In other news, food is good for you

Nov 20, 2008 16:25

I am currently enjoying a delicious snack of insta-miso soup. It is warm and yummy and, combined with the dried mango and crackers I have in my desk, a very good snack ( Read more... )

political, food, gender roles

Leave a comment

Comments 9

blue_shadows9 November 20 2008, 21:34:46 UTC
Well, it's a meal if you consider that you're going to be eating three meals a day, plus snacks, plus dessert, plus drinks and you're trying to keep your between 1000 and 1500 calories a day. There was a time when I would have been thrilled to find an instant soup that was only 220 calories. Ramen's 380 per package.

Reply

crazykawaii November 20 2008, 21:50:41 UTC
People really and healthily eat only 1000 calories a day? As a sound and nutritious choice?

I mean, I know people do it, but I admit I am somewhat incredulous that that little food could be healthy for an adult.

Reply

blue_shadows9 November 20 2008, 22:07:19 UTC
No, you can't eat 1000 calories a day and be healthy. I've done that before, you know. I ate only 1000 calories a day for six weeks straight, and I got down to 104 lbs. It felt weird - like I didn't have enough weight to keep my balance or something. I did it by swearing to God that I would not go over 1000 calories a day. Not long afterward, I turned agnostic and gained ten pounds ( ... )

Reply

crazykawaii November 20 2008, 22:15:18 UTC
It felt weird - like I didn't have enough weight to keep my balance or something. I did it by swearing to God that I would not go over 1000 calories a day. Not long afterward, I turned agnostic and gained ten pounds.
I'm sorry - I didn't realize you'd gone through something like that.

The rest of what you said makes sense to me. I guess eating that little isn't as illogical as I'd thought, but still unhealthy.

Reply


katyarizhaya November 20 2008, 22:13:06 UTC
Yeah, it's a little ridiculous. But, I guess if someone just sits around all day with no physical activity, eating 1500 instead of 2000 calories would be healthier (but not as good as getting some physical activity).

Also, It's not as pathetic if you're following the (currently declared healthy) diet of smaller meals supplemented by many snacks throughout the day.

Breakfast: 300
Drink with breakfast: 50
Morning Snack 1: 150
Morning Snack 2: 100
Lunch: 220
Juice with lunch: 50
Afternoon snack 1: 150
Afternoon snack 2: 150
Dinner: 500
Drink with dinner: 50
Dessert: 400 (yay for rich desserts!)

That brings you to 2120 (I think) which is pretty decent for someone who's not working out a lot.

Yes, I'm bored at work.

Reply

crazykawaii November 20 2008, 22:21:13 UTC
Yeah, I can see someone eating that little if they were inactive - but then, it's hard for me to try and figure out what a "healthy inactive" lifestyle would be, since that's kind of an oxymoronic phrase!

Your theoretical diet plan would be the only way I could see a 220 calorie lunch being healthy- but then I wouldn't count it as meals so much as "eating constantly." :D

Reply


Lunch anonymous November 24 2008, 19:08:46 UTC
It depends . . . I mean, the awesome beef barley soup from Progresso that I LOVE is less than 300 calories per can. I can eat about one can for lunch and then I'm pretty much stuffed until 6 o'clock. Granted, I sit at a desk all day, but it's low in fat and higher in protein than eating a sandwich. Plus it's warm and tasty and makes me all full and happy! The only downside is that canned soup has TONS of sodium . . . hence the 10 glasses of water I drink a day. Sometimes stuff that's good is surprisingly low in calories. Oh well!

--Adi

Reply


Leave a comment

Up