Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Baking literally burns off sugar calories??

2»

Replies

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    bpetrosky wrote: »
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    @lemurcat12
    Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
    I tried to tag lemurcat12 but she appears to have deactivated?? I thought she'd be interested in this discussion.
    Anyway, tagging to follow.

    right. I tried that.
    Page not found
    Sorry, but the page you requested was not found. Please check the URL and try again.

    Weird. Hope she's ok.

    She's alive and well. Just not here.

    I'm really glad to hear that, thank you.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Stockholm_Andy wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    Stockholm_Andy wrote: »
    DX2JX2 wrote: »
    I don't necessarily think they're wrong but I do think that the calorie loss isn't important in the grand scheme of things. Since it's fairly impossible to get a 100% accurate picture of the calories that we eat every day, a 5-8% loss in sugar calories in baked goods won't really make a difference.

    What they are saying though is that in a cake with invert sugar, they found the digestible or available calorie content decreased by 36 per cent, while in cake with sucrose, it declined by about 12 per cent.

    For people who like cake an additional 24% decrease would seem like a good thing to me.

    I haven't read the research so I don't know if it's true or even plausible as I don't like cake so I don't really care. However, if they could do the same thing to potato chips I'd be all ears......

    I don't know any cake where the total sugar even makes up 36% of the calories. There's a whole lot of fat and starch in there.

    It was only 36% of the calories from Sugar I believe NOT the total calories. I'm just quoting what they said.......

    Well, that sounds quite a bit less impressive than reducing available calories by 36%.
  • zyxst
    zyxst Posts: 9,149 Member
    bpetrosky wrote: »
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    @lemurcat12
    Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
    I tried to tag lemurcat12 but she appears to have deactivated?? I thought she'd be interested in this discussion.
    Anyway, tagging to follow.

    right. I tried that.
    Page not found
    Sorry, but the page you requested was not found. Please check the URL and try again.

    Weird. Hope she's ok.

    She's alive and well. Just not here.

    That's good to know, thanks. Will miss her thoughts on the forums.
  • French_Peasant
    French_Peasant Posts: 1,639 Member
    bpetrosky wrote: »
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    @lemurcat12
    Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
    I tried to tag lemurcat12 but she appears to have deactivated?? I thought she'd be interested in this discussion.
    Anyway, tagging to follow.

    right. I tried that.
    Page not found
    Sorry, but the page you requested was not found. Please check the URL and try again.

    Weird. Hope she's ok.

    She's alive and well. Just not here.

    I have only been on very sporadically, but yesterday noticed that she was gone from my friends list, and was very, very sad. She will definitely be missed.
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    edited June 2018
    bpetrosky wrote: »
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    @lemurcat12
    Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
    I tried to tag lemurcat12 but she appears to have deactivated?? I thought she'd be interested in this discussion.
    Anyway, tagging to follow.

    right. I tried that.
    Page not found
    Sorry, but the page you requested was not found. Please check the URL and try again.

    Weird. Hope she's ok.

    She's alive and well. Just not here.

    Thanks for letting us know!
  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    bpetrosky wrote: »
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    @lemurcat12
    Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
    I tried to tag lemurcat12 but she appears to have deactivated?? I thought she'd be interested in this discussion.
    Anyway, tagging to follow.

    right. I tried that.
    Page not found
    Sorry, but the page you requested was not found. Please check the URL and try again.

    Weird. Hope she's ok.

    She's alive and well. Just not here.

    :relieved::smile:
  • bpetrosky
    bpetrosky Posts: 3,911 Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    bpetrosky wrote: »
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    @lemurcat12
    Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
    I tried to tag lemurcat12 but she appears to have deactivated?? I thought she'd be interested in this discussion.
    Anyway, tagging to follow.

    right. I tried that.
    Page not found
    Sorry, but the page you requested was not found. Please check the URL and try again.

    Weird. Hope she's ok.

    She's alive and well. Just not here.

    @bpetrosky if you have other contact info for her would you show her this thread? I miss her too!

    I think she's seen this thread as a non-logged in viewer. I miss her here too.
  • charleycartee
    charleycartee Posts: 49 Member
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    Bottom line, no.

    It doesn't get hot enough to alter the molecular makeup.

    Browning = caramelization or maillard reaction (sugars and proteins respectively as I recall). Those are both a molecular change.

    Maybe you mean it doesn't alter it enough to have a significant effect?
  • Stockholm_Andy
    Stockholm_Andy Posts: 803 Member
    DX2JX2 wrote: »
    Stockholm_Andy wrote: »
    DX2JX2 wrote: »
    I don't necessarily think they're wrong but I do think that the calorie loss isn't important in the grand scheme of things. Since it's fairly impossible to get a 100% accurate picture of the calories that we eat every day, a 5-8% loss in sugar calories in baked goods won't really make a difference.

    What they are saying though is that in a cake with invert sugar, they found the digestible or available calorie content decreased by 36 per cent, while in cake with sucrose, it declined by about 12 per cent.

    For people who like cake an additional 24% decrease would seem like a good thing to me.

    I haven't read the research so I don't know if it's true or even plausible as I don't like cake so I don't really care. However, if they could do the same thing to potato chips I'd be all ears......

    How much cake are you eating? I just looked up a recipe for simple white cake. The sugar contributed slightly less than 800 calories to that recipe (1 cup). Even assuming a 36% decrease in calories for this example, that would equate to about 290 calories.

    Over 12 servings, that reduction is equal to about 25 calories per slice. Not necessarily a calorie windfall, all things considered. You'll probably get more variance in calories from the size of the eggs or precision of measurement on the other ingredients.

    Like I said in my earlier I don't eat cake at all mate. I've not got even the slightest of a sweet tooth.

    The posted link wasn't talking about any thing NEW. They're saying this has always happened when inverted sugar is used. No one is getting 25 less calories per slice.
  • Stockholm_Andy
    Stockholm_Andy Posts: 803 Member
    stevencloser wrote: »
    Stockholm_Andy wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    Stockholm_Andy wrote: »
    DX2JX2 wrote: »
    I don't necessarily think they're wrong but I do think that the calorie loss isn't important in the grand scheme of things. Since it's fairly impossible to get a 100% accurate picture of the calories that we eat every day, a 5-8% loss in sugar calories in baked goods won't really make a difference.

    What they are saying though is that in a cake with invert sugar, they found the digestible or available calorie content decreased by 36 per cent, while in cake with sucrose, it declined by about 12 per cent.

    For people who like cake an additional 24% decrease would seem like a good thing to me.

    I haven't read the research so I don't know if it's true or even plausible as I don't like cake so I don't really care. However, if they could do the same thing to potato chips I'd be all ears......

    I don't know any cake where the total sugar even makes up 36% of the calories. There's a whole lot of fat and starch in there.

    It was only 36% of the calories from Sugar I believe NOT the total calories. I'm just quoting what they said.......

    Well, that sounds quite a bit less impressive than reducing available calories by 36%.

    That's journalism for you. The papers title just isn't as sexy: Sugar Loss Attributed to Non-Enzymatic Browning Corresponds to Reduce Calories Recovered in Low-Molecular-Weight Fraction.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories