Page 1 of 2 [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

27 Jun 2019, 12:07 pm

The common wisdom says that pasta is fattening. But when I look at the pasta package, its only 190 calories, and I could cook it to eat like three plates. So this would suggest one can lose weight with pasta, at least calorie-wise. So why do people say the opposite? Is it because it is bad calories?

But I remember when I went to nutritionist three years ago, she told me it doesn't matter if it is good or bad calories. What matters is total number of calories, and the only reason I should worry about "what" I eat is that I want to feel full so that once I reach my calorie limit I am not tempted to eat more calories. Well, if I take her logic, then pasta is quite feeling. So eating 190 calories and feeling full -- by eating that pasta package -- seems like an ideal.

Well, I went to her three years ago and I noticed this thing about pasta packages only a month ago, so I didn't have a chance to ask her that question. What do you people think about this one?



KikiKitty678
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2019
Age: 26
Posts: 400
Location: United States

28 Jun 2019, 7:29 am

QFT wrote:
The common wisdom says that pasta is fattening. But when I look at the pasta package, its only 190 calories, and I could cook it to eat like three plates. So this would suggest one can lose weight with pasta, at least calorie-wise. So why do people say the opposite? Is it because it is bad calories?

But I remember when I went to nutritionist three years ago, she told me it doesn't matter if it is good or bad calories. What matters is total number of calories, and the only reason I should worry about "what" I eat is that I want to feel full so that once I reach my calorie limit I am not tempted to eat more calories. Well, if I take her logic, then pasta is quite feeling. So eating 190 calories and feeling full -- by eating that pasta package -- seems like an ideal.

Well, I went to her three years ago and I noticed this thing about pasta packages only a month ago, so I didn't have a chance to ask her that question. What do you people think about this one?


Many people would not consider 190 calories of pasta a decent portion, that’s why. If you do, that’s awesome, enjoy your pasta! But I don’t think most people would lol.



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

28 Jun 2019, 9:54 am

KikiKitty678 wrote:
Many people would not consider 190 calories of pasta a decent portion, that’s why. If you do, that’s awesome, enjoy your pasta! But I don’t think most people would lol.


Well, like I said, they were like three plates or so in terms of a volume -- and I am not talking about small plates, I am talking about good sized plates. I mean, to put it another way, it was probably like half a pot, and I am talking about a really large pot. So if most people eat one plate per meal, and they eat three times a day, then yes, it would be enough for them for the day.

So how is it not enough? Are you saying most people eat more than one plate of pasta even if its a large plate? Or are you saying that when they are filled with one plate, its a different "kind" of pasta that doesn't expand as much -- so with the kind of pasta I buy they would eat more? Or what are you saying?



BiffGriff
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

Joined: 21 May 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 20
Location: out of my mind

28 Jun 2019, 8:15 pm

I think you might have a misconception on what constitutes a serving of pasta. If you look at a 16oz. box of dry pasta, it says that each serving is about 200 calories - but there are 8 servings in a 16oz. box.

If you are getting 8 servings of pasta out of that box, then you are doing great and are eating about 200 calories per serving. But it sounds like you might be getting 3 servings out of that box, which means you are pushing 600 calories per serving.

And don't forget, these calorie counts don't include any sauce on the pasta either. Depending on the sauce, you could be adding many more calories.



BTDT
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,620

28 Jun 2019, 8:25 pm

I weigh 108lbs and eat 2oz or 200calories of pasta in meal with a couple ounces of meat and a spaghetti sauce. As well as a salad and desert to complete the meal.



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

28 Jun 2019, 8:34 pm

BiffGriff wrote:
I think you might have a misconception on what constitutes a serving of pasta. If you look at a 16oz. box of dry pasta, it says that each serving is about 200 calories - but there are 8 servings in a 16oz. box.

If you are getting 8 servings of pasta out of that box, then you are doing great and are eating about 200 calories per serving. But it sounds like you might be getting 3 servings out of that box, which means you are pushing 600 calories per serving.

And don't forget, these calorie counts don't include any sauce on the pasta either. Depending on the sauce, you could be adding many more calories.


It says 210 calories per serving and 3.5 servings per container. So that would be 735 calories, and it takes me the whole day to eat that container. As far as sauce, I have those cubes I put in before I book it. It says 15 calories per cube. So if I put 4 cubes that is 60 more calories. So instead of 735 calories I have 795 calories -- per day (! !!) -- which is still very little.



nick007
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 26,207
Location: was Louisiana but now Vermont in the police state called USA

29 Jun 2019, 9:38 am

I think some people think eating pasta is bad because of the carbs(carbohydrates). Some people go on or push a diet that is low in carbs to lose weight.


_________________
"I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem!"
~King Of The Hill


"Hear all, trust nothing"
~Ferengi Rule Of Acquisition #190
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Ru ... cquisition


oddnumberedcat
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 1 Aug 2017
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 54

05 Jul 2019, 11:18 pm

As a recovered anorexic...

there is a lot of misinformation about nutrition out there. It's sort of a bastion of complete psuedoscience.

At the end of the day, it is calories in, calories out. You can't defy the law of physics. If you eat 200 calories of a cookie or 200 calories of salad, either way, you'll lose weight. One is not inherently more fattening than another.

With that said, it's much easier to overeat on certain types of food, pasta being one. Moreover, certain types of food get digested more quickly and/or are more satiating than others. You're more likely to feel hungry soon after eating X calories of pure sugar than X calories of beans, since beans take a while to digest and have more volume, for instance.

Most people don't measure what they eat exactly, obviously, so it's easy to overeat on certain types of foods. Hence myths about certain types of food being "fattening." Pasta's totally fine to eat from a pure calorie perspective, but it's worth making sure you moderate portions.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 57,994
Location: Stendec

05 Jul 2019, 11:36 pm

QFT wrote:
The common wisdom says that pasta is fattening. But when I look at the pasta package, its only 190 calories, and I could cook it to eat like three plates. So this would suggest one can lose weight with pasta, at least calorie-wise. So why do people say the opposite? Is it because it is bad calories? ...
I suspect that it has more to do with the facts that (1) pasta is cheap, and (2) branded foods are expensive.

I don't know if you've noticed this or not, but the common 'wisdom' is that the cheaper the food, the worse it is for you, while the only foods that are supposed to be good for you are also more expensive.


_________________
 
• Veritas Illuminata • Semper Illuminans • Custodiamus Veritas •
• Et Serviunt Qui Non Videntur •


BTDT
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,620

06 Jul 2019, 4:15 am

If the box says eight servings, divide up a package of pasta into eight portion sizes and cook a single portion at a time. Doesn't have to be exact, it will average out over as you eat the entire box.



PearlsofWisdom
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2018
Gender: Female
Posts: 477

07 Jul 2019, 8:29 am

QFT wrote:
The common wisdom says that pasta is fattening. But when I look at the pasta package, its only 190 calories, and I could cook it to eat like three plates. So this would suggest one can lose weight with pasta, at least calorie-wise. So why do people say the opposite? Is it because it is bad calories?

Well, I went three years ago and I noticed this thing about pasta packages only a month ago, so I didn't have a chance to ask her that question. What do you people think about this one?


You've got different calorie intakes in metabolic carbs and the calories measure up your fat intake. Chive Noodles might not seem a lot for instance, but it will probably contain more salt in processed packaging.
You also have full wheat germ pasta which is probably best found in macaroni and cheese, but if you go for more gluten free options, all of that intake will be lower anyway. You are referring to refined pasta when you need wholegrain, as it contains more added fibre. Quinoa is probably the best and you can mix and match flavours better.
Gluten free meatballs can be added as part of the meal.

Image

Image



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

07 Jul 2019, 12:46 pm

PearlsofWisdom wrote:
QFT wrote:
The common wisdom says that pasta is fattening. But when I look at the pasta package, its only 190 calories, and I could cook it to eat like three plates. So this would suggest one can lose weight with pasta, at least calorie-wise. So why do people say the opposite? Is it because it is bad calories?

Well, I went three years ago and I noticed this thing about pasta packages only a month ago, so I didn't have a chance to ask her that question. What do you people think about this one?


You've got different calorie intakes in metabolic carbs and the calories measure up your fat intake. Chive Noodles might not seem a lot for instance, but it will probably contain more salt in processed packaging.
You also have full wheat germ pasta which is probably best found in macaroni and cheese, but if you go for more gluten free options, all of that intake will be lower anyway. You are referring to refined pasta when you need wholegrain, as it contains more added fibre. Quinoa is probably the best and you can mix and match flavours better.
Gluten free meatballs can be added as part of the meal.


I was talking about the raw pasta that I still had to cook, as opposed to pre-cooked one. And no, it didn't have any ingredients. Basically, it was up to me to find what ingredients I wanted to add, and then cook it. Of course, extra ingredients meant more calories. But I "chose" not to put any extra ingredients -- other than four spice squares, which is only 15 calories per square -- thats why I am wondering why wouldn't I lose weight if I cook it in the specific way I chose to cook it?



PearlsofWisdom
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2018
Gender: Female
Posts: 477

08 Jul 2019, 6:17 am

QFT wrote:
PearlsofWisdom wrote:
QFT wrote:
The common wisdom says that pasta is fattening. But when I look at the pasta package, its only 190 calories, and I could cook it to eat like three plates. So this would suggest one can lose weight with pasta, at least calorie-wise. So why do people say the opposite? Is it because it is bad calories?

So eating 190 calories and feeling full -- by eating that pasta package -- seems like an ideal.

Well, I went three years ago and I noticed this thing about pasta packages only a month ago, so I didn't have a chance to ask her that question. What do you people think about this one?


You've got different calorie intakes in metabolic carbs and the calories measure up your fat intake. Chive Noodles might not seem a lot for instance, but it will probably contain more salt in processed packaging.
You also have full wheat germ pasta which is probably best found in macaroni and cheese, but if you go for more gluten free options, all of that intake will be lower anyway. You are referring to refined pasta when you need wholegrain, as it contains more added fibre. Quinoa is probably the best and you can mix and match flavours better.
Gluten free meatballs can be added as part of the meal.


I was talking about the raw pasta that I still had to cook, as opposed to pre-cooked one. And no, it didn't have any ingredients. Basically, it was up to me to find what ingredients I wanted to add, and then cook it. Of course, extra ingredients meant more calories. But I "chose" not to put any extra ingredients -- other than four spice squares, which is only 15 calories per square -- thats why I am wondering why wouldn't I lose weight if I cook it in the specific way I chose to cook it?


I was just giving out some of my examples. If you choose not to add any flavour to pasta, to me that would seem rather an impersonal choice, given the varied variety of the ranges of pasta.
The way you cook it I guess depends on the strip range of the style of pasta grain. You also said something about 'pasta packages', so no, I have no idea what you meant, now.



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

08 Jul 2019, 8:52 am

PearlsofWisdom wrote:
QFT wrote:
PearlsofWisdom wrote:
QFT wrote:
The common wisdom says that pasta is fattening. But when I look at the pasta package, its only 190 calories, and I could cook it to eat like three plates. So this would suggest one can lose weight with pasta, at least calorie-wise. So why do people say the opposite? Is it because it is bad calories?

So eating 190 calories and feeling full -- by eating that pasta package -- seems like an ideal.

Well, I went three years ago and I noticed this thing about pasta packages only a month ago, so I didn't have a chance to ask her that question. What do you people think about this one?


You've got different calorie intakes in metabolic carbs and the calories measure up your fat intake. Chive Noodles might not seem a lot for instance, but it will probably contain more salt in processed packaging.
You also have full wheat germ pasta which is probably best found in macaroni and cheese, but if you go for more gluten free options, all of that intake will be lower anyway. You are referring to refined pasta when you need wholegrain, as it contains more added fibre. Quinoa is probably the best and you can mix and match flavours better.
Gluten free meatballs can be added as part of the meal.


I was talking about the raw pasta that I still had to cook, as opposed to pre-cooked one. And no, it didn't have any ingredients. Basically, it was up to me to find what ingredients I wanted to add, and then cook it. Of course, extra ingredients meant more calories. But I "chose" not to put any extra ingredients -- other than four spice squares, which is only 15 calories per square -- thats why I am wondering why wouldn't I lose weight if I cook it in the specific way I chose to cook it?


I was just giving out some of my examples. If you choose not to add any flavour to pasta, to me that would seem rather an impersonal choice, given the varied variety of the ranges of pasta.
The way you cook it I guess depends on the strip range of the style of pasta grain. You also said something about 'pasta packages', so no, I have no idea what you meant, now.


I think its an english problem: there is problably some one-word term for it which I don't know. What I am trying to describe is a plastic in square form, probably its size is 5 inch by 3 inch by 1 inch (I don't know exactly just guessing), and inside of it is pasta square of this same size, but its really really solid, cause it wasn't cooked. If you try to eat it that way, you will be making crunching sounds. But instead of just eating it this way you boil it in water and add whatever you want to add. Do you know what I mean?



Luhluhluh
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Dec 2016
Gender: Female
Posts: 755

08 Jul 2019, 7:31 pm

QFT wrote:
The common wisdom says that pasta is fattening. But when I look at the pasta package, its only 190 calories, and I could cook it to eat like three plates. So this would suggest one can lose weight with pasta, at least calorie-wise. So why do people say the opposite? Is it because it is bad calories?

But I remember when I went to nutritionist three years ago, she told me it doesn't matter if it is good or bad calories. What matters is total number of calories, and the only reason I should worry about "what" I eat is that I want to feel full so that once I reach my calorie limit I am not tempted to eat more calories. Well, if I take her logic, then pasta is quite feeling. So eating 190 calories and feeling full -- by eating that pasta package -- seems like an ideal.

Well, I went to her three years ago and I noticed this thing about pasta packages only a month ago, so I didn't have a chance to ask her that question. What do you people think about this one?


It lists the calorie content of one SERVING of pasta.

Like for example, I have a box of Barilla mostaccioli in my cabinet. On the side of the box, it says "Nutrition Facts" and says that a serving size is 2 ounces (or 56 grams) of pasta = 200 calories.

Furthermore, it says that there are 8 servings per container.

That means if you eat the entire box of pasta, you have consumed 1,600 calories.


_________________
That which does not kill us makes us stranger.


QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

08 Jul 2019, 9:49 pm

Luhluhluh wrote:
QFT wrote:
The common wisdom says that pasta is fattening. But when I look at the pasta package, its only 190 calories, and I could cook it to eat like three plates. So this would suggest one can lose weight with pasta, at least calorie-wise. So why do people say the opposite? Is it because it is bad calories?

But I remember when I went to nutritionist three years ago, she told me it doesn't matter if it is good or bad calories. What matters is total number of calories, and the only reason I should worry about "what" I eat is that I want to feel full so that once I reach my calorie limit I am not tempted to eat more calories. Well, if I take her logic, then pasta is quite feeling. So eating 190 calories and feeling full -- by eating that pasta package -- seems like an ideal.

Well, I went to her three years ago and I noticed this thing about pasta packages only a month ago, so I didn't have a chance to ask her that question. What do you people think about this one?


It lists the calorie content of one SERVING of pasta.

Like for example, I have a box of Barilla mostaccioli in my cabinet. On the side of the box, it says "Nutrition Facts" and says that a serving size is 2 ounces (or 56 grams) of pasta = 200 calories.

Furthermore, it says that there are 8 servings per container.

That means if you eat the entire box of pasta, you have consumed 1,600 calories.


In my case it was 210 calories per serving and 3.5 servings per container, so it was more than twice less than what you had. In my case I could eat "just" that for the whole day and not be hungry. So in your case, since your thing is twice larger, you might be able to eat half of it within the whole day -- thus get only 800 calories a day. Thus, both of us would end up losing a lot of weight -- at least calorie-wise -- unless, of course, some calories are more fattening than others.