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.
We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!

Pizza Is a Healthier Breakfast Than Most Cereals

12467

Replies

  • Posts: 18,343 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    ...I genuinely feel bad for people who believe there is such a difficult fine line to walk every time they eat.

    The word "orthorexia" springs to mind.
  • Posts: 18,343 Member
    edited February 2018
    billym2018 wrote: »

    I feel like you’d make a good lawyer. Okay, there is a correlation between simple carbs and visceral fat. I think we can agree being inactive and eating lots of simple carbs calories would be a bad thing though.

    Fixed it for you.

    Answer me this: What are complex carbs ultimately digested/metabolized into in the body?
  • Posts: 30,886 Member
    billym2018 wrote: »
    I was referring to store bought pizza. Not your homemade pizza. If everyone reading takes a moment to check their freezer pizza for some kind unnatural sugar listed on the back you may be surprised to see sugar.

    Why are you assuming certain kinds of cereal (whole grain, no added sugar, lots of fiber) and certain kinds of pizza (frozen grocery store, nothing on it but tomato sauce, cheese, and pepperoni or whatever)? Seems like a way to bias the argument.

    I doubt anyone has pizza for breakfast regularly (vs. once in a while), but it's silly to say either is better inherently -- depends on the pizza, the cereal, the day as a whole, the person's goals.
    I personally do care about insulin spikes and I mentioned it because I thought it was valuable to those that do care. Actually mixed macro meals lead to a blood pressure rise. It’s a significant spike.

    Most people have no reason to care about insulin spikes, though.

    My blood pressure is fine despite pretty much every meal I ever eat being mixed macro. I think most people eat mixed macro meals without it giving them dietary problems. Most traditional ways of eating seem to involve mixed macro meals. I think the most satisfying meals are a combination of macros (for most people). For me this means having a source of protein (usually plant based these days, but I lost all my weight eating lots of eggs, dairy, and meat), and lots of vegetables (themselves inherently mixed macro) at every meal. I also like to include some fat with each meal, so...

    Some of the healthiest foods are inherently mixed macros, like nuts. Greek yogurt is too. A vegetable omelet. A sweet potato and black bean chili with kale.
    If you are someone that is interested in digestive health then yes you'd want to wait sometime after eating protein. Like say fruit and meat, those do not mix well. The sugar in the fruit ferments in you stomach.

    Where are you getting this?

    Of course, the last thing I'm worried about is eating right after breakfast (I suppose if you ate plain cereal some would want to eat again right away, but then it's not a good breakfast for you). But this idea that meat (or other protein) must be eaten alone makes 0 sense to me. Kind of a problem too in that my major source of protein lately is beans and lentils (which are inherently mixed macro). Tofu is mixed macro too.
  • Posts: 30,886 Member
    billym2018 wrote: »


    Sure, check out this study done on whole grains vs refined grains. Complex carb vs simple carb.
    https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/92/5/1165/4597531

    All grains are complex carbs.

    Fruit calories come from simple carbs (mostly).

    Complex carb = starch.

    Simple carb = fruit.

    Potato, white bread, oats, beans, flour, french fries (although these include fat too) = complex.

    Fruit, dairy, table sugar, pop = simple.

    You can't generalize, some are nutrient dense foods, some are not.
  • Posts: 18,343 Member
    billym2018 wrote: »

    I see what you did there but it doesn’t make sense. Usually two joining subjects like carbs and fat are relevant for an obvious reason.

    Not quite sure where you're taking us with that one, but I'm sure it'll be good.
  • Posts: 18,343 Member
    edited February 2018
    billym2018 wrote: »

    You realize that now we are talking about molecules and that a calorie is a unit of measure right?

    Not quite sure where you're taking us with that one either, but I'm sure it'll be good.

    The goalposts were just right here, now I kinda see them waaaaayyyyyy over there across the field.
  • Posts: 18,343 Member
    edited February 2018
    A little more science about de novo lipogenesis:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10365981

    Abstract (emphasis added):
    Abstract

    The enzymatic pathway for converting dietary carbohydrate (CHO) into fat, or de novo lipogenesis (DNL), is present in humans, whereas the capacity to convert fats into CHO does not exist. Here, the quantitative importance of DNL in humans is reviewed, focusing on the response to increased intake of dietary CHO. Eucaloric replacement of dietary fat by CHO does not induce hepatic DNL to any substantial degree. Similarly, addition of CHO to a mixed diet does not increase hepatic DNL to quantitatively important levels, as long as CHO energy intake remains less than total energy expenditure (TEE). Instead, dietary CHO replaces fat in the whole-body fuel mixture, even in the post-absorptive state. Body fat is thereby accrued, but the pathway of DNL is not traversed; instead, a coordinated set of metabolic adaptations, including resistance of hepatic glucose production to suppression by insulin, occurs that allows CHO oxidation to increase and match CHO intake. Only when CHO energy intake exceeds TEE does DNL in liver or adipose tissue contribute significantly to the whole-body energy economy. It is concluded that DNL is not the pathway of first resort for added dietary CHO, in humans. Under most dietary conditions, the two major macronutrient energy sources (CHO and fat) are therefore not interconvertible currencies; CHO and fat have independent, though interacting, economies and independent regulation. The metabolic mechanisms and physiologic implications of the functional block between CHO and fat in humans are discussed, but require further investigation.
  • Posts: 7,722 Member
    billym2018 wrote: »


    Sure, check out this study done on whole grains vs refined grains. Complex carb vs simple carb.
    https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/92/5/1165/4597531

    Yup, bingo. Sorry, refined or not, grains are still complex carbs.
  • Posts: 5,727 Member
    I eat cereal with orange juice *ducks*


    I will never, ever understand the demonisation of pizza - Sure, it's bread. Just bread. If it has sugar in it (which many bread doughs don't), it's a starter amount to get the yeast off to a good start. The carbs in pizza dough get processed the same way as carbs in cereal (pro tip - all carbs convert to glucose).

    Then sauce, meat, cheese, veggies...

    Even if the sauce does have sugar in it, it's not "tricky" or hiding, its an ingredient. People have been putting sugar into canned tomato sauce for as long as they've been canning things. Depends whose Nonna you get the recipe from sure, but *shrug*, its just an ingredient.

    Meat, cheese, veggies... Pizza is actually an all around well balanced meal (if you order it that way, I suppose).

    Grapefruit juice here, except for Grape nuts and granola.
  • Posts: 7,122 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »

    Based on any scientific sources I've seen, any macro or kind of macro you eat while in a calorie deficit will not be converted to fat,

    I don't think that is "technically" true. Food will be converted and stored as fat while in a deficit, but more fat will be required as fuel over a time period. So my lunch will turn into fat but over the course of the day, I will burn more fat than is stored. There will be a net fat loss, but as part of the process, some will be stored.

    Back to lurking.
  • Posts: 8,934 Member

    I don't think that is "technically" true. Food will be converted and stored as fat while in a deficit, but more fat will be required as fuel over a time period. So my lunch will turn into fat but over the course of the day, I will burn more fat than is stored. There will be a net fat loss, but as part of the process, some will be stored.

    Back to lurking.

    Lol, we could pendant this down further to say the fat in your lunch....and your breakfast will get stored as fat, the carbs converted to glycogen and the protein utilized for various tissue building and repair. But who needs to go there really....? :D
  • Posts: 30,886 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »

    All grains are complex carbs.

    Fruit calories come from simple carbs (mostly).

    Complex carb = starch.

    Simple carb = fruit.

    Potato, white bread, oats, beans, flour, french fries (although these include fat too) = complex.

    Fruit, dairy, table sugar, pop = simple.

    You can't generalize, some are nutrient dense foods, some are not.

    Oops, correction to the above: I meant to write "simple carb = sugar." Must have had fruit on the brain ;-)
  • Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited February 2018

    I don't think that is "technically" true. Food will be converted and stored as fat while in a deficit, but more fat will be required as fuel over a time period. So my lunch will turn into fat but over the course of the day, I will burn more fat than is stored. There will be a net fat loss, but as part of the process, some will be stored.

    Back to lurking.

    Maybe (and as you say it doesn't matter), but I think that actually doesn't happen that much on a diet, at least not with carbs (as we have been discussing).

    It takes extra energy to convert carbs to fat and won't happen when you can either burn them or use them to replenish glycogen stores, and in a deficit glycogen stores are not normally going to be full.

    The funny thing is that if we were converting carbs to fat (and then burning bodily fat) a lot in a deficit, that would likely be beneficial -- not the awful thing that those who go on about carbs turning to fat think -- as the process itself burns calories and thus significantly raises the calorie burn from "processing" the carbs (like raising the TEF). (People like McDougall claim that's why carbs can't make you fat, but that's stupid, like any idea that TEF is going to prevent someone from having a calorie surplus.)

    In any event, it is why it's somewhat rare that it happens absent significant surplus from high carb and lower fat diet (which is not actually the SAD, the SAD is considered high fat). It's easier (takes less energy) for the body to burn carbs in a surplus and store fat as fat. We still will burn some fat, of course (in particular at rest).

    I know this went way beyond what you said, but I think it's interesting.

    None of this, of course, affects whether pizza or cereal in a deficit is a better breakfast. ;-)

    (I'm also not sure why carbs being stored as fat is brought up as a pro cereal point, although for the reasons discussed above, and because both foods have carbs, it's also not an anti cereal point, as the original linked article may have claimed.)
This discussion has been closed.