# Snacks & Diet



## Luv2Dance (Sep 29, 2009)

What kinds of snacks are good to eat on a diet? To get some fruit servings, I think the Chilled Fruit by Del Monte are really good. The Citrus Bowls are my favorite, especially the grapefruit one. Anybody try these? When I was buying regular fruit it keep going bad, and I was always throwing it away, so this stuff works well for me. If you want to check the nutrional info, here's the link: bit.ly/qYT4q


----------



## Marat (Sep 29, 2009)

Anything is good if it fits into your daily macronutrient allowance.

I prefer snacks that are typically higher in fat and/or protein (i.e nuts, seeds, protein shakes), as they tend to make me fuller and help to hold me over until the next full meal. Just having carbs alone (1 serving of the fruit cup is 0g fat, 14g carbs, 1g protein) tends to make me, and many others, just more hungry.


However, you want to be careful with the fructose that is present in the product. A little fructose here and there from raw fruit sources isn't a big deal, although you want to be careful with things that contain high fructose corn syrup. Prepared fruit cups may contain HCFS in the solution that the fruit is suspended in (I can't find the ingredient list on the website, just the nutrition facts. Also, i'm not sure if that particular product is suspended in a syrup -- must fruit cups are--I'm just speculating on the particular product that you mentioned). 

If you are unfamiliar with HCFS and its effects on health, feel free to google it. Specifically, 'high fructose corn syrup and insulin resistance' is something to look into.


----------



## Built (Sep 29, 2009)

I don't snack. I wait until I'm hungry, and then I eat a meal.


----------



## mcguin (Sep 30, 2009)

while were on this, where does canteloupe stand among "good" fruits?


----------



## Built (Sep 30, 2009)

Are some "bad"?


----------



## Merkaba (Sep 30, 2009)

lol


----------



## Arnold (Oct 1, 2009)

Built said:


> Are some "bad"?



if you're diet is based on the glycemic index there are certain fruits you want to avoid as they spike insulin, e.g. dates & watermelon.

*Food 	GI Value*
Cherries 	22
Grapefruit 	25
Prunes 	29
Apricots, dried 	30
Apple 	38
Peach, canned in juice 	38
Pear, fresh 	38
Plum 	39
Strawberries 	40
Orange, Navel 	42
Peach, fresh 	42
Pear, canned 	43
Grapes 	46
Mango 	51
Banana 	52
Fruit Cocktail 	55
Papaya 	56
Raisins 	56
Apricots, fresh 	57
Kiwi 	58
Figs, dried 	61
Apricots, canned 	64
Cantaloupe 	65
Pineapple, fresh 	66
Watermelon 	72
Dates 	103


----------



## mcguin (Oct 1, 2009)

Prince said:


> if you're diet is based on the glycemic index there are certain fruits you want to avoid as they spike insulin, e.g. dates & watermelon.
> 
> *Food 	GI Value*
> Cherries 	22
> ...



thanks, that's what I meant, I have to watch my insulin, on a strict cutting diet, been doing great eating really clean and timing my nutrient take accordingly.  I guess no more canteloupe for me, I'll have to find cherries!


----------



## Built (Oct 1, 2009)

The whole "GI" thing is pretty flawed. I mean, who eats foods in isolation? Besides, a Mars bar has a GI of 65. Glycemic Index of Mars Bar, GI Value - so that's better than watermelon or dates, right?

And what about dextrose: GI = 100 (gasp!) - and yet, dextrose has no fructose, so it won't interfere with satiety signals like sucrose or dried fruit will. 

Ultimately, it's the calories. I got fat on a low-GI diet; I ate too much, so I gained. Pretty simple.


----------



## Ben dur (Oct 1, 2009)

i dont see why insulin response matters for cutting anyhow...


a 100 calorie spike
and a 100 calorie smooth curve

both increase calorie intake by 100 calories...



this is just like the myth about cardio before breakfast... (burns pure fat)
it only works if the rest of your diet is below maint...


if i burn 300 calories of pure fat(before breakfast) or 300 calories of mixed sources (anytime of day), but i consume the same calories... at the end of the day the math comes out the same


1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10 (low gi)
10=10(high GI)

still 10 calories there...


----------



## danzik17 (Oct 1, 2009)

Ben dur said:


> i dont see why insulin response matters for cutting anyhow...
> 
> 
> a 100 calorie spike
> ...



For pure fat loss reason it doesn't matter I think, but if you spike your blood sugar/invoke an insulin response by eating a lot of simple carbs (sugar for example) that causes many people to eat following the crash in blood sugar levels.


----------



## Ben dur (Oct 1, 2009)

Hunger control I guess


----------



## Built (Oct 1, 2009)

Yep, it's all about being able to stick to the diet you've chosen.

I get hungrier from fruit than from dextrose.


----------



## Arnold (Oct 1, 2009)

Built said:


> The whole "GI" thing is pretty flawed. I mean, who eats foods in isolation? Besides, a Mars bar has a GI of 65. Glycemic Index of Mars Bar, GI Value - so that's better than watermelon or dates, right?
> 
> And what about dextrose: GI = 100 (gasp!) - and yet, dextrose has no fructose, so it won't interfere with satiety signals like sucrose or dried fruit will.
> 
> Ultimately, it's the calories. I got fat on a low-GI diet; I ate too much, so I gained. Pretty simple.



there is much more to the equation than just calories, and this is where I disagree with Lyle McDonald, whom I assume that you get a lot of info from.


----------



## danzik17 (Oct 1, 2009)

Prince said:


> there is much more to the equation than just calories, and this is where I disagree with Lyle McDonald, whom I assume that you get a lot of info from.



We've probably done this argument so many times before, but what's the equation then?  I see it as being fairly basic, eat less than you need to lose fat and use resistance training to hold onto muscle.

Besides some basic dietary guidelines with protein, fat, and some basic supplements (multi + fish oil) I don't see the complexity anymore.


----------



## Built (Oct 1, 2009)

Lyle's good at concentrating and explaining the state of the art, but he gets his information the same place I do: from peer-reviewed research. 

If you're arguing "comfort while running a deficit", there are some very good reasons to pay attention to the insulin response - particularly where fructose is involved, since fructose interferes with the normal satiety due to insulin. Ironically, fructose has a very low GI: 23 according to this source: Glycemic Index Food Chart: List of Glycemic Values of Foods

Under the conditions of a carefully monitored, calorie-controlled diet, there is no evidence that GI has any impact upon fat loss. 

Unless you have something for me to read, Prince?


----------



## Bradicallyman (Oct 2, 2009)

Built said:


> Lyle's good at concentrating and explaining the state of the art, but he gets his information the same place I do: from peer-reviewed research.
> 
> If you're arguing "comfort while running a deficit", there are some very good reasons to pay attention to the insulin response - particularly where fructose is involved, since fructose interferes with the normal satiety due to insulin. Ironically, fructose has a very low GI: 23 according to this source: Glycemic Index Food Chart: List of Glycemic Values of Foods
> 
> ...



You say GI has no impact on fat loss, what about the quality of food? Lets take two people with the same metabolism, age ect., who eat below maintenance every day. One person eats healthy and the other gets almost half of their calories from junk. Not considering the health issues involved with all of the junk food, will they both experience the same fat loss?

I have always wondered this because I keep hearing that a calorie is a calorie when it comes to losing/gaining weight. And then I will read that certain foods mess with your hormones and can impact your weight.


----------



## danzik17 (Oct 2, 2009)

Bradicallyman said:


> You say GI has no impact on fat loss, what about the quality of food? Lets take two people with the same metabolism, age ect., who eat below maintenance every day. One person eats healthy and the other gets almost half of their calories from junk. Not considering the health issues involved with all of the junk food, will they both experience the same fat loss?
> 
> I have always wondered this because I keep hearing that a calorie is a calorie when it comes to losing/gaining weight. And then I will read that certain foods mess with your hormones and can impact your weight.



Are we assuming they're following the basic guidelines in regards to minimums of protein and fat?

If so, I'd say that yes they should experience the same fat loss.  If no, I would say that they will not experience the same fat loss - the one lacking from the basic needs will experience more muscle loss and less fat loss (especially if resistance training is lacking).


----------



## Bradicallyman (Oct 2, 2009)

danzik17 said:


> Are we assuming they're following the basic guidelines in regards to minimums of protein and fat?
> 
> If so, I'd say that yes they should experience the same fat loss.  If no, I would say that they will not experience the same fat loss - the one lacking from the basic needs will experience more muscle loss and less fat loss (especially if resistance training is lacking).



Yes I was assuming that they were both getting enough protein/fat. 

So clogged arteries aside, your saying that the person getting their same amount of calories from big macs and cokes would lose as much as the person getting their calories from chicken breast and brown rice assuming they are getting enough protein and fat and have the same workout plans?


----------



## danzik17 (Oct 2, 2009)

Bradicallyman said:


> Yes I was assuming that they were both getting enough protein/fat.
> 
> So clogged arteries aside, your saying that the person getting their same amount of calories from big macs and cokes would lose as much as the person getting their calories from chicken breast and brown rice assuming they are getting enough protein and fat and have the same workout plans?



Pretty much.  There might be an few ounces difference from the thermogenic effects of different macros, but nothing significant.

If you're bringing big macs into play, let's assume there is no MSG in them though as consuming that in any significant quantity causes all kinds of weight trouble.


----------



## Marat (Oct 2, 2009)

Bradicallyman said:


> big mac



540 total cals

29g fat
    10g saturated
45g carbs
3g fiber
25g protein
1g sodium


There are plenty of 'healthy' foods that you can get those macros from as well. The only difference is that perhaps a chicken breast sauteed in 2 tablespoons olive oil w/ a cup of broccoli, and a serving of rice may be more filling. However, the dish that I mentioned has almost exactly the same macros as the Big Mac. 

There isn't anything fundamentally 'artery clogging' about any particular food item.


----------



## Built (Oct 2, 2009)

m11 said:


> There isn't anything fundamentally 'artery clogging' about any particular food item.


Other than, say, a high fructose intake, or something like transfat (which frankly isn't really a food anyway), I would tend to agree (both of these have been shown to worsen lipid profiles).

Saturated animal fat is a healthy fat for your body; it's a natural fat and your body knows what to do with it. Furthermore, under the conditions of a caloric deficit, there won't be a whole lot of artery-clogging going on in your body.

Now I'm not arguing for an "all junk food, all the time" diet, okay? Before I get any hate-mail..."Now, MariAnne, I know you're FOR junk food and you're AGAINST exercise..." (I have actually had someone deliberately misinterpret my statement: "don't try to exercise off the weight" as "don't exercise". People hear what they want to hear) - I eat a pretty healthy diet. I feel better and am less hungry when I eat plenty of meat, green veggies and healthy fats, little sugar and almost no grain. But I'm a total wimp when it comes to hunger and I hate feeling like shit. 

I don't keep my weight down by eating "clean" - I keep my weight down by keeping a tight check on my caloric intake, and that control is a whole lot more comfortable this way. If you can keep your calories within range while eating crap, knock yourself out.


----------



## Ben dur (Oct 2, 2009)

MariAnn are you familiar with DR. Weston A. Price?


----------



## Built (Oct 2, 2009)

"The Oiling of America", indeed.


----------



## Ben dur (Oct 3, 2009)

you like?

i do


----------



## Built (Oct 3, 2009)

I find myself in agreement with their articles more often than I disagree, without a doubt.


----------



## Ben dur (Oct 3, 2009)

and DR. barry spears?


i ask because it seems like you share alot of the same philosophies as both sources


----------



## Built (Oct 3, 2009)

Dr. Spears I haven't read as much (not a big "zone" fan, but it seems to be comfortable for some); but I'm finding with these authors the overlapping information demonstrates how the truth tends to converge.


----------



## Ben dur (Oct 3, 2009)

i dont know much about the "zone" diet.

i read a few articles about the anti inflamatory, anti catabolic, matabolism boosting effects of fish oils

and his recomendation to eat "colorful" veggies

but yes, i agree
they, and yourself, tend to support each other..

i just thought i would jump in, and discuss, after reading

"I feel better and am less hungry when I eat plenty of meat, green veggies and healthy fats, little sugar and almost no grain."


----------



## Ben dur (Oct 3, 2009)

and

"Saturated animal fat is a healthy fat for your body; it's a natural fat and your body knows what to do with it."

i freaking love you


----------



## jmorrison (Oct 3, 2009)

Holy crap, I just finished reading the oiling of america.  Fascinating stuff.


----------



## Built (Oct 3, 2009)

Isn't it a thought-provoking article? 

Another good one to read - not on that site - is Cereal Grains: Humanity’s Double-Edged Sword.


----------



## jmorrison (Oct 3, 2009)

I have been on that Oiling America site all night.  Have you read the stuff on raw milk?  How is it that this stuff isnt common knowledge?

I will read the grains article next.


----------



## Built (Oct 3, 2009)

I don't know why a lot of things aren't common knowledge. 

Okay, other than politics and greed.


----------



## danzik17 (Oct 3, 2009)

Built said:


> I don't know why a lot of things aren't common knowledge.
> 
> Okay, other than politics and greed.



Probably because diets aren't profitable and supplements are.  It was something I read in Eat Stop Eat that should have been blatantly obvious but never dawned on me;  why would corporate America just tell us to eat less?  All that does is hurt profits.


----------



## Ben dur (Oct 4, 2009)

Weston A. Price Foundation

for those not familiar

it is a great source of nutritional information
although i cant say i agree with EVERYTHING. then again, i dont have any real studies of any kind to back up my disagreements


----------



## Built (Oct 4, 2009)

Ben dur, if you find something you think is wrong, post it up and we'll see if we can substantiate it- or refute it. 

danzik, no shit hey?


----------



## Ben dur (Oct 4, 2009)

i eat veggies...

from my understanding the weston a price foundation doesnt find them very essential..


----------



## Ben dur (Oct 4, 2009)

as i research more and more...

maybe i should get slapped for that misinterpretation

almost every one of their exampler meals includes a cup of steamed broccoli or something similar


----------



## jmorrison (Oct 4, 2009)

Yeah, from what I am getting from them, they are pro-greens, just anti-vegetarian.


----------

