Weezl and friends Phase 2 -giving it a whirl for Shirl! Testing meal plan for a month

aless02

weezl, Susan put it all very eloquently and I hope you feel a bit better.

I DO understand what you're saying about nutrition/fat/calories and I hope you haven't taken my WW Points comments and queries about fat grams the wrong way . You have a huge challenge, because while the "average" person needs x calories a day, what's average any more?? Isn't like 1/3 of Britain overweight somehow? The average woman a size 14/16? So you ARE going to get a significant percentage of people who freak out at the thought of 30g of fat in 1 meal of veggie burgers, but it's about teaching Shirley to fish by helping her understand that's okay to eat and she could replace her wedges with some extra veg and have a healthy-for-her meal out of it all.

So yes, I acknowledge I've been coming at the planner and thread from a weight loss point of view, but I do think it's a very valid one. However, it should not be the MAIN focus of the planner, as of course it's better to be a bit overweight and have pennies in your pocket than on a weight loss plan and in danger of getting your house repossessed!! At the end of the day the planner is SUBSISTENCE (or close enough), so weight loss doesn't factor into that. But we've had this discussion before - you're trying to make it 1 notch above subsistence so it appeals to the mass public, so with taking it that notch up, you're going to get people coming from the angle of needing to eat less calories than 2500/3000 for their particular angle of "healthy".

Also, it's education. Nowadays, the word "healthy" has come to mean "low calorie/low fat", which of course is completely inaccurate. You have to remember that, because there's nothing you can do to fix that particular cultural phenomenon.

I hope that didn't make you feel worse somehow, because you know how much I want to help.

weezl74

aless02 wrote: »

weezl, Susan put it all very eloquently and I hope you feel a bit better.

I DO understand what you're saying about nutrition/fat/calories and I hope you haven't taken my WW Points comments and queries about fat grams the wrong way . You have a huge challenge, because while the "average" person needs x calories a day, what's average any more?? Isn't like 1/3 of Britain overweight somehow? The average woman a size 14/16? So you ARE going to get a significant percentage of people who freak out at the thought of 30g of fat in 1 meal of veggie burgers, but it's about teaching Shirley to fish by helping her understand that's okay to eat and she could replace her wedges with some extra veg and have a healthy-for-her meal out of it all.

So yes, I acknowledge I've been coming at the planner and thread from a weight loss point of view, but I do think it's a very valid one. However, it should not be the MAIN focus of the planner, as of course it's better to be a bit overweight and have pennies in your pocket than on a weight loss plan and in danger of getting your house repossessed!! At the end of the day the planner is SUBSISTENCE (or close enough), so weight loss doesn't factor into that. But we've had this discussion before - you're trying to make it 1 notch above subsistence so it appeals to the mass public, so with taking it that notch up, you're going to get people coming from the angle of needing to eat less calories than 2500/3000 for their particular angle of "healthy".

Also, it's education. Nowadays, the word "healthy" has come to mean "low calorie/low fat", which of course is completely inaccurate. You have to remember that, because there's nothing you can do to fix that particular cultural phenomenon.

I hope that didn't make you feel worse somehow, because you know how much I want to help.

oh heck aless I didn't mean you about the health thing! I see you as having bothered to understand this project, and not at all as one of the people who have a knee jerk reaction. I can completely see now in hindsight :ohow it may have seemed I was linking that to our recent weightwatchers conversations, but that is an utter coincidence and not what I was referencing at all! Sorry!

My probing about the WW points was more because I think shirl may well want to count points, and so they should (as you rightly say) be included. Along with info on how not to make Jason's dinner too skinny!:D:rotfl:

eta: I was also interested because I am 11lb above my pre kester and fergus weight and so I know I'd like to eat carefully for a while myself!

weezl74

further to those interesting thoughts aless, what do you think about this as an addition to the nutrition FAQs:

your recipes aren't very low in fat or calories, so i'm wondering if they're healthy?

This is a good point if you are trying to lose weight, and we acknowledge that the planners are built assuming people are not dieting. Following feedback from our readers, we realise that some of you would like to follow our planners and also eat fewer calories and less fat, so here is an article on how to do that. (click through to an article explaining that by reducing the amount of oil to 1/3rd of that stated, shirley average would still lose 5lb in the month. Article would say which recipes will cope well with being made without the oil- tangy bean pate, the curries, etc...)

If people like this idea, then Morag, I wonder how you'd feel about adding that to your excellent changes to the FAQs page? Will you have a think about the wording?

Dick_here

weezl74 wrote: »

I was hurt when someone said they'd rather eat their own kneecaps than live like that

Did you suggest that they boil their head, as it'd be more nutritious. Or was that the pig's head ?

weezl74

!!!!!!_here wrote: »

Did you suggest that they boil their head, as it'd be more nutritious. Or was that the pig's head ?

Roasted head of troll, a marvelous source of all your daily needs

Shall I send you and Allegra over one of my pork pies !!!!!!?

aless02

weezl, that sounds brilliant :T :T

Or even...recipes that contain what could be seen as "a lot" of oil for seemingly no reason (to the uninformed viewer) could have the little Why? box saying oil is included to increase fats and omega 3s. Just a suggestion, but I like the FAQ entry too.

I didn't think you were talking about me, but just wanted to make sure you didn't think my WW comments were some sort of underhanded slight in your direction .

sharloid

Not sure if this is the right thread to let you know weezl, but i'm loving your website! Me and the OH are on a pretty tight budget and i've saved nearly all of the recipes on there to my favourites folder, thanks!

weezl74

sharloid wrote: »

Not sure if this is the right thread to let you know weezl, but i'm loving your website! Me and the OH are on a pretty tight budget and i've saved nearly all of the recipes on there to my favourites folder, thanks!

thank you!

That's very encouraging to read, we've all been working hard

Maybe you'll be kind enough to pop back with any feedback?

weezl74

aless02 wrote: »

weezl, that sounds brilliant :T :T

Or even...recipes that contain what could be seen as "a lot" of oil for seemingly no reason (to the uninformed viewer) could have the little Why? box saying oil is included to increase fats and omega 3s. Just a suggestion, but I like the FAQ entry too.

right ho about the why? box, I'll do that.

you know this thing about all the recipes being on one page?

What does everyone think about this issue that it poses:

Because the 2 planners (shirl and kitty) use different shopping lists and we don't waste anything in the month, there are often 2 slightly different versions of the same thing, ie kitty's porridge has less normal oats that shirl's but more oaty cereal.

If we have both types of porridge in the main list under recipes, then will this look a little strange to a newbie browsing person, and if so how would we remedy that?

sharloid

Well I intend to make some of the things later today! I'm not sure about sticking to the mealplan entirely as I have funny hours at work and like to split my meals up differently, but i'm sure going to use yours as the basis for my own. I've also just used mysupermarket.com to put lots of the things you use in the trolley and for the two of us it only comes out at £15 for the week. This is alot better than the £25 or so we usually use on getting bits that aren't actually that useful for meals if you know what I mean. I also recognise that some of the meals aren't the most healthy, but it's surely an improvement to what alot of people have. You could always just take the veggie burger or something and pair it with mixed veg or something healthy if you're watching the calories. I'm babbling, sorry! Keep up the good work!