so normally i do about 100g of past, because when it is cooked i thught it actually lost some calories (somwhow i belived this) i have been doing this since i started to lose weight, so i have had no problems....
but last night i was reading closer on the packet and saw it said 100 (230 cooked) = 320 calories. i asked my boyfriend and he said that 100g iof pasta will double in weight, with the water and so my 100g is 320 calories, not half like i thought it was.
so i didnt eat my pasta, once cooked, weighed and saw the ugly truth!
all this tie instead of having about 200cals as i have been adding, its been 320! what an idiot! i wondered how i could feel so full.
anyway so on thistheory, i would have to have 50g of pasta not 100g to gain half the 320 calorie intake, which would leave me with 160 calories, much better for me, not better for my hunger.
and after not eating my pasta, i had a fair bit of chicken with dionner, my stomache decided to make me feel incredibly unwell, because there was no breads at all to help balance all the meat, so i was throwing up.....
nasty
ANYWAY just wondering if anyone had any advice on pasta, its my main carbs intake, i only ever have brown, because its yummy.... but any other advice now i know the awfull truth.?
I find 50g of pasta when cooked a decent portion for me when served with meat and sauce. Try it and see. However, I suppose if you were eating a 100g and still losing then you have been eating at that calorie level anyway so why fix it if it isn't broken.
I measure the pasta before I cook it. A serving size according to the package is 2oz or 56g (uncooked) which has always been satisfying for me. This equates to 210 calories.
I like Barilla Plus Pasta which is higher in Fiber but have the new Smart Taste in my cupboard baseed on recommendations of others.
I say stick to what has been working for you but make sure to log it appropriately.
I cook the pasta, and then I measure it in a dry measuring cup. 2 ounces dry is about a cup, cooked. Sometimes I eat a cup, sometimes half a cup, depending on whether it's my main dish or a side.
I don't eat whole wheat pasta because I don't like it. I use Barilla brand, and lately I've been using the "Plus" because it is nutritionally better without tasting like cardboard.
I am better off, usually, if I don't eat a lot of carbohydrate with meat--it gives me indigestion--so I'm surprised that you got sick.
If you like pasta - one of my favorite quick meals when I am not in the mood to cook is to take 2oz of dry pasta, 1/2 bag of Steamfresh Broccolli & Cauliflower, 3oz of tuna and add any sauce.
This meal also works well for me when I feel a need for alot of quanitity of food. Sometimes I add the whole bage of veggies and leave out the tuna.
I agree with Lori. If I have a real craving for pasta, I pick a recipe with TONS of veggies to mix in, because it makes it seem like a lot more pasta than it is. Eggplant and squash are great to dice, cook, and mix in to your sauce because they provide a lot of substance for very few calories.
Here's a recipe I reviewed a week or so ago, for eggplant and mushroom ravioli. It was 400 cals/serving when I made it, but I used cheese tortellini; if you used pasta instead, the calories would definitely be a lot less.
I only ever have 2oz (56g, 1 cup) of pasta, even now that I'm in maintenance. I think, actually, that pasta, like rice, is one of the foods that helped me to get fat--it's a very easy and inexpensive dinner, but if you don't watch the portion size, then obviously you take in many, many calories. Our solution is either a sauce crammed with veggies, or, if we're doing a shrimp scampi or clam sauce or something, to make a big salad to have with it.
One of my permanent rules of eating (for permanent maintenance) is to never rely on the starch in my meal to get myself full. If I have a starch, it's a little bonus. The veggies and meat are what fill me up.
good advice thanks. DAMN CARBS THEY ARE EVIIIIL
i think i realised that the other night, and thats maybe what made me sick.
i am very good withb veg, everymeal id say (even when i had a larger amount of pasta) that my plate was 3/5 veg so yeh, onwards i think, less/no pasta. i also found the wonder of beans recently, i know they have starch in them but i am guessing they are better for u then pasta as they have more protein? any one kow the answer to this one?
Beans do have more protein, but they also have more fat. So, a cup of cooked kidney beans has more calories than a cup of cooked pasta. Not that you would eat a whole cup of kidney beans!
Pasta: 176 cals. 4:39:1 grams of protein:carb:fat
Kidney beans: 311 cals. 15:37:12 grams of protein:carb:fat
i guess there is no hope....... i guess replacing meat with beans is best, and a very small amount of pasta, i wonder which is better for u, in the long run, pasta or beans,
We use the term starch loosely but in reality starch is a type of carbohydrate. Foods should not be defined as a starch but they can be defined as being high in starch.
Foods that are high in starch include Corn, Potatoes, Wheat (including Pasta) and Rice.
By the way Beans (legumes) are a vegetable. If you had to choose one over the other for this reason I would probably choose beans.
But a well balanced diet should include a variety of foods which means there should be plenty of room for beans, pasta, meats etc.
Beans do have more protein, but they also have more fat.
Beans really shouldn't have much, if any, fat at all. I think Fitday is assuming you cook your beans with added fat. I just checked the label of bean in my kitchen, and it says 0g fat per 1/2 cup. I like to take my black beans and mix in some salsa and heat it all up together--adds flavor but not any fat.
I wouldn't replace meat with beans unless you're trying to go vegetarian. As long as you're eating lean cuts of meat, it shouldn't have to be removed from your plan.
pasta.....advice
