Trying to make up my own plan but there's too much food!
I decided to look up the Canadian Food Guide as a resource for putting together my own diet. If I've done this right, their recommendations would haveme eating about 1850 calories/day.
Here's how it breaks down:
Veg and fruit 7 to 8 servings.
1 serving = 1/2 cup
(70 cal/servings x 7 = 490 or 500)
Grains 6-7 servings.
Serving = 1 slice of bread, 1/2c whole grains, cooked, and pasta, 3/4c cold cereal.
(100 cal/serving x 6 = 600)
Milk and Alternates 2 servings.
Serving = 1 cup milk, or 3/4c yogurt, 1 1/2oz cheese.
(100 cal/serving x 2 = 200)
Meat and Alternates: 2 servings.
Serving = 2 1/2 oz meat, 2 eggs, 1/4 cup nuts. 3/4 cup cooked legumes, 2 Tbsp peanut butter).
150 cal/serving x 2 = 300)
Also recommended
2-3 Tbsp unsaturated fat each day.
2 x 125 = 250
Now obviously, there's a tremendous amount of leeway in the Meat and Dairy categories as far as fat calories are concerned. I tried to pick the low end (though I wonder if I was too low?)
Even so, the whole thing adds up:
500 + 600 + 200 + 300 + 250 = 1850
Did I do that right?
And, if I did, now what?
Last edited by Alana in Canada; 12-19-2008 at 01:35 PM.
Well, first off, I'd say that you estimated calories on the high side for most of your categories. For example, half a cup of fruit will probably be closer to 50 calories (for high sugar fruits, like pineapple), and vegetables are way lower (for half a cup, you're talking 5-30 calories, depending on the veggie). A 2 1/2 oz cooked portion of boneless, skinless chicken breast is only 100 calories, not 150. So by choosing lower calorie items to fill your requirements, you can lower the calories significantly.
Let's say that with your dinner, you had 2 cups of asparagus raw. That's 4 veggie servings (which you estimated at 70 cals per serving to 280 calories). In reality, 2 cups of raw asparagus is about 65-70 calories. So you can see you have a lot of wiggle room in the choices you make.
One other thing - of all the groups to sacrifice, you can usually drop a few grain servings without a lot of problems. If you find your calories are still coming in too high when making lower calorie choices, you can drop a grain serving or two and see how that feels to you.
In reality, 2 cups of raw asparagus is about 65-70 calories.
54 calories actually, according to CalorieKing.com
Vegetables, Fresh: Asparagus, raw, edible portion *
Average All Brands
Serving Size: 2 x cup (4.7 oz)
Nutrition Facts
Calories 54
Total Fat 0.3 g
Sat. Fat 0.1 g
Cholesterol 0 mg
Sodium 5 mg
Total Carbs. 10.4 g
Dietary Fiber 5.6 g
Sugars 5 g
Protein 5.9 g
Calcium 64.3 mg
Potassium 541.4 mg
FitDay puts them at the levels I quoted (well, the chicken is 106), but any food is going to vary anyway based on growing conditions, ripeness, etc. What we call the "number of calories in a chicken breast" is really the "average amount of calories in an average chicken breast". In reality, the amount of calories in that chicken breast will depend on the genetics of the chicken, how much intramuscular fat that chicken developed, etc.
Similarly, with asparagus, it depends on the ripeness of the plant...perfectly ripe asparagus has a higher sugar content than stuff that is tougher/more fibrous.
So we can "count" every calorie, but its all just estimates in reality. Thats why the numbers from CalorieKing differed from the ones in FitDay...because they are both estimates of an average that may be calculated differently from source to source.
Last edited by mandalinn82; 12-19-2008 at 04:56 PM.
Also you're averaging and estimating across a range of foods. Within each category of foods there are higher and lower calorie options. So saying 1 serving of grains is always 100 cal or 1 serving of veg is 70 cal ... well that's kinda like saying 1 pair of shoes is always $50.
Take veg:
1 serving of broccoli = 35 cals
1/2 an acorn squash = 80 cals
1 serving carrots (about 85g) = 35 cals
1 cup red cabbage = 25 cals
1 cup spinach leaves = 7 cals
Typical servings of some foods are often much larger than the number of standardized servings, but standardized servings are actually quite consistent in calories. There's usually no more than 30 calories difference between the lowest and highest exchange in most categories. The USA's Food Pyramid and I believe the Canadian Food Guide also are based on standardized servings, patterned after the diabetic food exchange plan first developed in the 1950's (while the recommended number of each serving has varied over the years, the actual exchanges themselves remain very consistent).
For example, a typical banana is generally considered two servings of fruit. Acorn squash is generally considered a starch serving, rather than a vegetable. One half cup of whole wheat pasta (about 85 calories) is one serving of starch.
I was basing off of the "1 serving = 1/2 cup or 1 serving = 2.5 ounces" statements the poster listed in her post, but you're right, Kaplods, if we're talking standardized servings, it is a whole different ballgame and they should be fairly close in calories. I'm not famililar with the Canadian Food Guide, so I can't say for certain.
For example, a typical banana is generally considered two servings of fruit. Acorn squash is generally considered a starch serving, rather than a vegetable. One half cup of whole wheat pasta (about 85 calories) is one serving of starch.
When I first started calorie counting, I began by using my Richard Simmons Deal-A-Meal cards. He listed the calorie servings as......
Protein: 75 cals for a 1 ounce serving
Veggies: 25 for a serving (half cup cooked or 1 cup raw)
Fruit: 60 calories per serving
Dairy: 90 calories per serving (example...1 cup milk)
Starches: 80 calories per serving (example...1 slice of bread or a small potato)
The individual servings were listed on the cards and you picked and chose according to what you wished to eat that day. Now I have noticed the differences in those calorie estimations in different things since the invention of the internet and am not surprised I lost 27 pounds in my first month on that plan. Calorie counts in things vary so much.
Is it just me, or does this conversation seem a bit like too much "over thinking" of the issue? You should try to reach the recommended goals...but stay within your calorie limit for weight loss. If it means a little less starch...it isn't going to kill you. If it means a 1/3 of a cup of rice instead of a 1/2 a cup...that is what you eat that day. The guidelines are "targets" not rules. And it is pretty easy to scrape 200 calories out of a diet from that 1850 level and bring that down to 1650 -- or whatever -- for a weight loss target...even inside the "rules" if you are careful. Just don't quite eat the whole recommended serving if need be if you decide to eat something on the "high" side of the calorie spectrum. If you make good, healthy choices, you are going to be just fine!
Is it just me, or does this conversation seem a bit like too much "over thinking" of the issue?
Yes! I was reluctant to say so because I feel like I've said it a lot recently.
But also I think when you're new to the whole thing, it's hard to separate all the different "truths" out there and understand how they all fit together.
Another thing that I was thinking about just a few minutes ago (Yes, I think about 3FC threads randomly and then have to come back and post ) is that this list - and the American RDA list as well ... IS NOT ABOUT WEIGHT LOSS.
That's really important to keep in mind. These are the recommended minimum amounts of the various foods groups that a healthy person should eat. And 1800 cals is a very reasonable maintenance level of calories for a lot of women.
Actually 1850-1900 is about what I am eating these days...and thus far this week, my weight has stayed rock solid at 135. You are on a roll, Photochick.
Exchange plans are one of the simplest ways to control both calories and basic nutritional elements. If you care nothing about nutrition OR if you're very knowledgeable about nutrition, or you don't want the structure of an exchange plan, you may prefer "straight" calorie counting, but I think exchange plans are fantastic for those in the middle. The structure enforces at least some balance in the diet, and the counting provides the calorie control.
The standardized servings are a lot easier to commit to memory (or keep the charts handy) than for full calorie counts (not that calorie counting is difficult, or that time consuming). With tools like Richard Simmons food mover, deal-a-meal cards, (or the free version of the cards at the tops.org website), and other online printable resources that fit easily into a wallet, you can take an exchange plan anywhere.
The biggest disadvantage (for some an advantage) is the structure of the plan, that requires that calories be "spent" on a certain number of each exchange. Although there is an exchange plan for every theory of a balanced diet (low carb exchange plans, low fat exchange plans, high fiber exchange plans - plans with more vegetable servings, plans with no dairy servings.... and for each general plan, a plan for several calorie levels).
There's certainly nothing wrong with deciding against an exchange plan, but there's nothing difficult or complicated about them. Prior to 1996, Weight Watcher's had always been an exchange plan, and I joined WW with my mother at age 8, and remember that I was able to read and understand the little program book I was given and had most common foods memorized within a few weeks.
Back in the 80's I used materials from WW's ( a friend photocopied them for me--I didn't join) and that IS exactly what it was.
I was trying to reconstruct it based upon better knowledge of food choices these days. If I remember rightly, the old WW plan allowed only 2 ervings of "bread" a day which was too restrictive for me.
Trying to make up my own plan but there's too much food!
