Weight Loss Support - What does 200 calories look like
01-09-2007, 11:02 AM
I saw this linked on usenet and thought that it might be interesting/useful for others to see as well. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-200-calories-look-like.htm
It shows in pictures what 200 calories of various foods looks like. I certainly found it interesting! Though I gotta wonder about some of the totals... Splenda has that many calories? And I didn't know 200 calories of Bailey's was so small!
Anyways, I hope others find this helpful as well!
01-09-2007, 11:11 AM
I've never used splenda, so I don't really know much about it, but from their calculations 50 grams = 200 calories, that would mean it is 4 calories per gram, which is the same as plain sugar, so what would be the point?
01-09-2007, 11:27 AM
Well, it might measure like sugar, but it has more volume. That is, a cup of it weighs less, alot less, than a cup of sugar. So there is a point. I do wonder about their calculations, still. I'm seriously thinking about trying to scrounge a number from the fine folks that make the stuff and asking them.
Edit: I just checked. A heaping 1/4 cup of Splenda weighs 14 grams, while the same of sugar is 84 grams. So, yes, even if it is the same, there is a point.
Edit Again: I just sent Splenda a email at their official site asking this question. Hopeful will get an aswer to reply with.
01-09-2007, 11:28 AM
wow that was really awesome! thanks!
01-09-2007, 11:39 AM
I'm not sure who to believe on the Splenda issue. I'm not one to add extra sugar on anything but I like to sweeten tea and coffee a bit so I've switched to using 1 packet of Splenda instead of a teaspoon of sugar. The nutrition label on Splenda claims that a packet is no-calorie and less than 1g carbs. If that is true I'm not sure how the 200 calories works out. They do have a brand of Splenda that is a half and half deal...a half Splenda half sugar blend that is advertised as best for baking....that most certainly has carbs and calories like regular sugar but it is supposed to only be half.
As far as Bailey's goes it is very true. I'm a drinker and I love Bailey's and when I started I searched their website and looked up their nutritional information and plugged it into my fitday....its very high in calories...not to mention carbs and fat. Its almost 90 calories per ounce. Needless to say I've now cut this tasty beverage out of my diet except on very rare special occasions. I'll cut and paste the nutrition facts for you below.
Amount Per 1 oz
Calories from Fat 40
% Daily Value *
Total Fat 4.44g 7%
Saturated Fat 2.68g 13%
Polyunsaturated Fat 0g
Monounsaturated Fat 0g
Cholesterol 104.2mg 35%
Sodium 25.28mg 1%
Potassium 0mg 0%
Total Carbohydrate 5.67g 2%
Dietary Fiber 0g 0%
Protein 0g 0%
01-09-2007, 12:21 PM
Yes, but have you ever looked at the Nutrition Facts of anything made with an artificial sweetener? Yes, the calories are reduced, but not to the extent that it is worthwhile going with the artificial sweetener over sugar, unless diabetes is an issue. Even then, it may not be the best idea. I know several diabetics whose blood sugar skyrockets with the artificial sweeteners just as it would with actual sugar. That is what I was getting at when I said what's the point.
01-09-2007, 12:30 PM
I found that really helpful! Thanks for sharing:) I'm gonna favorite that page so I have it on hand whenever I need to look something up.Thanks again.
01-09-2007, 12:58 PM
Well, I didn't mean to start a big debate as to whether or not artificial sweetners are "worth it" or not. They are to me and many others, they are not to you and many others. I doubt that either side can convince the other, so why argue about it?
01-09-2007, 01:25 PM
I wasn't aware that this WAS a "big debate" nor that I was "arguing about it". I was merely trying to clarify my original post (you know...why I felt the way I did), but I have certainly learned from that mistake and will be checking out of this discussion now, so no need to worry about me arguing any more!
01-09-2007, 01:46 PM
I'm not sure how this spiraled from discussion into heated debate, I suppose that can happen with this kind of communication when you miss out on things like facial expression and tone of voice....either way I'm not a big sweets person...I more of a salty food craver :) If I'm gonna bake I use sugar not artificial simply because splenda muffins taste like crap to me...I'll have a splenda in my morning coffee cause i like the taste of it. I keep both in the pantry and really just try to limit both. I look at nutrition facts for pretty much everything and whether it has lower calories or not I really look for a balance of everything else ...is there really any nutritional value? Is it loaded with sodium to supplement taste? etc.
Anyway I think what it comes down to is to each her own... do what works for you. Thanks for posting that page, I though it was really interesting and I hope everyone has a great day regardless of what you bake with or put in your morning coffee:)
01-09-2007, 10:41 PM
There is no heated debate here. Tiredgrad simply said she didn't see a point to using artificial sweetners, and I've said I do. Nothing wrong with either point of view. Do what works for you. I will conceed it might have been better if I used the word "debate" instead.
But yeah, I believe that if you tell someone that you think something they are doing to lose weight is pointless, you are setting the stage for some sort of conflict. You might be right, or not. But if you do choose to do that, it doesn't make sense to me to be upset to learn that they might disagree with you.
Edit: BTW, I really like your avatar pic, NES. Killer gopher on the loose!