I think that an occasional glass of wine and some chocolate is fine (all foods in moderation), but...
It's really hard to get all the vitamins and minerals that your body needs while you are restricting calories in order to lose weight. Actually, a lot of people who aren't restricting calories are not getting the nutrients that they need... So, it's probably best to pick foods that have more nutritional value the majority of the time and save the wine and chocolate for an occasional treat.
Yup, Turtle's got it right. While even junk food contains carbs, proteins and fats, it doesn't contain vitamins, potassium, magnesium, zinc, etc.
If you're constantly falling below the minimum of your range, you're probably more likely to be deficient in those things and junk food won't solve that problem.
Try to pre-plan. Every evening, get online on Spark and plan out what you'll be eating tomorrow. You can see if it's going to be too low or not, and know when and how to add some more 'real food' to it to bump it up so that on the day, you're eating on track.
10/3/11 10:13 A
One of the reasons to eat within range is to get not only your macronutrients (fat, carbs, protein), but your micronutrients as well (vitamins and minerals). Those aren't routinely tracked on your nutrition tracker here, although they can be, but that doesn't mean they aren't important.
If you're routinely below your range, and you want to eat junk food to get into range, you'll be denying yourself nutrients your body needs. While you still may lose weight, you won't be as healthy as you can be (and some junk food may have negative effects on your ability to lose weight, not just by affecting your metabolism, but by inducing cravings and overeating). Good luck!
Calories are calories and you can lose weight eating nothing but Cheetos if your deficit is right. You just won't feel very good.
There's nothing wrong (or diet-killing) about a little wine or chocolate, but as you said, it's still a healthier choice to pick something more nutritionally complete. That;s especially true if you're under-range: the range is set to get you exactly the nutrition you need, and if you're filling up part of that range with nutritionally incomplete foods, you're not getting what you need.
That said, as long as the majority of your calories come from nutritious foods and you *usually meet your range,* a treat is fine. Part of learning how to eat properly is learning how to incorporate the occasional indulgence without going overboard, unless you never plan on having wine or chocolate for the rest of your life.
Alcohol is digested a little differently than other foods and some people claim that it will slow weight loss (I don't know the specifics). But I believe that has to do with larger quantities, and a glass or two a week has never slowed down my weight loss.
Edited by: HEALTHANDHEARTH at: 10/3/2011 (10:18)
Fitness Minutes: (902)
51 10/3/11 10:01 A
I've been very strict with my diet since starting and have found I am below my recommended range for calories, carbs, fat and protein quite often. Obviously this is not good. I was just wondering, does it matter what I eat to top up, so long as I stay in range?
For example, could I just have a glass of wine some chocolate to get in range? Does it have the same effect as eating a bowl of wholegrain pasta or something? Obviously a big bowl of veggie stuff will give me more nutrients, but are the calories/fat/carbs in 'bad' foods any worse than the same constituents in 'good' foods?
Seems like a stupid question really but I want to keep within calorie range without damaging my weight loss, with a nice easy snack!
SparkPeople, SparkCoach, SparkPages, SparkPoints, SparkDiet, SparkAmerica, SparkRecipes, DailySpark, and other marks are trademarks of SparkPeople, Inc. All Rights Reserved. No portion of this website can be used without the permission of SparkPeople or its authorized affiliates.
SPARKPEOPLE is a registered trademark of SparkPeople, Inc. in the United States, European Union, Canada, and Australia. All rights reserved.