal. I have had my lunch for over a year, an example of my lunch is vegetable and bean soup, which I have a lot. Some other soups would be more but less than 200cals. It doesn't have dairy in it which would add calories.

I don't starve myself at all, I'm pretty much never hungry with what I eat, most my calories come from the evening I guess. I start off with a protein smoothie in the morning usually which keeps me full until 2-3pm, have soup, have other meals after work.

Alf Veedersane

_davidsmith_ wrote: »

Read my posts before jumping on me, j*sus youd swear i was telling her she was a moron, Im saying its my OPINION that i THINK its healthier to eat 3 square meals a day. Would you put 3 cream crackers in your childs lunch box and tell them that they can have the rest of their calories at another point in the day? if so than grand because thats your decision, and i wont judge you on it. I still dont THINK it constitutes a meal, but again its my OPINION

I'm not jumping on you or having a go. Apologies if it comes across like that.

I'm just pointing out that outside of 100-200 kcals at lunchtime we know no more. We don't know what quantity of food is had before or after.

An adult has more scope to eat during the day so it's not comparable with a child's lunch. That's the only time they really have to eat during school hours.

I have a small lunch but I'll have eaten twice before that, I'll have something mid-afternoon and then a nice big meal involving meat and veg in the evening. I also train 4 times a week and I'm not looking to lose weight.

I'm just making the point that we can't say it's too little without the full picture. If it was all that was eaten between a couple of Weetabix in the morning and then a standard dinner in theevening, I would completely agree with you. But we don't know so we can't say it's not a suitable lunch. because it might not be considered time for a meal but rather time for a snack.

starlit

I'd suggest to not necessarily cut out bread, pasta and rice. You could just opt for gluten free, or low protein ones. Drain the pasta and rice with water to get rid of the starch which should help reduce the likelihood of developing into fat/sugar.