A Question About Sugar
Options
Replies
-
Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »
Theortically yes. But the composition of that weight loss will be different.If you read what i wrote on the last page you will understand.
I don't understand and when I suggested two alternative interpretations you didn't help. Let's try again to make it really simple for me :-
Do you believe that the same weight loss will occur from eating the same number of calories irrespective of the composition of those calories ?
a) Yes.
b) No.
So a diet that gets 50% of calories from unsoluble fiber (say, 700 of 1400 calories), would have the same results as one that has no calories coming from fiber?
If the tdee and deficit are the same, regardless of the composition of the diet, the loss will be the same. Its ridiculous to try to use extreme examples because no one eats that ways.
Now if you want to show me a metabolic ward study that can prove me wrong please do. But i do know that different foods have different impacts on composition and TEF.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0106851
the study itself says "the sample size is too small to generalize to a larger population" so throw that one out.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199307013290104
Subjects lost weight eating at libitum on high fiber (up to 3g per 100 calorie) diets over 4 months
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-4887.2001.tb07001.x/abstract
Addition of 14 g fiber/day to ad libitum diet (fiber was added to existing calories) resulted in weight loss.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/31/7/1149.full.pdf+html
Men on high fiber diet (12 g/day) excreted twice the amount of ingested energy (an extra 970 calories over a week) than those on a low fiber diet (1 g/day)
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/32/2/346.short
"Plant fibers are the portions of plant foods that are not digested in the human small intestine"
Fiber is a carb that is not used for energy. The calories from fiber (100% for unsoluble fiber and up to 100% of soluble fiber) are not used by the body. A calorie is not a calorie.
Diets with higher percentages of calories from fiber will result in higher losses of fat because fiber calories are not used the way other carbohydrate calories are used. Also, some plant fats are indigestable.
Please post your study proving weight loss is not impacted by macro and fiber content.
Again, there are no calories in fibre. Fibre is an indigestible bulking agent.
You continue to say calories from fibre to prove your point that all calories aren't the same but it doesn't prove your point at all. It shows that you don't understand what fibre is.
Fiber has calories. The calories aren't always digestible (by humans) but they are there, and are counted towards your daily calorie goal by MFP. In labelling, fiber is included in total cabohydrates. Diabetics are sometimes told to include fiber when calculating insulin, and sometimes told to take away some fiber grams from total carbohydrate count.
In the original context, you were using a comparison of a diet that contained 50% of calories from insoluble fibre to one containing the same amount of calories, but low fibre to demonstrate different weight loss due to different energy intake. Am I correct?
Apart from being extreme because I doubt it possible to consume 50% of a diet as insoluble fibre, the insoluble fibre will not be absorbed, will not produce ATP and does not contribute towards calories in. Your example made no sense with regards to what you were trying to prove.
0 -
i gather, the general consensus is that you should not worry about sugar unless (or until) you have a medical condition.
i am assuming that "medical condition" is Type 2 Diabetes.
just be wary that diabetes does not simply materialise overnight. it takes years before its symptoms manifest (and once they do, there is no going back) and by then in all likelihood, some damage to your body would have occurred.
not trying to scare you. but, imho, it is good to cut back on sugar and refined carbohydrates and to keep an occasional eye on your blood sugar levels. take it from someone who has lived with this debilitating disease for 15 years.
I agree. There are lots of people who have sugar levels higher than they should be, but are not diabetic (e.g., pre-diabetes or metabolic syndrome). Also, by the time you're diagnosed you might have already done some very serious damage to yourself. Most people cannot tell when blood sugar has gotten out of control until they experience a catastrophic event. For example, one of my friends didn't know he was diabetic until he had a heart attack and almost died. His blood sugar was over 300. (He did reverse his condition with diet and exercise, losing somewhere around a hundred pounds, but still has some permanent damage.)
Have you had your blood sugar and A1C levels tested?
Personally, keeping my sugar level sort of low helps me with weight loss and helped my triglyceride and cholesterol levels. (I did have metabolic syndrome.) If I do have a dessert, I have it within 30 minutes of a full meal. Eating sweets with protein helps buffer the effect of the sugar so it doesn't enter the bloodstream as quickly. It's also best to do the same with fruit-- eat with or shortly after a meal.
I don't really pay attention to the sugar number on MFP, but it generally does stay below 75. And I have orange juice, chocolate (dark), and a few pieces of fruit every day. I pay more attention to my protein number.0 -
This would make sense, except for the part where eating sugar doesn't cause diabetes. Insulin resistance is a symptom of the disease, not the cause. Will you next claim that having a fever causes you to get the flu?i gather, the general consensus is that you should not worry about sugar unless (or until) you have a medical condition.
i am assuming that "medical condition" is Type 2 Diabetes.
just be wary that diabetes does not simply materialise overnight. it takes years before its symptoms manifest (and once they do, there is no going back) and by then in all likelihood, some damage to your body would have occurred.
not trying to scare you. but, imho, it is good to cut back on sugar and refined carbohydrates and to keep an occasional eye on your blood sugar levels. take it from someone who has lived with this debilitating disease for 15 years.
I agree. There are lots of people who have sugar levels higher than they should be, but are not diabetic (e.g., pre-diabetes or metabolic syndrome). Also, by the time you're diagnosed you might have already done some very serious damage to yourself. Most people cannot tell when blood sugar has gotten out of control until they experience a catastrophic event. For example, one of my friends didn't know he was diabetic until he had a heart attack and almost died. His blood sugar was over 300. (He did reverse his condition with diet and exercise, losing somewhere around a hundred pounds, but still has some permanent damage.)
Have you had your blood sugar and A1C levels tested?
Personally, keeping my sugar level sort of low helps me with weight loss and helped my triglyceride and cholesterol levels. (I did have metabolic syndrome.)
0 -
Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »
Theortically yes. But the composition of that weight loss will be different.If you read what i wrote on the last page you will understand.
I don't understand and when I suggested two alternative interpretations you didn't help. Let's try again to make it really simple for me :-
Do you believe that the same weight loss will occur from eating the same number of calories irrespective of the composition of those calories ?
a) Yes.
b) No.
So a diet that gets 50% of calories from unsoluble fiber (say, 700 of 1400 calories), would have the same results as one that has no calories coming from fiber?
If the tdee and deficit are the same, regardless of the composition of the diet, the loss will be the same. Its ridiculous to try to use extreme examples because no one eats that ways.
Now if you want to show me a metabolic ward study that can prove me wrong please do. But i do know that different foods have different impacts on composition and TEF.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0106851
the study itself says "the sample size is too small to generalize to a larger population" so throw that one out.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199307013290104
Subjects lost weight eating at libitum on high fiber (up to 3g per 100 calorie) diets over 4 months
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-4887.2001.tb07001.x/abstract
Addition of 14 g fiber/day to ad libitum diet (fiber was added to existing calories) resulted in weight loss.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/31/7/1149.full.pdf+html
Men on high fiber diet (12 g/day) excreted twice the amount of ingested energy (an extra 970 calories over a week) than those on a low fiber diet (1 g/day)
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/32/2/346.short
"Plant fibers are the portions of plant foods that are not digested in the human small intestine"
Fiber is a carb that is not used for energy. The calories from fiber (100% for unsoluble fiber and up to 100% of soluble fiber) are not used by the body. A calorie is not a calorie.
Diets with higher percentages of calories from fiber will result in higher losses of fat because fiber calories are not used the way other carbohydrate calories are used. Also, some plant fats are indigestable.
Please post your study proving weight loss is not impacted by macro and fiber content.
Again, there are no calories in fibre. Fibre is an indigestible bulking agent.
You continue to say calories from fibre to prove your point that all calories aren't the same but it doesn't prove your point at all. It shows that you don't understand what fibre is.
Fiber has calories. The calories aren't always digestible (by humans) but they are there, and are counted towards your daily calorie goal by MFP. In labelling, fiber is included in total cabohydrates. Diabetics are sometimes told to include fiber when calculating insulin, and sometimes told to take away some fiber grams from total carbohydrate count.
Actually, if you look at the total calories, it takes into account the variance to the 4 cals per g caused by fiber.
Can I clarify? Does MFP count fibre as 4 cals per gram? At most, it would be 2 cals or gram and that's assuming it's all soluble fibre, which isn't the case for most foods.
Actually, I just reread what you said. They must make a guesstimate....
0 -
I told you that in confidence. Wtf.
That's not how it works! That's not how any of this works!0 -
Most scientific journals will publish studies with conflicting findings provided the science is sound. I would consider a scientific journal to be a more reliable source than a website run by researchers from a university who financially benefit from one researchers fame and book. The website includes pre-made infographics you can distribute that support their bias, for pete's sake. The idea that they are some sort of objective clearinghouse for sugar research is laughable.
All science journals are biased. One of their strongest biases is to reject articles that demonstrate the null hypothesis - that is, studies that are unable to demonstrate the link they set out to find.
That is a HUGE problem in science reporting.
It is so prevalent and has been around so long it even has a nickname - "the file drawer effect".
This is partly why I like meta-analyses. At least they make a statistical guesstimate of publication bias. They also have their own unique set of problems though...
0 -
Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »
Theortically yes. But the composition of that weight loss will be different.If you read what i wrote on the last page you will understand.
I don't understand and when I suggested two alternative interpretations you didn't help. Let's try again to make it really simple for me :-
Do you believe that the same weight loss will occur from eating the same number of calories irrespective of the composition of those calories ?
a) Yes.
b) No.
So a diet that gets 50% of calories from unsoluble fiber (say, 700 of 1400 calories), would have the same results as one that has no calories coming from fiber?
If the tdee and deficit are the same, regardless of the composition of the diet, the loss will be the same. Its ridiculous to try to use extreme examples because no one eats that ways.
Now if you want to show me a metabolic ward study that can prove me wrong please do. But i do know that different foods have different impacts on composition and TEF.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0106851
the study itself says "the sample size is too small to generalize to a larger population" so throw that one out.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199307013290104
Subjects lost weight eating at libitum on high fiber (up to 3g per 100 calorie) diets over 4 months
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-4887.2001.tb07001.x/abstract
Addition of 14 g fiber/day to ad libitum diet (fiber was added to existing calories) resulted in weight loss.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/31/7/1149.full.pdf+html
Men on high fiber diet (12 g/day) excreted twice the amount of ingested energy (an extra 970 calories over a week) than those on a low fiber diet (1 g/day)
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/32/2/346.short
"Plant fibers are the portions of plant foods that are not digested in the human small intestine"
Fiber is a carb that is not used for energy. The calories from fiber (100% for unsoluble fiber and up to 100% of soluble fiber) are not used by the body. A calorie is not a calorie.
Diets with higher percentages of calories from fiber will result in higher losses of fat because fiber calories are not used the way other carbohydrate calories are used. Also, some plant fats are indigestable.
Please post your study proving weight loss is not impacted by macro and fiber content.
Again, there are no calories in fibre. Fibre is an indigestible bulking agent.
You continue to say calories from fibre to prove your point that all calories aren't the same but it doesn't prove your point at all. It shows that you don't understand what fibre is.
Fiber has calories. The calories aren't always digestible (by humans) but they are there, and are counted towards your daily calorie goal by MFP. In labelling, fiber is included in total cabohydrates. Diabetics are sometimes told to include fiber when calculating insulin, and sometimes told to take away some fiber grams from total carbohydrate count.
Actually, if you look at the total calories, it takes into account the variance to the 4 cals per g caused by fiber.
Can I clarify? Does MFP count fibre as 4 cals per gram? At most, it would be 2 cals or gram and that's assuming it's all soluble fibre, which isn't the case for most foods.
Actually, I just reread what you said. They must make a guesstimate....
MFP (and food labels/nutritional data) calculates it at somewhere between 2 and 3. Its hard to tell for sure due to the rounding. I also believe that MFP uses an average. I am not exactly sure with labels as I have not tried to 'reverse math' it or looked into it in great detail - they could be more specific re soluble/insoluble mix, but I would doubt it tbh.0 -
I've put together a chart of four foods considered to be carbohydrates: mixed vegetables, Oreos, banana, spaghetti. The foods are all weighted to 200 calories.
For my percentages, I'm using a TDEE of 2200 with 40 percent carb (220 g), 30 percent fat (74 g), 30 percent protein (165 g), 28 grams of fiber.
Here are a couple of rankings, put in the order of what I consider best to worst:
Amount you get for 200 calories:
Veg - 500 grams
Bananas -- 225 grams
Spaghetti -- 57 grams
Oreos -- 42 grams
How closely aligned are the calories and macros (10% calories, 10% protein, 10% fat, 10% carbs):
Veg -- 500 grams, very nearly 10% across fat, protein, carbs
Spaghetti - 57 grams, carbs and protein are near the 10%; protein is 5%
Oreos -- 42 grams, carbs and fat are near the 10%, protein is 1%
Bananas -- 225 grams, carbs 23%, fat 1%, protein 1.5%
Dietary fiber:
Veg - 42%
Banana - 21%
Spaghetti - 7%
Oreos - 4.5%
These last two are based on amounts per 200 calories:
Vitamins:
Veg - most
Banana - more
Spaghetti - Iron
Oreos -- Iron
Saturated Fat
Spaghetti / Vegetables -- lowest
Banana -- middle
Oreos -- highest
Cholesterol:
They all win! 0 across the board
Mixed vegetables come out in the top position five times.
Oreos are in last position 4 out of 5 times.
So, if I wanted to make a decision about what to eat based on which food would give me the maximum bulk for calories, the optimum combination of macros, the most dietary fiber, the most vitamins, and the least saturated fat, I'd choose vegetables.
I don't seen any scenario where I'd choose Oreos for optimum benefits.
It would appear that the only reason I'd choose Oreos would be to appease my sweet tooth.
Which is weird, since the Oreos and the vegetables have the lowest number of carbs --- shouldn't Oreos taste just like vegetables, since the body can't tell the difference between sugar from vegetables, fruit, pasta, or cookies?
0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
I've put together a chart of four foods considered to be carbohydrates: mixed vegetables, Oreos, banana, spaghetti. The foods are all weighted to 200 calories.
For my percentages, I'm using a TDEE of 2200 with 40 percent carb (220 g), 30 percent fat (74 g), 30 percent protein (165 g), 28 grams of fiber.
Here are a couple of rankings, put in the order of what I consider best to worst:
Amount you get for 200 calories:
Veg - 500 grams
Bananas -- 225 grams
Spaghetti -- 57 grams
Oreos -- 42 grams
How closely aligned are the calories and macros (10% calories, 10% protein, 10% fat, 10% carbs):
Veg -- 500 grams, very nearly 10% across fat, protein, carbs
Spaghetti - 57 grams, carbs and protein are near the 10%; protein is 5%
Oreos -- 42 grams, carbs and fat are near the 10%, protein is 1%
Bananas -- 225 grams, carbs 23%, fat 1%, protein 1.5%
Dietary fiber:
Veg - 42%
Banana - 21%
Spaghetti - 7%
Oreos - 4.5%
These last two are based on amounts per 200 calories:
Vitamins:
Veg - most
Banana - more
Spaghetti - Iron
Oreos -- Iron
Saturated Fat
Spaghetti / Vegetables -- lowest
Banana -- middle
Oreos -- highest
Cholesterol:
They all win! 0 across the board
Mixed vegetables come out in the top position five times.
Oreos are in last position 4 out of 5 times.
So, if I wanted to make a decision about what to eat based on which food would give me the maximum bulk for calories, the optimum combination of macros, the most dietary fiber, the most vitamins, and the least saturated fat, I'd choose vegetables.
I don't seen any scenario where I'd choose Oreos for optimum benefits.
It would appear that the only reason I'd choose Oreos would be to appease my sweet tooth.
Which is weird, since the Oreos and the vegetables have the lowest number of carbs --- shouldn't Oreos taste just like vegetables, since the body can't tell the difference between sugar from vegetables, fruit, pasta, or cookies?
I think you are missing quite a few variables here.0 -
Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »
Theortically yes. But the composition of that weight loss will be different.If you read what i wrote on the last page you will understand.
I don't understand and when I suggested two alternative interpretations you didn't help. Let's try again to make it really simple for me :-
Do you believe that the same weight loss will occur from eating the same number of calories irrespective of the composition of those calories ?
a) Yes.
b) No.
So a diet that gets 50% of calories from unsoluble fiber (say, 700 of 1400 calories), would have the same results as one that has no calories coming from fiber?
If the tdee and deficit are the same, regardless of the composition of the diet, the loss will be the same. Its ridiculous to try to use extreme examples because no one eats that ways.
Now if you want to show me a metabolic ward study that can prove me wrong please do. But i do know that different foods have different impacts on composition and TEF.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0106851
the study itself says "the sample size is too small to generalize to a larger population" so throw that one out.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199307013290104
Subjects lost weight eating at libitum on high fiber (up to 3g per 100 calorie) diets over 4 months
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-4887.2001.tb07001.x/abstract
Addition of 14 g fiber/day to ad libitum diet (fiber was added to existing calories) resulted in weight loss.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/31/7/1149.full.pdf+html
Men on high fiber diet (12 g/day) excreted twice the amount of ingested energy (an extra 970 calories over a week) than those on a low fiber diet (1 g/day)
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/32/2/346.short
"Plant fibers are the portions of plant foods that are not digested in the human small intestine"
Fiber is a carb that is not used for energy. The calories from fiber (100% for unsoluble fiber and up to 100% of soluble fiber) are not used by the body. A calorie is not a calorie.
Diets with higher percentages of calories from fiber will result in higher losses of fat because fiber calories are not used the way other carbohydrate calories are used. Also, some plant fats are indigestable.
Please post your study proving weight loss is not impacted by macro and fiber content.
Again, there are no calories in fibre. Fibre is an indigestible bulking agent.
You continue to say calories from fibre to prove your point that all calories aren't the same but it doesn't prove your point at all. It shows that you don't understand what fibre is.
Fiber has calories. The calories aren't always digestible (by humans) but they are there, and are counted towards your daily calorie goal by MFP. In labelling, fiber is included in total cabohydrates. Diabetics are sometimes told to include fiber when calculating insulin, and sometimes told to take away some fiber grams from total carbohydrate count.
Actually, if you look at the total calories, it takes into account the variance to the 4 cals per g caused by fiber.
Can I clarify? Does MFP count fibre as 4 cals per gram? At most, it would be 2 cals or gram and that's assuming it's all soluble fibre, which isn't the case for most foods.
Actually, I just reread what you said. They must make a guesstimate....
MFP (and food labels/nutritional data) calculates it at somewhere between 2 and 3. Its hard to tell for sure due to the rounding. I also believe that MFP uses an average. I am not exactly sure with labels as I have not tried to 'reverse math' it or looked into it in great detail - they could be more specific re soluble/insoluble mix, but I would doubt it tbh.
Calories still exist whether or not we can metabolize them. Insoluble fiber has calories just like any other carb, 4 per 1 gram. Calories are a unit of energy, not just units of energy that can be metabolized by humans.
I just checked the stats for my salad. 6 g carbs (incl. 3 g fiber), 2 g fat and 2 g protein = 50 total calories. MFP gives it 46 calories, which means fiber calories are deducted by 1/3 total value. My salad had 12 fiber calories, 4 of which were deducted from the total value of the meal. Someone who eats 30 grams of fiber a day, will have 90 calories intake calculated from fiber on MFP (3/4 of total fiber calories).
Manufacturers are allowed to deduct fiber calories from total calories on their nutritional labels, but must include fiber in total carbohydrates:
http://dtc.ucsf.edu/living-with-diabetes/diet-and-nutrition/understanding-carbohydrates/counting-carbohydrates/learning-to-read-labels/
"...On Nutrition Facts food labels, the grams of dietary fiber are already included in the total carbohydrate count..."
If you find the total calories are lower than what would be expected by the macro totals, it may be because the manufacturer has taken the fiber out of the total calories. Manufacturers generally deduct all fiber calories. MFP entries based on these labels will have no fiber calories included.
A lot of studies include fiber calories (at 4 per gram) in total calories consumed. This may be part of why high-fiber diets are associated with weight loss/weight management. Another reason, is that fiber carries nutrients through the digestive tract with it. One of the studies showed that the energy found in the feces of people with higher levels of fiber was double the energy value of the increased fiber. Most of that energy came from fat. The people eating more fiber were less able to access the energy from the fat they ate (it went through the digestive system undigested).
My example of 700 calories a day fiber could be someone on a vegetable fast. Some vegetables are close to 1/2 fiber as far as calories go. It's only about 6x the amount of fiber recommended in the average diet...
0 -
Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »
Theortically yes. But the composition of that weight loss will be different.If you read what i wrote on the last page you will understand.
I don't understand and when I suggested two alternative interpretations you didn't help. Let's try again to make it really simple for me :-
Do you believe that the same weight loss will occur from eating the same number of calories irrespective of the composition of those calories ?
a) Yes.
b) No.
So a diet that gets 50% of calories from unsoluble fiber (say, 700 of 1400 calories), would have the same results as one that has no calories coming from fiber?
If the tdee and deficit are the same, regardless of the composition of the diet, the loss will be the same. Its ridiculous to try to use extreme examples because no one eats that ways.
Now if you want to show me a metabolic ward study that can prove me wrong please do. But i do know that different foods have different impacts on composition and TEF.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0106851
the study itself says "the sample size is too small to generalize to a larger population" so throw that one out.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199307013290104
Subjects lost weight eating at libitum on high fiber (up to 3g per 100 calorie) diets over 4 months
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-4887.2001.tb07001.x/abstract
Addition of 14 g fiber/day to ad libitum diet (fiber was added to existing calories) resulted in weight loss.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/31/7/1149.full.pdf+html
Men on high fiber diet (12 g/day) excreted twice the amount of ingested energy (an extra 970 calories over a week) than those on a low fiber diet (1 g/day)
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/32/2/346.short
"Plant fibers are the portions of plant foods that are not digested in the human small intestine"
Fiber is a carb that is not used for energy. The calories from fiber (100% for unsoluble fiber and up to 100% of soluble fiber) are not used by the body. A calorie is not a calorie.
Diets with higher percentages of calories from fiber will result in higher losses of fat because fiber calories are not used the way other carbohydrate calories are used. Also, some plant fats are indigestable.
Please post your study proving weight loss is not impacted by macro and fiber content.
Again, there are no calories in fibre. Fibre is an indigestible bulking agent.
You continue to say calories from fibre to prove your point that all calories aren't the same but it doesn't prove your point at all. It shows that you don't understand what fibre is.
Fiber has calories. The calories aren't always digestible (by humans) but they are there, and are counted towards your daily calorie goal by MFP. In labelling, fiber is included in total cabohydrates. Diabetics are sometimes told to include fiber when calculating insulin, and sometimes told to take away some fiber grams from total carbohydrate count.
Actually, if you look at the total calories, it takes into account the variance to the 4 cals per g caused by fiber.
Can I clarify? Does MFP count fibre as 4 cals per gram? At most, it would be 2 cals or gram and that's assuming it's all soluble fibre, which isn't the case for most foods.
Actually, I just reread what you said. They must make a guesstimate....
MFP (and food labels/nutritional data) calculates it at somewhere between 2 and 3. Its hard to tell for sure due to the rounding. I also believe that MFP uses an average. I am not exactly sure with labels as I have not tried to 'reverse math' it or looked into it in great detail - they could be more specific re soluble/insoluble mix, but I would doubt it tbh.
Calories still exist whether or not we can metabolize them. Insoluble fiber has calories just like any other carb, 4 per 1 gram. Calories are a unit of energy, not just units of energy that can be metabolized by humans.
I just checked the stats for my salad. 6 g carbs (incl. 3 g fiber), 2 g fat and 2 g protein = 50 total calories. MFP gives it 46 calories, which means fiber calories are deducted by 1/3 total value. My salad had 12 fiber calories, 4 of which were deducted from the total value of the meal. Someone who eats 30 grams of fiber a day, will have 90 calories intake calculated from fiber on MFP (3/4 of total fiber calories).
Manufacturers are allowed to deduct fiber calories from total calories on their nutritional labels, but must include fiber in total carbohydrates:
http://dtc.ucsf.edu/living-with-diabetes/diet-and-nutrition/understanding-carbohydrates/counting-carbohydrates/learning-to-read-labels/
"...On Nutrition Facts food labels, the grams of dietary fiber are already included in the total carbohydrate count..."
If you find the total calories are lower than what would be expected by the macro totals, it may be because the manufacturer has taken the fiber out of the total calories. Manufacturers generally deduct all fiber calories. MFP entries based on these labels will have no fiber calories included.
A lot of studies include fiber calories (at 4 per gram) in total calories consumed. This may be part of why high-fiber diets are associated with weight loss/weight management. Another reason, is that fiber carries nutrients through the digestive tract with it. One of the studies showed that the energy found in the feces of people with higher levels of fiber was double the energy value of the increased fiber. Most of that energy came from fat. The people eating more fiber were less able to access the energy from the fat they ate (it went through the digestive system undigested).
My example of 700 calories a day fiber could be someone on a vegetable fast. Some vegetables are close to 1/2 fiber as far as calories go. It's only about 6x the amount of fiber recommended in the average diet...
I am confused by your post. I think the first part agrees with what I stated (or believed to be the case), but am not sure tbh. You say insoluble fiber has calories? At 4 cals per gram? Where are you getting this from or are we talking semantics here? Not sure the point you are making with the last part.
Also, I actually looked up an example of a potato when double checking the math on what I thought was being shown - not a manufacturers label.0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
I've put together a chart of four foods considered to be carbohydrates: mixed vegetables, Oreos, banana, spaghetti. The foods are all weighted to 200 calories.
For my percentages, I'm using a TDEE of 2200 with 40 percent carb (220 g), 30 percent fat (74 g), 30 percent protein (165 g), 28 grams of fiber.
Here are a couple of rankings, put in the order of what I consider best to worst:
Amount you get for 200 calories:
Veg - 500 grams
Bananas -- 225 grams
Spaghetti -- 57 grams
Oreos -- 42 grams
How closely aligned are the calories and macros (10% calories, 10% protein, 10% fat, 10% carbs):
Veg -- 500 grams, very nearly 10% across fat, protein, carbs
Spaghetti - 57 grams, carbs and protein are near the 10%; protein is 5%
Oreos -- 42 grams, carbs and fat are near the 10%, protein is 1%
Bananas -- 225 grams, carbs 23%, fat 1%, protein 1.5%
Dietary fiber:
Veg - 42%
Banana - 21%
Spaghetti - 7%
Oreos - 4.5%
These last two are based on amounts per 200 calories:
Vitamins:
Veg - most
Banana - more
Spaghetti - Iron
Oreos -- Iron
Saturated Fat
Spaghetti / Vegetables -- lowest
Banana -- middle
Oreos -- highest
Cholesterol:
They all win! 0 across the board
Mixed vegetables come out in the top position five times.
Oreos are in last position 4 out of 5 times.
So, if I wanted to make a decision about what to eat based on which food would give me the maximum bulk for calories, the optimum combination of macros, the most dietary fiber, the most vitamins, and the least saturated fat, I'd choose vegetables.
I don't seen any scenario where I'd choose Oreos for optimum benefits.
It would appear that the only reason I'd choose Oreos would be to appease my sweet tooth.
Which is weird, since the Oreos and the vegetables have the lowest number of carbs --- shouldn't Oreos taste just like vegetables, since the body can't tell the difference between sugar from vegetables, fruit, pasta, or cookies?
I think you are missing quite a few variables here.
yea, like context of diet perhaps?
I mean if you are concerned with just fat loss and want to get the most "bang for your buck" because you are on limited calorie consumption, then yes vegetables over oreos makes sense…
However, if you are bulking and want to get in the most calories then oreos are the superior choice over vegetables.
if one is in maintenance then you could have combo of both and still hit all goals.
This does not make oreos better than vegetables, or vegetables better than oreos; it just means that food is just food and different combinations work for different goals.0 -
Let's start with the obvious, ranking single food items according to arbitrary categories is foolish, as it ignores the entirety of the diet. Suppose you need 200 calories, 9 grams of fat, and 30 grams of carbs to round out your day. Suddenly the Oreos become the best choice out of the options you've presented.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
I've put together a chart of four foods considered to be carbohydrates: mixed vegetables, Oreos, banana, spaghetti. The foods are all weighted to 200 calories.
For my percentages, I'm using a TDEE of 2200 with 40 percent carb (220 g), 30 percent fat (74 g), 30 percent protein (165 g), 28 grams of fiber.
Here are a couple of rankings, put in the order of what I consider best to worst:
Amount you get for 200 calories:
Veg - 500 grams
Bananas -- 225 grams
Spaghetti -- 57 grams
Oreos -- 42 grams
How closely aligned are the calories and macros (10% calories, 10% protein, 10% fat, 10% carbs):
Veg -- 500 grams, very nearly 10% across fat, protein, carbs
Spaghetti - 57 grams, carbs and protein are near the 10%; protein is 5%
Oreos -- 42 grams, carbs and fat are near the 10%, protein is 1%
Bananas -- 225 grams, carbs 23%, fat 1%, protein 1.5%
Dietary fiber:
Veg - 42%
Banana - 21%
Spaghetti - 7%
Oreos - 4.5%
These last two are based on amounts per 200 calories:
Vitamins:
Veg - most
Banana - more
Spaghetti - Iron
Oreos -- Iron
Saturated Fat
Spaghetti / Vegetables -- lowest
Banana -- middle
Oreos -- highest
Cholesterol:
They all win! 0 across the board
Mixed vegetables come out in the top position five times.
Oreos are in last position 4 out of 5 times.
So, if I wanted to make a decision about what to eat based on which food would give me the maximum bulk for calories, the optimum combination of macros, the most dietary fiber, the most vitamins, and the least saturated fat, I'd choose vegetables.
I don't seen any scenario where I'd choose Oreos for optimum benefits.
It would appear that the only reason I'd choose Oreos would be to appease my sweet tooth.
Which is weird, since the Oreos and the vegetables have the lowest number of carbs --- shouldn't Oreos taste just like vegetables, since the body can't tell the difference between sugar from vegetables, fruit, pasta, or cookies?
Now, I'm not even sure your last part even deserves a response. However, I'll go ahead and answer it anyway. Vegetables and Oreos taste different because there are millions of flavor compounds that exist. Different combinations of compounds change the way foods taste. All compounds have flavor, fats taste differently, different proteins taste different, even different sugars have variations in flavor (lactose and fructose don't taste at all alike.)
In other words, trying to say that because vegetables and Oreos taste different, the human body must recognize the different sources of sugar, shows an absolute 100% complete lack of understanding of the concept at all. It's proof that you have no idea what you're talking about. Especially because identifying flavor is something your brain does. It has no effect on your digestive system.-3 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
I've put together a chart of four foods considered to be carbohydrates: mixed vegetables, Oreos, banana, spaghetti. The foods are all weighted to 200 calories.
For my percentages, I'm using a TDEE of 2200 with 40 percent carb (220 g), 30 percent fat (74 g), 30 percent protein (165 g), 28 grams of fiber.
Here are a couple of rankings, put in the order of what I consider best to worst:
Amount you get for 200 calories:
Veg - 500 grams
Bananas -- 225 grams
Spaghetti -- 57 grams
Oreos -- 42 grams
How closely aligned are the calories and macros (10% calories, 10% protein, 10% fat, 10% carbs):
Veg -- 500 grams, very nearly 10% across fat, protein, carbs
Spaghetti - 57 grams, carbs and protein are near the 10%; protein is 5%
Oreos -- 42 grams, carbs and fat are near the 10%, protein is 1%
Bananas -- 225 grams, carbs 23%, fat 1%, protein 1.5%
Dietary fiber:
Veg - 42%
Banana - 21%
Spaghetti - 7%
Oreos - 4.5%
These last two are based on amounts per 200 calories:
Vitamins:
Veg - most
Banana - more
Spaghetti - Iron
Oreos -- Iron
Saturated Fat
Spaghetti / Vegetables -- lowest
Banana -- middle
Oreos -- highest
Cholesterol:
They all win! 0 across the board
Mixed vegetables come out in the top position five times.
Oreos are in last position 4 out of 5 times.
So, if I wanted to make a decision about what to eat based on which food would give me the maximum bulk for calories, the optimum combination of macros, the most dietary fiber, the most vitamins, and the least saturated fat, I'd choose vegetables.
I don't seen any scenario where I'd choose Oreos for optimum benefits.
It would appear that the only reason I'd choose Oreos would be to appease my sweet tooth.
Which is weird, since the Oreos and the vegetables have the lowest number of carbs --- shouldn't Oreos taste just like vegetables, since the body can't tell the difference between sugar from vegetables, fruit, pasta, or cookies?
I think you are missing quite a few variables here.
yea, like context of diet perhaps?
I mean if you are concerned with just fat loss and want to get the most "bang for your buck" because you are on limited calorie consumption, then yes vegetables over oreos makes sense…
However, if you are bulking and want to get in the most calories then oreos are the superior choice over vegetables.
if one is in maintenance then you could have combo of both and still hit all goals.
This does not make oreos better than vegetables, or vegetables better than oreos; it just means that food is just food and different combinations work for different goals.
Another example. I am a vegetarian who needs fast acting carbs, wants to limit my fiber as I have already got a lot from the rest of my diet, need to get my fats up, and am about to go lift...which is better....hmmmm...the one with the lowest fiber and the highest iron...oh look!! Oreos win!!0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »Mixed vegetables come out in the top position five times.
Oreos are in last position 4 out of 5 times.
So, if I wanted to make a decision about what to eat based on which food would give me the maximum bulk for calories, the optimum combination of macros, the most dietary fiber, the most vitamins, and the least saturated fat, I'd choose vegetables.
The problem with these kinds of arguments is they weirdly stack one food against another as if we were making a decision about the one food we could eat. I am never in a situation where I'm deciding between, say, broccoli and ice cream. Never, ever, has my decision to have some ice cream meant that I cut out my broccoli for the day. Instead, I might reach the end of an evening after a full day of nutritious (and mixed) food and think, hmm, I'd like a little something after dinner or before bed, what should I have? Typically, I would have had broccoli (or various other veggies) at dinner (and lunch and breakfast) so, yeah, that's not in the running. I think "hmm, maybe some yogurt or a Quest bar or ice cream or maybe some cheese or nuts or a piece of fruit or some high quality chocolate (I'm a chocolate snob)." And then I pick, but only if I have excess calories (well, unless I'm not caring for some reason).
One thing I might look at when picking (not always, since I'm more "close enough" with my macros due to my own goals not requiring precision) is whether I'm high or low on fat or protein, etc. Another thing is how healthy the overall day has been--if I haven't eaten that well I'm more likely to go with something like the fruit (although I'm more likely to have fixed it with dinner), if really low on protein the yogurt or Quest bar, if short on calories the fruit, so on.
Never am I thinking "jeez, do I want pasta or Oreos or mixed veggies." Indeed, none of those foods is particularly good on their own, but all could be a reasonable part of a day (except that I probably would pick some other dessert food just due to personal preference). And if they all made up a day, presumably I'd make sure it was in relative quantities so that I got plenty to eat. Certainly my decision to eat chocolate and ice cream and pie from time to time over the past 11 months while losing weight has not led to me ever being hungry.
If your argument is that an overall balanced healthy diet with 200 calories of cookies is healthier than one with the same number of overall calories but without the cookies, well, I'm skeptical. More significantly, if we are going to micromanage in that fashion, couldn't I just as easily argue that someone who eats rice cakes or pasta or cheese would be better off spending those calories on some food I prefer? (To be clear, I don't really prefer anything to cheese, at least not good cheese!)0 -
I think you are missing quite a few variables here.
Such as?
Another example. I am a vegetarian who needs fast acting carbs, wants to limit my fiber as I have already got a lot from the rest of my diet, need to get my fats up, and am about to go lift...which is better....hmmmm...the one with the lowest fiber and the highest iron...oh look!! Oreos win!!
Yes, this is a great example of when Oreos would be the optimum choice.
For a body builder.
Who is about to burn the calories off.
This is the argument I see time and time again on MFP:
1. Sugar is the devil! It's addictive and I can't stop eating it! -- average Joe
2. No it isn't! Eat what you want just in moderation! -- body builder who eats 3,000 calories a day and struggles to maintain bulk
3. In fact, limiting sugar will cause you to binge -- vegetarian and / or gluten free person
0 -
tigersword wrote: »
shows an absolute 100% complete lack of understanding of the concept at all.
Oh bless your heart honey -- I'm steering the conversation away from concepts and towards particulars.
Also, I am going to make a button that says "An absolute 100% complete lack of understanding."
It'll go next to my button that says "They are usually almost always never home."0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »I think you are missing quite a few variables here.
Such as?
Another example. I am a vegetarian who needs fast acting carbs, wants to limit my fiber as I have already got a lot from the rest of my diet, need to get my fats up, and am about to go lift...which is better....hmmmm...the one with the lowest fiber and the highest iron...oh look!! Oreos win!!
Yes, this is a great example of when Oreos would be the optimum choice.
For a body builder.
Who is about to burn the calories off.
This is the argument I see time and time again on MFP:
1. Sugar is the devil! It's addictive and I can't stop eating it! -- average Joe
2. No it isn't! Eat what you want just in moderation! -- body builder who eats 3,000 calories a day and struggles to maintain bulk
3. In fact, limiting sugar will cause you to binge -- vegetarian and / or gluten free person
LOL so only body builders eat oreos to fill out their calorie and macro goals…
ummm no ..
and yes Tiger was right, you have zero understanding of any of this..
but keep trying...0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 959 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions