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??

13»

Replies

  • 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.

Categories