Whats your opinion on logging raw veges?

WhittRak

Did you eat it? Then log it. That simple.

Gt3ch

On average, half of the calories won't be absorbed from fibrous vegetables (soluble fiber) so it's simpler not to count the calories from them.

I don't know where you got that from. If it's true than I should just be absolutely wasting away! It should also be nearly impossible to be a raw vegan athlete or bodybuilder. (The reality is it's not that big of a deal.)

My diet is usually vegan (although I'm technically not vegan) and I often get 80g or more of fiber. I eat little processed foods. If I'm not really careful about counting calories and avoiding eating all my exercise calories from my HRM I gain fat easily. I'm also gaining muscle eating less than the typical protein guidelines. It's 100% plant proteins.

Fiber definitely slows the absorption of nutrients. It does also put a load on the gut (pun intended) that make it work a bit harder. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. Is some of the nutrition lost because it is caught up in undigestible fiber? Yes. The system isn't 100% efficient. But fiber also clears the intestines which makes them healthier and better at absorbing nutrition. It even assists the liver in clearing cholesterol! Unless you have a very compromised GI tract lots of fiber from whole foods is a good thing. Every mainstream medical expert (especially GI docs) would agree.

If you eat very little vegetables or only have small light salads with little more than lettuces that have little nutritional value than it's probably not worth logging. But even omnivores should eat much more fruits and veggies than that if they have any interest in their health. A well balanced diet is going to have at least a few hundred calories from fruits and veggies that ABSOLUTELY gets absorbed by the body. I'd say that's worth logging.

Glucocorticoid

I got it from here - http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/fiber-its-natures-broom.html

dahkneeka

I think you're putting too much importance on this. I think you should be celebrating that you snack on raw veggies all day.

Thanks )

Gt3ch

I got it from here - http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/fiber-its-natures-broom.html

OK so I went there. Here's what I read under "Impaired Nutrient absorption"

"I’d note that the effect isn’t massive, fiber may reduce total fat absorption by about 3%, protein by 5%. I can’t find a good value for carbohydrates at the moment. Put more concretely, an increase in dietary fiber from 18 to 36 grams per day might reduce total caloric absorption by 100 calories per day."

Glucocorticoid

Scroll down to this section: Newsflash: Fiber Provides Calories to Humans

meshashesha2012

i dont log it.. trust me i'm not here because i overate on vegetables :laugh: i dont log stuff like veggies, tea or spices because that's not the stuff i need to 2-finger eyeball.

Gt3ch

Scroll down to this section: Newsflash: Fiber Provides Calories to Humans

OK. Still don't see anything about 1/2 all calories being lost to fiber. In fact the claim is almost the opposite: you get some calories from "indigestible" fiber.

"Newsflash: Fiber Provides Calories to Humans

But there is another effect of fiber on energy balance that often goes unappreciated. Backing up, it’s often stated that fiber provides no calories to the body since humans lack the enzymes necessary to digest it. This has often been taken even further to claim that high-fiber vegetables are ‘negative calorie foods’, that is they take more calories to digest than they provide (assumed to be zero).

Here’s the thing: it’s not true. Not entirely anyhow.

Above I discussed the issue of fermentation of some types of fiber to short-chain fatty acids which are then reabsorbed by the body. Well, those fatty acids provide calories to the body. While there is still some debate in the area, researchers have assigned a caloric value to fiber of 1.5-2 cal/gram (depending on the specific type).

Admittedly this is an average and will depend on the specifics of the diet and the type of fiber but, simply, the idea that fiber provides no calories to the body is not true. While the caloric value of fiber is still lower than starchy carbohydrates (4 cal/g), it is not zero."

Glucocorticoid

What are you talking about? I never said half of ALL calories will be lost due to fiber. That would be silly.

"While there is still some debate in the area, researchers have assigned a caloric value to fiber of 1.5-2 cal/gram (depending on the specific type). "

Gt3ch

On average, half of the calories won't be absorbed from fibrous vegetables (soluble fiber) so it's simpler not to count the calories from them.

Glucocorticoid

Maybe I phrased it poorly. I meant half of the calories from fibrous vegetables won't be absorbed (on average). I did not mean half of all calories of any type will not be absorbed due to fiber. Haha.

bathsheba_c

I log because it is sometimes surprising to see the differences between vegetables. For example, I am trying to cut carbs, so I have stopped adding sweet corn to salads. Whereas, if I am approaching my limit for the day in calories, I know I am better off snacking on cucumber or mixed baby greens than on carrots (even thought carrots generally rock).

Gt3ch

Maybe I phrased it poorly. I meant half of the calories from fibrous vegetables won't be absorbed (on average). I did not mean half of all calories of any type will not be absorbed due to fiber. Haha.

No I think I phrased it poorly. As a vegetarian 1/2 of the vegetable calories is usually 1/2 of all my calories. So reflexively it came out wrong even though I understood what you were saying.

There’s a problem, though. The source you cited is a good read but it doesn’t corroborate your claim. I also simply can’t agree that it’s not worth logging veggies if you’re grazing on them all day.

Here’s why. A pound of carrots is typically no more than 8-12 mature carrots. I can easily eat that in one sitting. It’s EXTREMELY easy to do if you’re grazing on them over the course of a day. How many calories? Up to a little over 190 cals!!

You can frequently find me eating a large bunch of raw broccoli in front of the TV. That can be up to 220 cals and 18g protein!!!

So if you eat a lot of raw veggies throughout the day it is ABSOLUTELY worth counting. I don’t buy that 1/2 of all veggie calories are lost because of fiber. While you’re source is an interesting read, and I’m glad you cited it for everyone, it doesn’t support your claim. But even if you’re right we’re still ABSOLUTELY taking about enough calories to be worth logging if you eat a lot of veggies over the course of a day.

Glucocorticoid

The article supports what I said. My statement is specific to fibrous vegetables (not starchy vegetables such as carrots/pea/corn/etc.). It would apply for your broccoli statement though. The article explains this too.
But if you're going to eat an insane amount of fibrous vegetables, I agree that even those calories can add up and be significant, particularly on a low calorie diet.

Captain_Tightpants

They have calories. Of course they count.

SweetSammie

I log them, but I don't weigh or measure the lower cal veggies as religiously as I do meat, dairy, ect. I will weigh a potato or sweet potato since they are higher cal.

Gt3ch

The article supports what I said. My statement is specific to fibrous vegetables (not starchy vegetables such as carrots/pea/corn/etc.). It would apply for your broccoli statement though. The article explains this too.
But if you're going to eat an insane amount of fibrous vegetables, I agree that even those calories can add up and be significant, particularly on a low calorie diet.

Where does the article say this? What we've uncovered so far from the article is that fiber plays a minor role in inhibiting nutrient uptake and that while not directly digestible, fiber still yields some calories.

All vegetables are fibrous so I don't completely follow your distinction. Yes I get that celery is extremely fibrous with little calories and corn or potatoes are very starchy and tomatoes are high in carbohydrates. But for the purposes of this thread, the OP is asking for advice on logging ALL raw vegetable that she is grazing throughout the day. So what's at issue here is logging what you probably consider to be an "insane" amount of a wide variety of veggies. If your advice is to not bother logging celery I say fine. But cucumber also has few calories and it isn't really that fibrous- it's more water than fiber.

But even more than that, when things mix in your gut the digestion is complex. When you eat things together you can't separate out precisely that the more fibrous veggies are being absorbed at a rate of 50% and more starchy ones are absorbed at 97% or whatever the case may be. It absolutely doesn't work out so neatly.

chellebelle315

I log everything I eat, because I also want to track fiber, sodium and other macro nutrients.

You could always create a recipe of "my veggie snack" with a combination of what an afternoon of raw veggie nibbling looks like, and then just enter that once a day.

yep. This is how I do it. For salads and smoothies too.

Glucocorticoid

The article supports what I said. My statement is specific to fibrous vegetables (not starchy vegetables such as carrots/pea/corn/etc.). It would apply for your broccoli statement though. The article explains this too.
But if you're going to eat an insane amount of fibrous vegetables, I agree that even those calories can add up and be significant, particularly on a low calorie diet.

Where does the article say this? What we've uncovered so far from the article is that fiber plays a minor role in inhibiting nutrient uptake and that while not directly digestible, fiber still yields some calories.

All vegetables are fibrous so I don't completely follow your distinction. Yes I get that celery is extremely fibrous with little calories and corn or potatoes are very starchy and tomatoes are high in carbohydrates. But for the purposes of this thread, the OP is asking for advice on logging ALL raw vegetable that she is grazing throughout the day. So what's at issue here is logging what you probably consider to be an "insane" amount of a wide variety of veggies. If your advice is to not bother logging celery I say fine. But cucumber also has few calories and it isn't really that fibrous- it's more water than fiber.

But even more than that, when things mix in your gut the digestion is complex. When you eat things together you can't separate out precisely that the more fibrous veggies are being absorbed at a rate of 50% and more starchy ones are absorbed at 97% or whatever the case may be. It absolutely doesn't work out so neatly.

He distinguishes between different types of vegetables (and fiber) in the beginning.
Lumping starchy vegetables in with fibrous vegetables is silly. Starches have a lot of digestible carbs.
Fiber can be given a calorie value of 1.5-2 per gram. In other words, unless the fiber intake is massive, I don't bother counting them, because the difference will be negligible. Not sure how many other ways I can say it.

Gt3ch

He distinguishes between different types of vegetables (and fiber) in the beginning.
Lumping starchy vegetables in with fibrous vegetables is silly. Starches have a lot of digestible carbs.
Fiber can be given a calorie value of 1.5-2 per gram. In other words, unless the fiber intake is massive, I don't bother counting them, because the difference will be negligible. Not sure how many other ways I can say it.

No you're misreading the article. What’s really going on is that IN ADDITION to the calories from protein and carbohydrates in these fibrous plant foods the body ALSO takes in 1.5-2 cal/gram from indigestible fiber because of fermentation. Also according to the article the fiber inhibits absorption of roughly 3-5% of the calories of whatever is mixed in your gut at the time IF there is a high proportion of fibrous veggies. NO WHERE does he state anything like 50% of calories in the most fibrous plant foods are blocked from absorption because of the fiber with no effect on anything else in the gut.

I don't know what your thinking. Perhaps that there is no nutritional value to the veggies outside of indigestible fiber? Then maybe you’re comparing that 2cal/gram to the 4cal/gram figure for carbohydrates and saying half is gone? That’s just completely wrong and a misreading of the article.

Glucocorticoid

I'm aware of that. You're making assumptions of what I am thinking instead of looking at what I actually said.

hesn92

I log everything I eat. You could portion everything out ahead of time that way you know how much you eat in a day.

Gt3ch

I'm aware of that. You're making assumptions of what I am thinking instead of looking at what I actually said.

Making assumptions? No I’m just desperately trying to find some plausible thread of logic in your argument. I looked at what you "actually said" (ad nauseum). It’s wrong. Your support of that claim is nonsensical. The ADDITIONAL calories due to fermentation, of what is otherwise considered undigestible fiber, is irrelevant to your claim that 1/2 ALL calories from fibrous plant foods are lost. If you have some magic piece of evidence that somehow manages to link the two you've so far neglected to enlighten us.

but now you’ve gone beyond absurd. You’ve just agreed with my summary of the article while simultaneously defending a completely contrary and fictitious position to it. At this point I'm really having trouble believing you’re even serious.