400 Calorie Fix

gettheweightoff · Post by **gettheweightoff** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 2:44 pm

So I was standing in line at the check out buying my BLT salad for work the next day so I was prepared and I gravitated towards one of those ladies mags... you know, lose 10lbs in a week bla bla bla. I know, I know I shouldn't even look at them but it's the last part of my diet head that I am working on.

Anyways, they had this plan in there which was interesting to me inparticular and maybe some of you and here's why... NOT because I want to do this plan.. I am loyal to No-S only.

Basically you eat 3 meals a day of anything you want but it has to be around 400 calories per meal. Their "research" says it is the amount that keeps you full in order not to snack.

Here's what I took from the 400 Calorie Fix Diet that interests me. I already figured out a few weeks ago on No-S that if I eat less than 400 calories I am starving hungry and I do not count calories but I am aware enough to make sure that my breakfast for example is not too low in calories (say a banana and a coffee) and I bulk it up a bit to keep me going. I find for me each meal is around 450-500 calories give or take and that is what works best for me. 700 cals for me would make me stuffed and feel glutonous.

I'm not advocating calorie counting even though for some people it works, but if anyone is having trouble with hunger it's a good idea to try making each meal roughly 400 calories in terms of volume to keep you going.

PS. NoSRocks, is this the magazine you were talking about in one of the posts? I have to stop even looking in that direction when I'm checking out even though some of thos mags have some good tips on other areas of ones life!

wosnes · Post by **wosnes** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 3:17 pm

I mentioned the 400 calorie fix http://everydaysystems.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=6992]here. I'd seen it on The Today Show.

NoelFigart · Post by **NoelFigart** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 4:13 pm

I did do some calorie counting for a reality check back when I first started No-S. I gravitate to about a 1,500-1600 calorie day on N days.

That's between 500-550 a meal if it's ABSOLUTELY even. In reality, breakfast tends to run around 400 calories, and other meals adjusted accordingly.

But, I only do that from time to time as a reality check rather than anything I'd ever consider keeping up in the long run.

Blithe Morning · Post by **Blithe Morning** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 6:14 pm

Trying to get all your nutritional needs met in 400 calories a day takes a lot more work than I'm willing to invest in my diet.

With a plateful, it's right there in front of me. Veggies? Check. Carb? check. Protein? Check.

If I'm feeling the need to dial back the calories for whatever reason, I can make sure the more calorie dense foods are on the healthier end of the spectrum - whole wheat bread instead of a chunk of sourdough.

Since I have managed to over commit myself YET AGAIN (I need a life system for that) I appreciate not having to use the space in my brain for calories.

NoSRocks · Post by **NoSRocks** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 11:46 pm

Hi Nicole! Yes, it was indeed the diet plan I was referring to... I think I might have mentioned it in further detail in one of my posts.

Like your good self, I too found the diet intruiging for all of 5 minutes - particularly when it stated that you can eat 400 calories of anything including junk food and STILL lose weight! That basically all that mattered was you stuck to the 400 cal rule for each meal for the pounds to come off. Now for a food junkie and sweetaholic like me, that method of eating has disaster written all over it! It would be like being given carte blanche to eat whatever I want and undoubtedly when I wanted!

Another very important point: I know it's not particularly helpful (understatement) to brand foods as "good" or "bad" , however nutrition-wise: eating 400 calories' worth of dessert at every meal can hardly be nutritious nor beneficial to one's health.

gettheweightoff · Post by **gettheweightoff** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:21 pm

What makes it more disastrous is that counting calories is diet mode and for me at least the moment I go over a certain calorie allottment then I think I failed and then that can lead to an all out binge for me. Also, I don't want to be calorie counting so this is just not for me.

wosnes · Post by **wosnes** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:32 pm

gettheweightoff wrote:What makes it more disastrous is that counting calories is diet mode and for me at least the moment I go over a certain calorie allottment then I think I failed and then that can lead to an all out binge for me. Also, I don't want to be calorie counting so this is just not for me.

I would never consider following this plan (a calorie-counter I'm not), but I think getting an idea of what "normal" portions or servings or even meals should look like could be helpful for some people. We have such portion distortion here that many people don't know what a normal portion looks like.

For instance, the french fries I made last night. One potato looked like a really small portion compared to what we're used to being served. But it was enough.

NoelFigart · Post by **NoelFigart** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 5:13 pm

wosnes, a friend of mine (disclaimer: She does Weight Watchers) noticed that as I was making lunches for today that I got out mini-bagels for part of it. She commented, "I get those. I hate it that they're called mini-bagels, as that's a real-sized portion for a bagel. Those monstrosities they sell now are actually two or three servings!"

She's right.

We've started calling mini-bagels "Regular-sized".

wosnes · Post by **wosnes** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 5:22 pm

NoelFigart wrote:wosnes, a friend of mine (disclaimer: She does Weight Watchers) noticed that as I was making lunches for today that I got out mini-bagels for part of it. She commented, "I get those. I hate it that they're called mini-bagels, as that's a real-sized portion for a bagel. Those monstrosities they sell now are actually two or three servings!"

She's right.

We've started calling mini-bagels "Regular-sized".

I agree. I've started seeing those bagel "thins" in the store recently. The diameter is the same as the huge bagels, but they're half as thick. I don't know that I'll buy any, but I have seen them.

Kevin · Post by **Kevin** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 11:28 pm

It sort of seems oxymoronic. A bagel, by definition, is boiled first (so the inside is cooked, but chewy) then baked (so the outside is crunchy). If it's a "thin", it's just bagel-shaped bread.

I've had them. I wanted the "everything" toppings on sandwich bread. They were... okay.

wosnes wrote:
NoelFigart wrote:wosnes, a friend of mine (disclaimer: She does Weight Watchers) noticed that as I was making lunches for today that I got out mini-bagels for part of it. She commented, "I get those. I hate it that they're called mini-bagels, as that's a real-sized portion for a bagel. Those monstrosities they sell now are actually two or three servings!"

She's right.

We've started calling mini-bagels "Regular-sized".
I agree. I've started seeing those bagel "thins" in the store recently. The diameter is the same as the huge bagels, but they're half as thick. I don't know that I'll buy any, but I have seen them.

Blithe Morning · Post by **Blithe Morning** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 11:42 pm

NoelFigart wrote:wosnes, a friend of mine (disclaimer: She does Weight Watchers) noticed that as I was making lunches for today that I got out mini-bagels for part of it. She commented, "I get those. I hate it that they're called mini-bagels, as that's a real-sized portion for a bagel. Those monstrosities they sell now are actually two or three servings!"

She's right.

We've started calling mini-bagels "Regular-sized".

I've noticed that even the Lender's bagels which used to be a nice size seem to have gotten bigger.