Weetabix.

Status
Not open for further replies.


weetabix, bran flakes, shredded wheat - doesn't do anything for me and I really resent paying for it, prefer coffee on a morning and a big lunch.

decent snack though
 
In regards to satiety, they do little for me, unless I eat like 20 and even then I need to eat again fairly soon after, relative to the nutritional content. I suppose it can be 'good' for whatever meal you want providing you actually like weetabix.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Titus said:
In regards to satiety, they do little for me, unless I eat like 20 and even then I need to eat again fairly soon after, relative to the nutritional content. I suppose it can be 'good' for whatever meal you want providing you actually like weetabix.
Click to expand...

Tasted better, but not the worst thing. I had 2 for breakfast, takes me ages to eat, then I'm hungry about an hour later.
 
D.A said:
Tasted better, but not the worst thing. I had 2 for breakfast, takes me ages to eat, then I'm hungry about an hour later.
Click to expand...

Lovely stuff burried in sugar, doe's nothing in terms of staving off hunger tho
 
porridge is probably the best thing you can have for brecky
 
cant see why not , its not summit id fancy trying like :lol:
 
The Weetabix baked with Golden Syrup are delicious. Low fat, low sugar and you don't need to add any sugar either. I have a very sweet tooth and I don't add a thing.
 
gooftoof said:
The Weetabix baked with Golden Syrup are delicious. Low fat, low sugar and you don't need to add any sugar either. I have a very sweet tooth and I don't add a thing.
Click to expand...

It's not that I don't like it, it doesn't seem to fill me. Is it a good snack, say compared to crisps?:lol:
 
Titus said:
It's not, providing you aren't sedentary and shovelling it down your neck.
Click to expand...

if were gonna class things as good / bad or healthy / unhealthy, sugar would come under the bad / unhealthy heading.

as many people relate 'healthy' with dieting and fat loss, sugar certainly doesnt aide that process.

i mean its certainly not in the healthy camp.

out of intrerest Titus, what do u consider to be an unhealthy food? First you were claiming saturated fats werent unhealthy, now sugar, its quite misleading for people on this board looking for a healthy fat cutting diet who should be looking at lower sugar, low bad fat, lower calorie diets.
 
RyAye said:
if were gonna class things as good / bad or healthy / unhealthy, sugar would come under the bad / unhealthy heading.

as many people relate 'healthy' with dieting and fat loss, sugar certainly doesnt aide that process.

i mean its certainly not in the healthy camp.

out of intrerest Titus, what do u consider to be an unhealthy food? First you were claiming saturated fats werent unhealthy, now sugar, its quite misleading for people on this board looking for a healthy fat cutting diet who should be looking at lower sugar, low bad fat, lower calorie diets.
Click to expand...

That's because I don't just class things as 100% unavoidably unhealthy, unless you're talking about things such as trans fats.

Sugar certainly doesn't hinder the process of fat/weight loss. In two isocaloric diets, providing overall macronutrient intake was the same, substituting say 30g of carbs from rice and replacing them with say 30g of carbs from say jelly beans isn't going to hinder weight/fat loss. It's all about having control over your diet and tracking your intake.

Completely cutting things that are wrongly branded unavoidably unhealthy regardless of quantity is just stupid and promotes eating disorders.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Titus said:
That's because I don't just class things as 100% unavoidably unhealthy, unless you're talking about things such as trans fats.

Sugar certainly doesn't hinder the process of fat/weight loss. In two isocaloric diets, providing overall macronutrient intake was the same, substituting say 30g of carbs from rice and replacing them with say 30g of carbs from say jelly beans isn't going to hinder weight/fat loss. It's all about having control over your diet and tracking your intake.

Completely cutting things that are wrongly branded unavoidably unhealthy regardless of quantity is just stupid and promotes eating disorders.
Click to expand...

Only if you're looking from a calorie POV, it can do funny things with blood sugar levels which can hinder eating patterns later in the day
 
Titus said:
That's because I don't just class things as 100% unavoidably unhealthy, unless you're talking about things such as trans fats.

Sugar certainly doesn't hinder the process of fat/weight loss. In two isocaloric diets, providing overall macronutrient intake was the same, substituting say 30g of carbs from rice and replacing them with say 30g of carbs from say jelly beans isn't going to hinder weight/fat loss. It's all about having control over your diet and tracking your intake.

Completely cutting things that are wrongly branded unavoidably unhealthy regardless of quantity is just stupid and promotes eating disorders.
Click to expand...

I agree completely, if you start categorizing foods as 'good' and 'bad' then you only make things more challenging when the most important issue is total calories in whichever best fits into your life.

People, well mainly woman ime, often have 1 bite of a 'naughty' snack like a chocolate bar and then freak out and eat a whole friggin slab of dairy milk whilst stating that they'll start again tomorrow. A special k bar, well that's okay even though the calorie content of both servings could be very similar.

Diet is definitely has glass half full dogma about it that doesn't help anyone, if you don't eat too often then you'll 'break' your metabolism, if you eat too much fat then you'll have heart trouble, if you don't eat fruit AND nuts AND veg then your body will miss out on important nutrients and 'starve' etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top