Resistant starch?

Aaron_K123

tbright1965 wrote: »

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

I guess I don't get why people want to reduce the calorie content of their food. If food has fewer calories that just means you will be hungrier after consuming it than had it had the original calories. All reducing calorie content of food is doing is ruining food. I mean if you want to reduce the calorie content of your food you could always just burn it...that would do it.

Depends on where the calories are sourced.

I'm not saying Keto here, but bear with me.

If I measure my salad dressing, instead of just drowning my food in it, I can get the same taste without consuming calories with little added nutritional value.

I can choose foods that use naturally occurring sugars instead of adding more sugar. (Why do food manufacturers need to add sugar to raisin bran?)

As someone who is on the edge of T2D, if not an actual diabetic, I am concerned about unnecessary sugars.

Note, I'm not saying don't eat sugar. What I'm saying is if I am eating carbohydrates, I need to get more than just sugars from that food. I need some other nutrients. I need vitamins and minerals too, not just sugar.

So no little chocolate donuts for breakfast. But I might have a banana or a bowl of fruit with my omelette that has peppers and onions in it.

It's also a time issue. I can consume 1000 calories in a much shorter time span than it takes me to burn it.

If I don't do much of anything other than run off at the mouth and jump to conclusions, it's takes me 10-12 hours to burn off that 1000 calories.

Exercising, it will probably take 90+ minutes to burn what I could eat in 5-15 minutes.

Since the goals, at the moment are to keep my fasting BG below 100 and lose another ~15 pounds on top of the ~50 already lost in the past 7 months, smart reduction of calories, especially empty sugar based calories is a priority.

If I do go to McDonalds, I'll have the apple slices instead of fries or hash browns.

The apples have fewer calories and still bring a decent amount of vitamins and minerals / calorie relative to the fries.

An Egg McMuffin and two bags of apple slices with a black coffee is a pretty good breakfast, FWIW.

=======================================================
Edited to add hash browns and change fries to apples in the 2nd to last paragraph above.

I certainly agree with you that macros play an important role in satiety as does how desirable the food is (subjectively determined). However, and this is important, if you are satisfied by starches then you are clearly satisfied by carbohydrates and you can only be satisfied by those if you digest them. I do not agree that fiber is satiating...it might in some cases be filling, but it won't help with hunger or energy.

If you treat the pasta in a way that makes 20% of the starches within the pasta undigestable then basically you have just reduced the satiety of it by 20%. You may as well just eat 20% less of the original pasta then and not waste food. To me it just seems wasteful and is just one of those cringy first-world-problem sort of things that people would try to handle their food in such a way as to destroy the value of it as a means of dieting.

tbright1965

I think I see your point.

I would rather just make different food choices, such as subbing veggies for pasta, as I do when I hit up Crazy Bowls and Wraps. You can get a bowl with spiralized veggies instead of rice or noodles.

No heroic efforts needed to blunt the pasta, either don't have it, or have less and fill it the lost volume with something else.

I choose to forego the pasta on many occasions and just have veggies.