As I'm working on fine-tuning this maintenance thing after reaching goal three months ago, I've noticed that I generally prefer to eat larger portions of one or two foods rather than little mini-portions of four or five different foods. For example, I find it more satisfying to eat 500 calories' worth of stove-topped popcorn for lunch than a mini-bag of popcorn, a half an apple, a cheese string, etc. Going for volume rather than variety allows me to more fully "experience" the foods I choose to eat, which I find satisfying. It's probably not the optimal way to structure meals, but as long as most of my choices are healthy I figure it balances out over the longer term. Any thoughts from the rest of you?
Freelance
Last edited by freelancemomma; 01-28-2012 at 10:02 PM.
There's some research to suggest that you eat less naturally when variety is limited in a meal. So, sounds like a good strategy. I have this tendency towards balancing macronutrients within each meal- so I prob wouldn't eat only popcorn for a meal or snack- I'd need some protein with it.
Your post reminded me of something I once read in that book French Women Don't Get Fat. One of the differences the author had noted between how American women ate & how French women ate is that the latter ate small portions of many different foods at meals while American women ate large portions of just a couple of foods. I fit that American model, but I actually enjoy a meal better if I have many different foods, but it's a pain in the neck to prepare all that.
What goldendoodle pointed out is a bit different fr/ what I've read: I've read that people who routinely eat the same foods tend to weigh less. So, for example, if someone always eats cereal for breakfast, tuna sandwich for lunch, etc., they tend to eat fewer calories. I'm prone to believing that since when I go grocery shopping and have lots of different foods in my refrigerator to choose from, I tend to overeat. That's different from just having a variety of foods on my plate, though; that doesn't seem to make me overeat.
I would think, though, that in terms of weight loss, it's more about calories in/calories out. So, if what you're doing works for you, keep at it.
<<So, if what you're doing works for you, keep at it.>>
Yeah, I'm pretty confident that this aspect of my plan is working. I just don't enjoy meals as much when they consist of a few nibbles of many foods. Different strokes, and all that....
Huh, this is interesting research that you guys are talking about.
I feel like I eat much more when I have variety. Being able to mix up my pallet and keep it guessing, prevents it from being bored, and so I can eat way more than if I was just eating one thing. Like Freelance, I prefer eating a filling portion of one or two things in a meal than a variety of little things.
I'm part of the camp where I would like to have a little bit of everything. I enjoy tasting things, but that's it—I just need the taste. Once I have it there is little need to have more of it
Generally I do stick to the same foods for breakfast and lunch, but dinner is where I get my variety.
I have the variety and non-variety at the same time. I believe that variety gives me all the different nutrients (like different vitamins) that I need and sparks up my taste buds, but I achieve the variety with low-calorie & vitamin-rich foods. For example, I have oatmeal or rice pudding every morning, but I vary what I add to them - spices, nuts, cocoa powder, different fruits and berries, yoghurt - to have a little variety from day to day. Then for lunch I have meat, poultry or tuna, but I mix them with lots of different vegetables and cook them differently every day. For dinner I like to have a creamy vegetable soup, but I use different vegetables every day. This is my system for having variety and not having it at the same time
Volume vs. variety
