The fast diet recipe book question

This topic contains 7 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by artyclare 6 years, 6 months ago.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)

DebbieOz

2:59 am
12 Apr 18
Permalink

Hi, firstly I apologise if this is not the correct place to ask my question but I have no clue as to where else that I can.
I have a copy of the fast diet recipe book and I’m looking through recipes that suit my requirements.
I came across the Japanese breakfast special which interests me. One of the selections is steamed salmon. The calories stated is 90 for a 100 gram piece of salmon. I then go to page 66 for baked salmon 4 ways. The heading states calorie count for 100 gram fillet is 180. That’s double for the same size mentioned in the Japanese breakfast selection.
I’m unsure of which is the correct one or why there is a discrepancy there. Could someone please clear this up for me?
Regards

fasting_me

7:11 pm
12 Apr 18
Permalink

I too have found discrepancies in food values. So from the beginning I wrote down each ingredient and looked it up on CalorieKing.com. By using one site, there is internal consistency. Even two containers of the same ingredient [ex: canned kidney beans] will have differing values.

The value I use for salmon is: 4 oz [116 grams] sockeye salmon = 160 calories. 4 oz coho salmon = 181

The other quibble: using vague directions like ‘one zucchini.’ Does that weigh 3 oz or 3 pounds???

DebbieOz

2:40 am
14 Apr 18
Permalink

Thank you for responding. The recipe book is great, but to have a calorie count listed for an exact size piece of fresh salmon listed as 90 calories and 180 calories on another page is really weird. I should’ve looked elsewhere for a comparison as you did, but thought seeing as this is a forum for the fast diet that someone might know why the conflicting amounts. Thank you for your help.

CalifDreamer

3:40 am
14 Apr 18
Permalink

There seems to be little agreement on 100 grams poached or grilled salmon. I find sources showing everything from around 140 calories to 180 or more. It may depend on the source or type of salmon. Last night I figured about 270 calories in 4.5 ounces of poached salmon with myfitnesspal. I often have canned salmon which shows 160 calories for the whole can. Undrained I think it’s 6 ounces. I have that often on FDs and I almost always lose weight on FD which are 500 calories for the day, so that number works for me. Although I count calories religiously on FD, it is an inexact science and counts are more like averages for the particular food. I check a few sources and just pick a number to use which seems reasonable. It seems to work. I lose weight. If I were gaining I guess I would be more concerned about common foods I eat and check more sources and maybe choose a larger calorie count for the foods in question. Does that make sense?

DebbieOz

3:51 am
14 Apr 18
Permalink

Yes, it does make sense when comparing calorie count for canned and fresh salmon and even between poached/steamed to pan fried I guess. I just found it odd that this book has listed recpies from the same author in the same book using fresh salmon 100 grams with one recipe siting 90 calories and the other 180 calories. It’s not like this was from different sources. Considering this book is about recipes for fasting days, I would think calorie count an important factor when trying to restrict intake. Oh well, i have now learned not to trust each recipe as far as calories are concerned.
Thank you for your help though.

artyclare

10:14 am
28 May 18
Permalink

I am really enjoying this book, although yes, there are discrepancies. In the snacks section, p211, we are told that 6 almonds = 80 calories; while in the Beauty Breakfast (p46) the ingredients list 20g of almonds. That’s about 21 almonds, so about 280 calories; and considering the recipe also lists 20g of dried apricots, I can’t really believe that the total calorie count is 279!
There is also a lot of loose talk about leafy green veg, and not bothering to micro-measure things; but if you’re near the borderline of your 500calories, you do quite want to know how much broccoli or courgette you can eat before going over the magic number.

bigbooty

11:35 am
28 May 18
Permalink

There is nothing magical about the number 500 cal!! This is just a number that MM pulled out of thin air as he didn’t think most people could do a zero cal fast. If the worst you could do is bust by eating broccoli or courgettes then youre doing OK. Those two foods are not the problem. Ask yourself this. Given the option of 500 cal of sugar and processed junk on your fast day or 1000 cal of broccoli and courgettes on your fast day, which option do you think will lead to success?

artyclare

7:20 am
29 May 18
Permalink

Yup, you have a point!
Thanks for sorting me out – I’ll gorge on the veggies with an easy conscience.