Choose the better choice, please...

[BikeSwimLaugh]

Like many of you, I'm into reading labels on foods I buy/eat. I often start my mornings with a cup of yogurt, the dairy component is reputed to help breakdown abdominal fat and it's a healthy choice.

Here are the labels from 2 yogurts I prefer, both are the same size (6 ounces) and each taste about the same. Without mentioning name-brand or minor details (sodium, cholesterol, etc)....I'd like to ask everyone which they think is the better choice:

Brand A
Total calories 80
Total Fat 1.5g
Sat Fat 1g
Total Carb 4g
fiber 1g
sugars 3g
Protein 12g


Brand B
Total calories 60
Total Fat 0g
Total Carb 11g
sugars 7g
fiber 0g
Protein 5g

So let's take a look-see....

Brand A outright has more calories, but 20 cals isn't really all that much....technically you can burn that with 2+ minutes of exercise, still, it adds up. Given that most yogurts are about 100-170 cals, I don't think this is a big deal, so it's the components that we're dealing with. Brand A has 12g of protein, more then 2x then the other. It also is low on carbs, effectively yielding a mere 3g (4g less 1g fiber), so the calories are made of protein and some fat. The fat is has is saturated, but it too is relatively low. Sems like this is the keto-choice and typical of the low-carb/high-protein thing.

Brand B is lower in calories. No matter how you cut it, the overall caloric contribution is less, can't get around that. Protein is relatively low and the carbs are way up there at 11g, much of it coming from sugar. The upside is that is has no fat at all. I won't kid ya, this yogurt taste better and it has less calories, but I can't quite get past the carbs.....but at 60 cals, we're not talking much.

So of these 2 choices, if you HAD to buy yogurt, which would you buy? And let me add this (cause each of us has a different goal).....in terms of being in a calorie deficit or cut, which one is more apt to be the better choice for weight-loss?

 

[Chillen]

Out of these two choices (only), I would select A, as long as it DID NOT have HFC or refined white sugar in it (I absolutely hate both of them).The sats are low, and we do need a small amount in the diet. The sugar grams would come from lactose IF artificially sweetened, AND if there isnt any "hidden" forms of sugar within the ingredients label. If A or B has HFC or refined white sugar, or any undesirable "hidden" sugars, I would choose niether. 3g is very low anyway (with A).

The calories between them are a mute point, IMO, a 20 calorie difference.

And, as far as yogurt having ingredients to break down ab fat = :yelrotflmao: <-----------------

I care more about my personal total "caloric ranges" and what my "logged history" tells me (and macro-nutrient manipulation personal history) that are solicitating results, then ANY so-called fat break down in foods.

One can adapt and overcome anything with a logged personal history.....when they apply enough to implement it--correctly-and use it to adapt--correctly.


Rock On everyone!

For nearly every I CANT there is an opposite: I CAN......FIND IT!






Best regards,


Chillen

 

[BikeSwimLaugh]

Evidently my man Chillen couldn't come up with a rhyme for yogurt

Interesting pick. The "A" does have far less carbs, but the "B" has fewer calories. It'll be fun to see how this poll develops.....

 

[billyrunner]

which yoghurt

I get into this shopping aisle paralysis sometimes too..! For me anything 0% fat is more likely to be kind of junky diet food - which I try to avoid (like artificial sweeteners). Plus theres a gram of fibre in yog A so that's my choice for a healthy heart, and gut, and it helps steady the blood sugar etc. But have you tried making your own? Easy peasy and fresh fresh fresh.

 

[Wrangell]

Like many of you, I'm into reading labels on foods I buy/eat. I often start my mornings with a cup of yogurt, the dairy component is reputed to help breakdown abdominal fat and it's a healthy choice.

Here are the labels from 2 yogurts I prefer, both are the same size (6 ounces) and each taste about the same.

Brand A
Total calories 80
Total Fat 1.5g
Protein 12g


Brand B
Total calories 60
Total Fat 0g
Protein 5g

Unless you plan on eating something like 30 of these yogurts a day - you're only eating one a day at breakfast as it is for crying out loud - I'd just flip a coin....in other words, it doesn't matter IMO. Or, have brand A one day, and brand B the next and alternate back and forth. Or simpler yet, just pick the one that gives either the the least or most amount of the particular nutrient you're concerned about.

The difference in nutrient profile between the 2 in terms of how they contribute toward your overall daily caloric, protein and fat intake is negligible at best - even more so, given the fact you weight 240 lbs. and have to take in lot of calories relatively speaking to sustain your level of training. Within this context, the variance of 20 calories a day and 1.5 grams of fat etc. between the 2 is a non- issue IMO.

Sweating the details to this extent between virtually identical food items of relatively low calorie and fat etc. content is just going into some unwarranted ' analysis paralysis ' IMO. Besides, why don't you just e-mail your nutritionist Alan and ask him which yogurt to eat - that's what you're paying him for after all isn't it - nutritional advice.

btw - how does one yogurt a day help " breakdown abdominal fat " ?

 

[tonymcclellan]

protein ftw

 

[amp89]

Definitely brand A. Although it has 20 more calories, it has way more protein and some fat which together will fill you up way longer than the small amount of protein and 7g of sugar in brand b, which will leave you hungry very soon after you eat it. If it fills you up you end up eating less later on. Basically, its healthier and will most likely end up in a small overall caloric intake over the course of the day than brand b, albeit a small difference.

 

[spicypumpkin]

Absolutely, I would choose A.

The fact that it has more calories won me over right away. It also has the fat it's supposed to have (fat free yogurt just doesn't seem natural to me), and it's low in sugars which aren't supposed to be there.

 

[BikeSwimLaugh]

Unless you plan on eating something like 30 of these yogurts a day - you're only eating one a day at breakfast as it is for crying out loud - I'd just flip a coin....in other words, it doesn't matter IMO. Or, have brand A one day, and brand B the next and alternate back and forth.

The difference in nutrient profile between the 2 in terms of how they contribute toward your overall daily caloric, protein and fat intake is negligible at best - even more so, given the fact you weight 240 lbs. and have to take in lot of calories relatively speaking to sustain your level of training. Within this context, the variance of 20 calories a day and 1.5 grams of fat etc. between the 2 is a non- issue IMO.

btw - how does one yogurt a day help " breakdown abdominal fat " ?

Wrangell.....chill; I'm not stressing-out over this. FWIW, I do alternate, but just for flavor. Of course we're splitting hairs in terms of the overall caloric profile. FWIW, Alan said it didn't matter and laughed, then he said he'd probably be inclined towards the higher-protein one.

I just read labels and found this comparison interesting. The Brand A is Ralph's Carb-Master and the Brand B is Dannon's Fit & Lite. The Dannon taste great, the Carb-Master is just jacked with Sucralose and you can taste how something just isn't right.

Truth be told, I know the "A" has more protein and a bit of essential fat so it's the prudent comparative choice....but the B taste so much better that I prefer it and I figured calorie-per-calorie is was less, so why not. These things make great snacks, I often sprinkle-in some Grape Nuts, lite-granola and other small amounts of healthy cereals. Like I said, I'm not worried about it, just wondering where other people would weigh-in on this label query.

Oh...as far as abdominal fat. I've had a couple nutritionist tell me that having some dairy-based yogurt first-thing in the morning has some beneficial qualities that aid (in particular) in burning abdominal fat. I rather doubt it, but here's some info on it (probably compliments of the Dairy board, eh?):

In a second study, published this year in The International Journal of Obesity, Dr. Zemel followed 34 healthy obese adults over 12 weeks. Those who ate three servings of yogurt daily lost more weight and body fat than the group consuming only one serving of dairy a day.

Other studies have suggested that calcium may play a role in the regulation of body weight. The Heritage Family Study, published last year in the Journal of Nutrition, found an association between calcium intake and body fat, especially abdominal fat, in men and white women.

Dairy foods may also protect against insulin resistance syndrome (IRS), also known as metabolic syndrome, which increases the risk of cardiovascular disease and Type 2 diabetes. The Cardia study, published in 2002 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, followed 3,157 adults ages 30 and under for 10 years; it found that each additional daily serving of dairy was associated with a 21 percent lower risk of IRS.


Wrangell.....don't worry too much about me. Just today I spent the better part building a float for my girl's Brownie Troop for the parade tomorrow: many of the woman (mom's) gave me major prop's for having majorly lost weight, trimmed-up and gotten fit. Funny; they all ask "so how much weight have you lost?"...to which I smile and say "very little!" and then proceed to explain. Getting right to it, I'm feeling good about where I am and where I'm headed....I was just tossing this out for discussion and to keep the board moving.

 

[DEF]

Yeah, A. And for Chillen, will always rhyme with yogurt.

 

[Chillen]

Yeah, A. And for Chillen, will always rhyme with yogurt.

Well, since I was called out: (LOL)

Be on ALERT and aware of the fat loss DIRT with YOGURT!

I ASSERT, I will unzip my pants and take a SQUIRT on this DIRT connected to YOGURT, and take off my SHIRT and eat the basics of diet and fitness for my DESERT..........

Remain UNHURT and do not CONVERT and you will dance at your own weight loss CONCERT.


Chillen will not FLIRT with this friggen DIRT on YOGURT and will always remain on ALERT and never REVERT.

Case closed.


Best wishes,


Chillen

 

[tjl]

I just read labels and found this comparison interesting. The Brand A is Ralph's Carb-Master and the Brand B is Dannon's Fit & Lite. The Dannon taste great, the Carb-Master is just jacked with Sucralose and you can taste how something just isn't right.

Why not just plain yogurt, instead of the sweetened flavored kinds (whether the sweetener is actual sugar or something like sucralose)? Plain yogurt is readily available in whole and skim milk versions.

 

[Wrangell]

Wrangell.....chill; I'm not stressing-out over this. FWIW, I do alternate, but just for flavor. Of course we're splitting hairs in terms of the overall caloric profile. FWIW, Alan said it didn't matter and laughed, then he said he'd probably be inclined towards the higher-protein one.

That was my comment as well...." it doesn't matter IMO ".

Alan's a good man.....I agree with him.

I just read labels and found this comparison interesting. The Brand A is Ralph's Carb-Master and the Brand B is Dannon's Fit & Lite. The Dannon taste great, the Carb-Master is just jacked with Sucralose and you can taste how something just isn't right.

Truth be told, I know the "A" has more protein and a bit of essential fat so it's the prudent comparative choice....but the B taste so much better that I prefer it and I figured calorie-per-calorie is was less, so why not. These things make great snacks, I often sprinkle-in some Grape Nuts, lite-granola and other small amounts of healthy cereals. Like I said, I'm not worried about it, just wondering where other people would weigh-in on this label query.

Like I said before, given the difference of 20 calories, protein etc. is so minor, then I'd do just that - just eat the one that you prefer.

All other things being equal, it's kinda like trying to decide whether to take on 3,000 or 3,020 calories. So there's no real need to sweat the details ( i.e nutrient profiles ) in this case IMO

Wrangell.....don't worry too much about me. Just today I spent the better part building a float for my girl's Brownie Troop for the parade tomorrow: many of the woman (mom's) gave me major prop's for having majorly lost weight, trimmed-up and gotten fit. Funny; they all ask "so how much weight have you lost?"...to which I smile and say "very little!" and then proceed to explain. Getting right to it, I'm feeling good about where I am and where I'm headed....I was just tossing this out for discussion and to keep the board moving.

But in your journal you said you lost over 55 lbs.of fat - with a net weight loss of over 40 lbs. - as a result of exercise and diet and dropped your body fat % from around 27% to 12% - 15%.

So when someone asks you " how much weight have you lost? ", I don't think a reply of " very little! " is entirely accurate IMO...being 5'8" and losing 55 lbs of fat on that sort of frame is a LOT of weight loss IMO.

So, the facts are , you HAVE " majorly lost weight, trimmed-up and gotten fit "...not sure where you get ' very little ' from.

 

[tjl]

So when someone asks you " how much weight have you lost? ", I don't think a reply of " very little! " is entirely accurate IMO...being 5'8" and losing 55 lbs of fat on that sort of frame is a LOT of weight loss IMO.

It is a lot of fat loss, even though he did not lose much weight. Explained properly, that might be a good way for BSL to jar some of those women out of the mentality that fails to distinguish between losing weight and losing fat. For example, if he told those women "I lost very little weight, but I lost 55 pounds of fat", that might get them thinking that the weight scale is not the arbiter of fitness.

 

[Wrangell]

It is a lot of fat loss, even though he did not lose much weight. Explained properly, that might be a good way for BSL to jar some of those women out of the mentality that fails to distinguish between losing weight and losing fat. For example, if he told those women "I lost very little weight, but I lost 55 pounds of fat", that might get them thinking that the weight scale is not the arbiter of fitness.

Well said....I agree.

 

[theGOOCH]

I'd have to know the actual ingredients

 

[realworksuks]

That was my comment as well...." it doesn't matter IMO ".

Alan's a good man.....I agree with him.

who is this Alan guy I always hear you and BSL talking about? Just curious..

Yeah, I picked choice A though btw mainly cuz it has less sugar and carbs.

 

[Wrangell]

That was my comment as well...." it doesn't matter IMO ".

Alan's a good man.....I agree with him.

who is this Alan guy I always hear you and BSL talking about? Just curious..

Yeah, I picked choice A though btw mainly cuz it has less sugar and carbs.

Alan Aragon........

- Bachelor of Science in Nutrition.

- Master of Science in Nutrition.

 

[BikeSwimLaugh]

It is a lot of fat loss, even though he did not lose much weight. Explained properly, that might be a good way for BSL to jar some of those women out of the mentality that fails to distinguish between losing weight and losing fat. For example, if he told those women "I lost very little weight, but I lost 55 pounds of fat", that might get them thinking that the weight scale is not the arbiter of fitness.

I agree with Wrangell too....that's a VERY effective way of explaining it.

Ya know, a lot of people suggest to me not to worry about what other people think or offer them my weight-loss info. The thing is, these are not cruel, nasty or malicious people....these are friends who are genuinely impressed & intrigued with what I've been doing; telling them it's none of their business or refusing to answer is just not part of a proper response.

What I find myself saying is "Well, as the scale goes I've dropped about 27 pounds but the body-fat% indicates towards about 50+ pounds of fat lost and some serious gain of lean-muscle"....this is SoCal; almost everyone understands that!

The thing I hate is this: if you ask one of my racquetball buddies how they played, they'll generally start with how their arm was hurting, they didn't get a full-night sleep, etc....it's all preemtpive excuses for poor performance. In the similar manner, I HATE having to preempt my explanation for my lack of scale progress....it sounds like an excuse almost along the same lines of obese woman talking about water-retention (while we all know they have huge frequent fryer points at KFC). Hehehehe: frequent fryer points, lol. That's good stuff, some comedian will pick that up.....

Wrangell, to answer your question...in the last 5 months I've been stagnant on the scale and in fact have gained weight. When people ask how I've been doing, I don't date-back to a year+ ago to the beginning....I work with more of a 4-month event horizon.

But guys...really: my head is in a good place with everything. The scale is never going to tell me what I want, or more accurately I've relegated the scale as no longer being a factor in my goals. I'm seeing cuts, definition and muscle-gain...I'm getting more & more compliments, noticing more gals in class checking me out and my performance is (by mortal standards) very impressive.

If I want to see more weight-loss, I'm going to have to reconfigure my routine. I can't grab 45-pound dumbells and curl them until absolutely failure and then pound a protein shake: I'll gain muscle. Ideally, I would only want to do enough weight training to place a toll on my muscles so that my body won't be inclined to shed the muscle in lieu of the calorie deficit....but instead I'm hitting weights 3x per week and running heavy weights to failure: this is building and muscle weighs! Today I rode my bike, I went up a long hill the whole distance out-of-the-saddle...my quads are pounded; this will build too.

Nah..if I wanted to see a drop on the scale, I'd do about 1,700 cals per day and stick with light weights 2x per week and cardio 4-5x for just an hour and at low/med intensity.

So scrap everything....I just wanna have zero-flab around the waist, a tight chest, good definition in the abs and as little double-chin as possible. That's it; it's all about what I see in the mirror. I'll allow my OCD with numbers to play with calories burned, distance run, biked & swam and perhaps some DEXA for accurate BF% comparison...as for the scale: it can go **** itself!

Nuff said....

 

[Wrangell]

Wrangell, to answer your question...in the last 5 months I've been stagnant on the scale and in fact have gained weight.

But if we accept your numbers as being correct, your net weight gain is due to an addition of muscle weight and ( to a lesser extent ) a loss of fat weight - which many of us have already told you - is generally a good thing.

When people ask how I've been doing, I don't date-back to a year+ ago to the beginning....I work with more of a 4-month event horizon.

If I want to see more weight-loss, I'm going to have to reconfigure my routine. I can't grab 45-pound dumbells and curl them until absolutely failure and then pound a protein shake: I'll gain muscle. Ideally, I would only want to do enough weight training to place a toll on my muscles so that my body won't be inclined to shed the muscle in lieu of the calorie deficit....but instead I'm hitting weights 3x per week and running heavy weights to failure: this is building and muscle weighs! Today I rode my bike, I went up a long hill the whole distance out-of-the-saddle...my quads are pounded; this will build too.

O.k......I'll bite.

What is wrong with adding a little bit of muscle ?

Over time, the added lean muscle mass will raise your BMR and as a result you'll burn a few more calories in the long term....and the extra muscle may even yield some benefits in your athletic performance - i.e biking, running, swimming & racquetball.