Processed foods
Replies
-
look up Allrecipes.com! have a look at many different recipes according to your taste and you will see how you can cook using many different types of food,for example how to make a pizza from base to sauce to finish.I never thought I could do it and now I wouldnt think of buying one,thats just one example!best of luck!
How long does it take to mill your flour for your pizza?
Touché
Well I'll be helpful here since everyone seems to be picking on the homemade or "sort of homemade" pizza.
Buy the pre made dough at Whole Foods. Nothing bad in it. You can even get the frozen dough or the dough that's already baked (there's some local pizza companies that sell their all natural dough in the Whole Foods refrigerated section).
Grab a bunch of your favorite toppings. Leftover grilled chicken and fresh veggies works well. Measure all of your ingredients to make it easier to log (the dough is easy to log because it lists the nutrition information).
Use fresh organic cheese (from a local source if you can). Slice it up and add to the pizza.
Use a pizza stone to cook the pizza (and follow the directions that came with the dough). It's usually 400F+ for 8-10 minutes. You also have to make sure to pre-heat.
In my experience the homemade pizza--even using an all natural local dough from Whole Foods--is way less calories and no preservatives compared to other pre-made dough on the market.
It's really easy to log because you pre-measure the ingredients and just divide by 4 or 2 depending on how many slices you have.
^ This.. this i like..0 -
And now I'm being painted as someone completely ignorant of nutrition and a proponent of fad diets because i advocate eating fresh food??
THIS SITE :sad:
No, it's because you think obesity cannot be caused by home cooked food, you think "chemical additives" have "hidden calories," etc.
Ok i apologise for my post, it's inaccurate - I'm at work and typing quickly...
Chemical additives - artificial flavours, texture enhancers, colourings, MSG etc.. just unnecessary. Why would you want to eat them, just why?
Addition of excessive salt and sugar - salt, bad for your health, sugar = empty calories, no nutritional value.0 -
I guess I'm wondering what the desired end result of this argument is intended to be.
Can you lose and or gain weight eating anything? Yes. Yes, you can. Is *that* the argument someone is trying to 'win'?
Yes, you can lose weight on a diet of poptarts, soda, hot dogs, and Krispy Kreme donuts. All you have to do is count calories and work out, I suppose.
However, if the argument is whether eating pop tarts, donuts, and soda is EQUALLY as nutritious as eating vegetables and fruits in a balanced diet then that's quite the quixotic line of attack...0 -
And now I'm being painted as someone completely ignorant of nutrition and a proponent of fad diets because i advocate eating fresh food??
THIS SITE :sad:
No, it's because you think obesity cannot be caused by home cooked food, you think "chemical additives" have "hidden calories," etc.
Ok i apologise for my post, it's inaccurate - I'm at work and typing quickly...
Chemical additives - artificial flavours, texture enhancers, colourings, MSG etc.. just unnecessary. Why would you want to eat them, just why?
Addition of excessive salt and sugar - salt, bad for your health, sugar = empty calories, no nutritional value.
I eat them for the reasons food manufacturers put them in, really. Makes the food taste better and last longer.
What's wrong with empty calories, anyway? When I go out mountain biking or playing tennis for hours, know what I do? I bring along literal sugar packets and sugar water. I eat them because they are an efficient source of energy.
A calorie is a unit of energy. I consume food because my body needs energy to function. Did you know that sugar is what we call a "nutritive sweetener"? That's because it provides nutrition. Sugar is, literally, a macronutrient. Notice the word nutrient in there. Sugar, by all definitions of the phrase, has nutritional value. It is nutritive. It is a nutrient.
And salt is bad for your health? Are you kidding me? Salt is literally an essential nutrient. There's a reason it tastes good - your body literally requires you consume it on a daily basis in order to run. People who take the low sodium diet thing a little too far increase their chances of death quite significantly. Furthermore, there's no clinical benefit to strictly limiting your salt intake to something arbitrary like 2500mg if you don't have hypertension.
This is why you are "being painted as someone ignorant of nutrition." You don't even know what the word nutrition means, and many of the things you say are literally exactly wrong.0 -
I guess I'm wondering what the desired end result of this argument is intended to be.
Can you lose and or gain weight eating anything? Yes. Yes, you can. Is *that* the argument someone is trying to 'win'?
Yes, you can lose weight on a diet of poptarts, soda, hot dogs, and Krispy Kreme donuts. All you have to do is count calories and work out, I suppose.
However, if the argument is whether eating pop tarts, donuts, and soda is EQUALLY as nutritious and healthy as eating vegetables, and fruits in a balanced diet then that's quite the quixotic line of attack...
The argument is over whether "processed food" (a term we have clearly established to be essentially meaningless, as virtually all food is processed) is inherently bad and should be avoided. Some people are making the claim that cutting out "processed food" will somehow prevent obesity, or that consuming sugar leads to diabetes, or that salt and sugar are inherently bad and should be avoided, etc.
That's all nonsnse. Scaring people away from food that tastes good is a surefire way to set them up for ultimate failure. What we need to be doing is not telling people to stop eating processed food, but teaching them how to consume food they love while achieving their fitness and health goals. They're not incompatible.0 -
oh please.
yes I do believe my home cooked food to be not processed when quite obviously you're taking the word "processed" out of the context of this debate.
We all know that processed in this context refers to pre-made foods and fast food etc....
We are not talking about processed to mean food that has not been washed, chopped, peeled, steamed, baked, boiled etc...
He's just compensating for insecurities, along with the other guy in this thread (with the fake 8-pack profile pic) who has never, to my knowledge, said anything helpful, supportive, kind, un-sarcastic or just plain nice.
I'm pretty sure trying to correct bad information in the face of an onslaught of ignorance is helpful. At least it is for those of us who actually care of about the science of nutrition and not what is preached by Dr. Oz on daytime TV.
And I'm VERY sure that it can be done without being as a**hole. ...
Your "science of nutrition" and "Dr. Oz" jibes just shows you're one of the breed.
Implying that anyone who has a opinion not aligned with yours is a Jerry Springer/Sally Jesse watcher, an uneducated junk food eater, or a charlatan follower.
Well done! A master-of-debate.
Step away and go read some common websites on nutrition information. Look at the number of scare tactics that are used. And yes, seriously listen to Dr. Oz. There you have a gentleman who is very intelligent and a highly qualified surgeon and who, rather than using his talents to help people, has completely sold out. The unfortunate truth is that many people listen to him because he is a doctor.
Once you're done with that, get on pubmed and start doing some real research on nutrition. Once you've educated yourself, then those of us who have already been through that process may concern ourselves with your opinion. Until then, you're just part of the problem and not to be taken all that seriously. Insult me all you want. I'm happy to simply chuckle at the insults and move on.
Part of the problem.....? I never mentioned nutrition..
No insult intended...This thing has gone awry, and my own angry remarks are not helping.
I was attacking the sarcastic guys that MUST post smart-a** coments ("how long did it take you to mill your flour?") ("frozen veggies ARE processed"), etc. Deliberately comments calculated to cause pain to others....snarky comments whenever someone unsuspecting person asks a simple, innocent question. I'm sick of it in the forums, man....
That said my engagement helps nothing...I should not get involved. I apologize to anyone I offended, including the Snarky Boys.0 -
oh please.
yes I do believe my home cooked food to be not processed when quite obviously you're taking the word "processed" out of the context of this debate.
We all know that processed in this context refers to pre-made foods and fast food etc....
We are not talking about processed to mean food that has not been washed, chopped, peeled, steamed, baked, boiled etc...
He's just compensating for insecurities, along with the other guy in this thread (with the fake 8-pack profile pic) who has never, to my knowledge, said anything helpful, supportive, kind, un-sarcastic or just plain nice.
lol who might you be referring to with fake pics?I was attacking the sarcastic guys that MUST post smart-a** coments ("how long did it take you to mill your flour?") ("frozen veggies ARE processed"), etc. Deliberately comments calculated to cause pain to others
Or perhaps enlightening people from going on the folly of the ignorant and trying to eliminate processed foods without even understanding what processed means?0 -
oh please.
yes I do believe my home cooked food to be not processed when quite obviously you're taking the word "processed" out of the context of this debate.
We all know that processed in this context refers to pre-made foods and fast food etc....
We are not talking about processed to mean food that has not been washed, chopped, peeled, steamed, baked, boiled etc...
He's just compensating for insecurities, along with the other guy in this thread (with the fake 8-pack profile pic) who has never, to my knowledge, said anything helpful, supportive, kind, un-sarcastic or just plain nice.
I'm pretty sure trying to correct bad information in the face of an onslaught of ignorance is helpful. At least it is for those of us who actually care of about the science of nutrition and not what is preached by Dr. Oz on daytime TV.
And I'm VERY sure that it can be done without being as a**hole. ...
Your "science of nutrition" and "Dr. Oz" jibes just shows you're one of the breed.
Implying that anyone who has a opinion not aligned with yours is a Jerry Springer/Sally Jesse watcher, an uneducated junk food eater, or a charlatan follower.
Well done! A master-of-debate.
Step away and go read some common websites on nutrition information. Look at the number of scare tactics that are used. And yes, seriously listen to Dr. Oz. There you have a gentleman who is very intelligent and a highly qualified surgeon and who, rather than using his talents to help people, has completely sold out. The unfortunate truth is that many people listen to him because he is a doctor.
Once you're done with that, get on pubmed and start doing some real research on nutrition. Once you've educated yourself, then those of us who have already been through that process may concern ourselves with your opinion. Until then, you're just part of the problem and not to be taken all that seriously. Insult me all you want. I'm happy to simply chuckle at the insults and move on.
Part of the problem.....? I never mentioned nutrition..
No insult intended...This thing has gone awry, and my own angry remarks are not helping.
I was attacking the sarcastic guys that MUST post smart-a** coments ("how long did it take you to mill your flour?") ("frozen veggies ARE processed"), etc. Deliberately comments calculated to cause pain to others....snarky comments whenever someone unsuspecting person asks a simple, innocent question. I'm sick of it in the forums, man....
That said my engagement helps nothing...I should not get involved. I apologize to anyone I offended, including the Snarky Boys.
So you come in here openly insulting people, delete one of the insults, and finally realize that your approach was perhaps wrong? You'll excuse me if I don't offer you a cookie.0 -
Sugar and salt are not inherently "good" or "bad". We need them and we like them. That said, they do have an impact on our biology and it's good to understand what that is.
Do you need salt? Yes. But you probably don't need the levels of sodium found in many highly processed packaged foods. The reason those levels of sodium are so high is often *not* because that's the level needed to make it salty-goodness. In fact sometimes they have to go to a bit of work to mask how truly salty the product has become because there's a great deal of sodium there to extend the shelf life of the product. It's optimizing the product profitability, not necessarily for our enjoyment or for our health. And, in some cases -- such as soda -- it's there to balance the sweetness so that they can add even more sugar to max out the 'bliss point' while masking sodium added that will actually make you thirstier... for more soda.)
Now, there's nothing 'wrong' with a company concerning itself with its profit margin, that's what companies do! Still, from the processors point of view, the purpose of the higher levels of sodium in highly processed food is for profit rather than because human biology actually needs it, particularly wants it, or demands it.
Same story with sugar. We like it. We want it. And it also extends shelf-life of products (it's why they add it to dog food. Dogs don't actually *need* added sugar (or corn for that matter), but it makes dog food last longer -- and is cheaper than meat -- so sugar is added. And hey, they like it too! Doesn't mean they need it or that it's good for their health that it's in their food. And they aren't the ones going to the store to buy it.)
Since 1983 the amount of sugar consumed by Americans has gone up by 30% (coinciding with the rising levels of obesity in the U.S. -- not evidence of causation, but it's probably worth a "hmmm..."). Spend a week trying to avoid high fructose corn syrup by reading labels on products and you quickly learn its in a LOT of things, things that -- for flavor purposes-- it doesn't even need to be in (such as processed cheese or canned corn). Also add that labels often break 'sugar' into multiple components (under different names) so that rather than it being the first or second ingredient on the list of ingredients (which we instinctively recognize as being 'a lot of sugar' ) is instead listed as four or five separate things at the end of the list (under more technical terms like dextrose, galactose, etc. but also as things like "concentrated fruit juices" making it sound like "fruit juice? That's healthy, right?" when what that product in industrial chemical terms is just straight sugar. Everything of the original fruit *but* the sugar was stripped out of that particular food additive. Yes, the sugar came from apples and pears rather than sugar cane, but it's still, chemically, just straight sugar...even if on the label it's listed *separately* than the sucrose. ).
Start reading labels and you begin to just realize how easy it is to have added (without even noticing) that 30% increase in sugar intake. (Seriously, why does canned corn need added sugar? It's CORN. It was tasty to begin with!)
Now, this doesn't make sugar 'bad'. But consider whether we were perhaps better off (and probably thinner) when we consumed the dietary suggested guideline of 10tsp a day of added sugar per day rather than the current U.S. average of 50(!)tsp (with your average teen male clocking in at 109tsp per day). Calculate that in terms of calories this has *added* to the daily U.S. diet.
But, again, yes, that still falls under 'eat less'.
But here's the thing -- it's easier to 'eat less of it' when paying attention to the labels and perhaps avoiding unnecessary added sugars in products where it honestly *doesn't* help the flavor (seriously, there are cottage cheeses and sour creams that have "added sugar" in them when the traditional sugarless version tasted just as good or even BETTER. ) If you want to hew closer to the 10tsp of sugar rather than the 50, here's a thought: buy the sour cream without extra added sugar. Processors didn't add that sugar because it made the product more 'healthy' so you can just save those tsp of sugar for something you actually want there to be sugar in!
As to the rise in diabetes, what causes diabetes? It comes after years of insulin resistance, when your pancreas has been creating more and more insulin to ever diminishing results until the system no longer holds. What is the cause of insulin resistance? Years and years of raised insulin levels in your blood stream. What raises the insulin levels in your blood stream? Blood sugar levels. What raises blood sugar levels... well that's pretty obvious isn't it. And the more refined the sugar, the more easily (and quickly) it raises blood sugar. At the end of the day, excessive sugar consumption over an extended period of years/decades isn't optimal.
So, again, do we really need the extra calories in the 30% increase in sugar consumption (primarily in the form of processed foods) that has taken place since 1983? Do we really want added sugars in things that aren't even sweet? Or because it can max-out the chemical bliss-point because that increases consumption/sales of a product? Or is there because it increases *shelf-life* of the product? Some people actually thought Old Coke tasted better than New Coke, y'know. Adding more sugar and more salt doesn't always mean that it TASTES better, and if you're looking for places to cut calories and/or sugar, I for one first choose the places where I can't even tell the difference. (No sugar in my cottage cheese, thank you.)
Now, everyone can and should eat whatever the hell they want to eat. It's up to you.
But there's little need to behave as though it's 'crazy' to pay attention to the ingredient labels on foods. Choosing to read them and to make consumer choices based on that information is at least AS VALID as choosing to ignore those labels because you want what you want when you want it.0 -
We're fatter because food tastes better and is cheaper, making it easy to eat lots of delicious food.
The trick isn't to abstain from delicious food. It's just to eat less of it. Convincing yourself that a delicious burger from McDonald's suddenly makes you feel physically ill isn't a sign of strength or progress, it's a sign of disordered eating and insanity.
This doesn't need to be torture. You don't need to think of all that salty sugary delicious food as inherently bad. You just need to control how much of it you eat.0 -
You guys are all like "they put all this stuff in the food to make it taste SO GOOD that we eat a ton of it and get fat! Therefore those things they put in the food are evil and we must avoid them!"
Why avoid them? They're DELICIOUS remember?0 -
You guys are all like "they put all this stuff in the food to make it taste SO GOOD that we eat a ton of it and get fat! Therefore those things they put in the food are evil and we must avoid them!"
Why avoid them? They're DELICIOUS remember?
Because it's easier to be scared of something than to summon the willpower to avoid it.0 -
You guys are all like "they put all this stuff in the food to make it taste SO GOOD that we eat a ton of it and get fat! Therefore those things they put in the food are evil and we must avoid them!"
Why avoid them? They're DELICIOUS remember?
Because it's easier to be scared of something than to summon the willpower to avoid it.
Fear is generally a better motivator than anything else.
And fear of something actually proximate like "look at how much sugar is in this!" is a better motivator than fear of something distant like "if I eat too much of this on a regular basis, I may gain body mass."0 -
oh please.
yes I do believe my home cooked food to be not processed when quite obviously you're taking the word "processed" out of the context of this debate.
We all know that processed in this context refers to pre-made foods and fast food etc....
We are not talking about processed to mean food that has not been washed, chopped, peeled, steamed, baked, boiled etc...
He's just compensating for insecurities, along with the other guy in this thread (with the fake 8-pack profile pic) who has never, to my knowledge, said anything helpful, supportive, kind, un-sarcastic or just plain nice.
0 -
fear, avoidance, or controlYou guys are all like "they put all this stuff in the food to make it taste SO GOOD that we eat a ton of it and get fat! Therefore those things they put in the food are evil and we must avoid them!"
Why avoid them? They're DELICIOUS remember?
Because it's easier to be scared of something than to summon the willpower to avoid it.
we follow under control. we eat what we want. maybe not how much we want, but atleast we know we wont fall to bingeing and fail0 -
it was a rhetorical question
there is no difference of nutrition between sucrose from fruits or sucrose from candy
Uhm, actually yes there's a huge difference. Eating sugar in isolation causes a different metabolic response from your body than sugar combined with fiber. I don't really want to get into it but it does affects satiety.
Regardless, even if you maintain a calorie controlled diet there's still a huge difference. The sugar in fruits comes with lots of fiber, antioxidants, and other micronutrients. Whereas, the sugar in candy is just pure empty calories without any health benefits other than preventing starvation (yay!).0 -
I'm not talking about abstinence, I'm talking about home cooking and knowing the providence of your food to avoid hidden calories from completely unnecessary chemical additives.
This is the internet. Unless you're a lawyer and provide a 10 page legal document detailing exactly what you mean by home cooked, you'll have people pointing out every possible tiny issue as a reason why you're well accepted common sense is wrong.0 -
it was a rhetorical question
there is no difference of nutrition between sucrose from fruits or sucrose from candy
Uhm, actually yes there's a huge difference. Eating sugar in isolation causes a different metabolic response from your body than sugar combined with fiber. I don't really want to get into it but it does affects satiety.
Regardless, even if you maintain a calorie controlled diet there's still a huge difference. The sugar in fruits comes with lots of fiber, antioxidants, and other micronutrients. Whereas, the sugar in candy is just pure empty calories without any health benefits other than preventing starvation (yay!).
I highly suggest you crack open a nutrition book because you are associating a subcategory of a macronutrient as having other subcategories of macronutrients, micronutrients, and other chemicals.0 -
it was a rhetorical question
there is no difference of nutrition between sucrose from fruits or sucrose from candy
Uhm, actually yes there's a huge difference. Eating sugar in isolation causes a different metabolic response from your body than sugar combined with fiber. I don't really want to get into it but it does affects satiety.
Regardless, even if you maintain a calorie controlled diet there's still a huge difference. The sugar in fruits comes with lots of fiber, antioxidants, and other micronutrients. Whereas, the sugar in candy is just pure empty calories without any health benefits other than preventing starvation (yay!).
I highly suggest you crack open a nutrition book because you are associating a subcategory of a macronutrient as having other subcategories of macronutrients, micronutrients, and other chemicals.
Nope, I'm just pointing out the difference between eating pure sugar in isolation versus eating sugar that comes in fruit. There are many significant nutritional differences. It's quite relevant given that we're discussing the benefits of eating minimally processed foods versus highly processed foods. If you get too high a percentage of your calories from junk food then you're likely not going to be getting enough fiber and other micronutrients.0 -
Excellent, informed, well-put response. I would like to amend my previous comments to add all of this (although, with the added sugar in the last few decades corresponding to the rising obesity rates, I don't want to go "hmmm" - if we kept eating the same quantities of foods that increased in calories per serving, it still just comes down to we consumed more calories, regardless of what the increase came from).Sugar and salt are not inherently "good" or "bad". We need them and we like them. That said, they do have an impact on our biology and it's good to understand what that is.
Do you need salt? Yes. But you probably don't need the levels of sodium found in many highly processed packaged foods. The reason those levels of sodium are so high is often *not* because that's the level needed to make it salty-goodness. In fact sometimes they have to go to a bit of work to mask how truly salty the product has become because there's a great deal of sodium there to extend the shelf life of the product. It's optimizing the product profitability, not necessarily for our enjoyment or for our health. And, in some cases -- such as soda -- it's there to balance the sweetness so that they can add even more sugar to max out the 'bliss point' while masking sodium added that will actually make you thirstier... for more soda.)
Now, there's nothing 'wrong' with a company concerning itself with its profit margin, that's what companies do! Still, from the processors point of view, the purpose of the higher levels of sodium in highly processed food is for profit rather than because human biology actually needs it, particularly wants it, or demands it.
Same story with sugar. We like it. We want it. And it also extends shelf-life of products (it's why they add it to dog food. Dogs don't actually *need* added sugar (or corn for that matter), but it makes dog food last longer -- and is cheaper than meat -- so sugar is added. And hey, they like it too! Doesn't mean they need it or that it's good for their health that it's in their food. And they aren't the ones going to the store to buy it.)
Since 1983 the amount of sugar consumed by Americans has gone up by 30% (coinciding with the rising levels of obesity in the U.S. -- not evidence of causation, but it's probably worth a "hmmm..."). Spend a week trying to avoid high fructose corn syrup by reading labels on products and you quickly learn its in a LOT of things, things that -- for flavor purposes-- it doesn't even need to be in (such as processed cheese or canned corn). Also add that labels often break 'sugar' into multiple components (under different names) so that rather than it being the first or second ingredient on the list of ingredients (which we instinctively recognize as being 'a lot of sugar' ) is instead listed as four or five separate things at the end of the list (under more technical terms like dextrose, galactose, etc. but also as things like "concentrated fruit juices" making it sound like "fruit juice? That's healthy, right?" when what that product in industrial chemical terms is just straight sugar. Everything of the original fruit *but* the sugar was stripped out of that particular food additive. Yes, the sugar came from apples and pears rather than sugar cane, but it's still, chemically, just straight sugar...even if on the label it's listed *separately* than the sucrose. ).
Start reading labels and you begin to just realize how easy it is to have added (without even noticing) that 30% increase in sugar intake. (Seriously, why does canned corn need added sugar? It's CORN. It was tasty to begin with!)
Now, this doesn't make sugar 'bad'. But consider whether we were perhaps better off (and probably thinner) when we consumed the dietary suggested guideline of 10tsp a day of added sugar per day rather than the current U.S. average of 50(!)tsp (with your average teen male clocking in at 109tsp per day). Calculate that in terms of calories this has *added* to the daily U.S. diet.
But, again, yes, that still falls under 'eat less'.
But here's the thing -- it's easier to 'eat less of it' when paying attention to the labels and perhaps avoiding unnecessary added sugars in products where it honestly *doesn't* help the flavor (seriously, there are cottage cheeses and sour creams that have "added sugar" in them when the traditional sugarless version tasted just as good or even BETTER. ) If you want to hew closer to the 10tsp of sugar rather than the 50, here's a thought: buy the sour cream without extra added sugar. Processors didn't add that sugar because it made the product more 'healthy' so you can just save those tsp of sugar for something you actually want there to be sugar in!
As to the rise in diabetes, what causes diabetes? It comes after years of insulin resistance, when your pancreas has been creating more and more insulin to ever diminishing results until the system no longer holds. What is the cause of insulin resistance? Years and years of raised insulin levels in your blood stream. What raises the insulin levels in your blood stream? Blood sugar levels. What raises blood sugar levels... well that's pretty obvious isn't it. And the more refined the sugar, the more easily (and quickly) it raises blood sugar. At the end of the day, excessive sugar consumption over an extended period of years/decades isn't optimal.
So, again, do we really need the extra calories in the 30% increase in sugar consumption (primarily in the form of processed foods) that has taken place since 1983? Do we really want added sugars in things that aren't even sweet? Or because it can max-out the chemical bliss-point because that increases consumption/sales of a product? Or is there because it increases *shelf-life* of the product? Some people actually thought Old Coke tasted better than New Coke, y'know. Adding more sugar and more salt doesn't always mean that it TASTES better, and if you're looking for places to cut calories and/or sugar, I for one first choose the places where I can't even tell the difference. (No sugar in my cottage cheese, thank you.)
Now, everyone can and should eat whatever the hell they want to eat. It's up to you.
But there's little need to behave as though it's 'crazy' to pay attention to the ingredient labels on foods. Choosing to read them and to make consumer choices based on that information is at least AS VALID as choosing to ignore those labels because you want what you want when you want it.0 -
it was a rhetorical question
there is no difference of nutrition between sucrose from fruits or sucrose from candy
Uhm, actually yes there's a huge difference. Eating sugar in isolation causes a different metabolic response from your body than sugar combined with fiber. I don't really want to get into it but it does affects satiety.
Regardless, even if you maintain a calorie controlled diet there's still a huge difference. The sugar in fruits comes with lots of fiber, antioxidants, and other micronutrients. Whereas, the sugar in candy is just pure empty calories without any health benefits other than preventing starvation (yay!).
I highly suggest you crack open a nutrition book because you are associating a subcategory of a macronutrient as having other subcategories of macronutrients, micronutrients, and other chemicals.
Nope, I'm just pointing out the difference between eating pure sugar in isolation versus eating sugar that comes in fruit. There are many significant nutritional differences. It's quite relevant given that we're discussing the benefits of eating minimally processed foods versus highly processed foods. If you get too high a percentage of your calories from junk food then you're likely not going to be getting enough fiber and other micronutrients.
sugar=carb
fiber=carb
you are saying that fiber is in the sugar. which doesn't make sense.
Says what? You could eat fortified food or take in a multivitamin.
I am not talking about satiation but you are talking about a metabolic response which it seems you know nothing about.
what metabolic response will differ? The only thing that will happen is that glucose will enter the blood stream and glycogen stores will be replenished.
the function of sucrose is no different than any other sucrose. the chemical build up is the same0 -
it was a rhetorical question
there is no difference of nutrition between sucrose from fruits or sucrose from candy
Uhm, actually yes there's a huge difference. Eating sugar in isolation causes a different metabolic response from your body than sugar combined with fiber. I don't really want to get into it but it does affects satiety.
Regardless, even if you maintain a calorie controlled diet there's still a huge difference. The sugar in fruits comes with lots of fiber, antioxidants, and other micronutrients. Whereas, the sugar in candy is just pure empty calories without any health benefits other than preventing starvation (yay!).
I highly suggest you crack open a nutrition book because you are associating a subcategory of a macronutrient as having other subcategories of macronutrients, micronutrients, and other chemicals.
Nope, I'm just pointing out the difference between eating pure sugar in isolation versus eating sugar that comes in fruit. There are many significant nutritional differences. It's quite relevant given that we're discussing the benefits of eating minimally processed foods versus highly processed foods. If you get too high a percentage of your calories from junk food then you're likely not going to be getting enough fiber and other micronutrients.
sugar=carb
fiber=carb
you are saying that fiber is in the sugar. which doesn't make sense.
Says what? You could eat fortified food or take in a multivitamin.
I am not talking about satiation but you are talking about a metabolic response which it seems you know nothing about.
what metabolic response will differ? The only thing that will happen is that glucose will enter the blood stream and glycogen stores will be replenished.
the function of sucrose is no different than any other sucrose. the chemical build up is the same
1. No, the difference is that if you eat sugar in it's natural state you get the fiber and micronutrients. Whereas if you eat sugar in highly refined junk food you get nothing but "empty calories" (i.e., calories without any additional benefits beyond just preventing starvation).
2. Actually there is no evidence that taking supplements is as good as getting micronutrients in their natural state. In fact epidemiology links MVI's with decreased life expectancy.
3. Your body's metabolic response to pure sugar in isolation is quite different than the metabolic response to sugar in fruit or sugar combined with other foods that are high in fiber, etc. Ever heard of the glycemic index? If you control your calories then one might argue it's not all that important. But insulin spikes and crashes can trigger hunger which may make controlling calories more difficult for many people.0 -
Nope. I just had linguini with canned clam sauce and chicken breast that was previously frozen. I'm pretty sure it's going to kill me.
OP: You need to learn how to cook using fresh ingredients but the "cut out" processed foods idea is way over the top. I suppose you could move to Alaska and hunt and gather for the rest of your life, or you could simply learn a bit about nutrition and avoid thinking that there's a boogeyman in every can or box.
I live in Alaska let me tell you best learn just to eat better in the supermarket lol0 -
Because things are similar or fall into the same classification does not mean that they are exactly alike. There are some things here being treated as identical that aren't.
Sucrose = fructose + glucose
Glucose and fructose are both sugars but are *structurally* different.
The cells in your body can readily absorb and use glucose.
Unlike glucose, fructose has to be ENTIRELY metabolized by your liver (much like it's your liver that has to deal with alcohol).
Your liver metabolizes fructose by turning fructose into substances that the other cells of your body can deal with -- which are glucose... and fat(That's right, fructose metabolizes by *becoming* fat, so even if you're trying to eat 'fat free', if you're eating a lot of fructose you're still having fat in the blood because your body will turn the fructose into fat and glucose in order to process it). This is the reason that straight fructose doesn't raise your blood insulin levels in the way exact same *way* that sucrose does.
I'm going to simply proportions simply to serve as a thought model.
Think of sucrose as sucrose = 1/2 glucose + 1/2 fructose (which in turn metabolizes as glucose+fat so...
think of Sucrose = 1/2 glucose + (1/4 glucose + 1/4 fat) vs. Fructose which metabolizes is 1/2 glucose + 1/2 fat
Fiber on the other hand is (by definition) resistant to human enzymes and therefore resistant to being metabolized by the human body, Thus fiber has less influence on your blood sugar levels and often passes through our systems undigested (which is why they keep saying to eat your ruffage.)
So fiber part of your carbs? Yes.
Is fiber is "JUST LIKE" sugar? Er.... no. It's not.0 -
I never count fiber towards my carb count...
in terms of processed foods. I try to avoid them as much as possible. But near impossible to eliminate though. Example:
Bottled spice sauces/condiments/dressings = processed
Whey protein = processed
Multivitamim (not really a food but still) = processed
Learn to cook...0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions