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??
bikecheryl
Posts: 1,432 Member
in Debate Club
I found it interesting that this hasn't really been studied before.
They make a distinction between different types of sugar, but still .........
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/second-opinion-baking-calories-1.4690996
They make a distinction between different types of sugar, but still .........
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/second-opinion-baking-calories-1.4690996
2
Replies
-
Bottom line, no.
It doesn't get hot enough to alter the molecular makeup.6 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Bottom line, no.
It doesn't get hot enough to alter the molecular makeup.
Ok, I don't profess to understanding all of the science behind it.
So what did they get wrong ?0 -
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.5
-
In my experience there seems to be a small but noticeable difference in my blood sugar from what's expected based on browning - supposedly this applies to the crust of breads too, the crust having fewer carbs by weight than would be expected. Interesting that they found different results from different types of sugars - were the researchers sponsored by a particular sugar interest or anyone else who might have told them to focus on that?
For normal people I doubt that it would make much difference. For me as a diabetic, it's just a small thing to be aware of.
1 -
The only time I've browned sugar is making caramel sauce. Are they actually baking these cakes, or just browning the sugar, then making cake batter and not baking the cake?0
-
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......2 -
Some thoughts.
- If there were a measurable difference the insulin dependent diabetics would have figured it out by now.
- I’m not so sure that the less digestible sugars won’t count towards tooth decay.
- Butterscotch will start pouring off the shelf. The new superfood.2 -
Stockholm_Andy 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.3 -
When sugar is cooked hot enough to be black and crusty, basically inedible, it's been carbonized. The calories in sugar is the energy contained in the bonds holding carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen together. Carbon isn't sugar. The sugar added to yeast bread is mostly consumed by the yeast in the hours of rising which are allowed before baking.
In the case of this study, I can certainly imagine that a lot of people will have 200% the serving size because of the 20% calorie from sugar saving by baking with invert sugar, even when the nutrition label doesn't mention invert sugar at all.0 -
So 12% reduction means 88 calories instead of 100. over the course of 24 hours, unless you're weighing to the gram, that ends up as noise against logging accurately.
the invert sugar is more interesting, because 36% means 65 calories vs 100 or 88 but I noticed that the baked goods also looked different, which suggests possible flavor or texture differences. This matters, especially for baking.0 -
I tried to tag lemurcat12 but she appears to have deactivated?? I thought she'd be interested in this discussion.
Anyway, tagging to follow.0 -
@lemurcat12Sabine_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.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Stockholm_Andy 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.......0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »So 12% reduction means 88 calories instead of 100. over the course of 24 hours, unless you're weighing to the gram, that ends up as noise against logging accurately.
the invert sugar is more interesting, because 36% means 65 calories vs 100 or 88 but I noticed that the baked goods also looked different, which suggests possible flavor or texture differences. This matters, especially for baking.
I googled inverted sugar/syrup as I didn't know what it was but according to the 100% accurate Wikipedia its a mixture of water and sucrose which is often used by bakers to keep stuff moist. I seems it's already used in baked good so there's no "extra" reduction if commercial bakers use it already.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »@lemurcat12Sabine_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.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »@lemurcat12Sabine_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.
@stanmann571
test0 -
Anyone else get somewhat annoyed when people get excited by the concept that they can destroy food?
Assuming that this is correct (you certainly can heat sugar enough to carbonize it and basically destroy its caloric value) then all you are doing is wasting it. If you heat sugar enough to the point where it is non-caloric you haven't just magically turned the sweet stuff into zero calorie sweet-stuff, you've turned it into ash. At that point why even add it? Understand that if you have heated sugar enough to make it non-caloric that it will then no longer be sugar, no longer be sweet, and serve no purpose in being in your food. You have just taken a food stuff that someone bothered to cultivate, harvest, turn into a product and provide you to you and you burn it so you don't have to get calories from it. Awesome.
8 -
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.
Oh, so it's not something on my end. Saw a post of hers with the default avatar and was sad.3 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »@lemurcat12Sabine_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.4 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »@lemurcat12Sabine_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.
I haven't seen her post in ages, maybe she's gone
As for the article, it's saying the cake you've been eating all along might have a bit less calories than you thought. Cool, but I'm not going to start eating tons of cake and muffins all day. I guess it makes it easier to fit in to my calories, but whether that chocolate muffin is 400 cals or 300 cals, it's still an indulgence!
I know a lot of people think the whole "cooking changes cals" and "cooking and cooling changes cals" etc is something to watch, but I've been tracking my cals for years and I have to think all of this stuff just causes subtle variations that fall within the noise of margin for error.2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Anyone else get somewhat annoyed when people get excited by the concept that they can destroy food?
Assuming that this is correct (you certainly can heat sugar enough to carbonize it and basically destroy its caloric value) then all you are doing is wasting it. If you heat sugar enough to the point where it is non-caloric you haven't just magically turned the sweet stuff into zero calorie sweet-stuff, you've turned it into ash. At that point why even add it? Understand that if you have heated sugar enough to make it non-caloric that it will then no longer be sugar, no longer be sweet, and serve no purpose in being in your food. You have just taken a food stuff that someone bothered to cultivate, harvest, turn into a product and provide you to you and you burn it so you don't have to get calories from it. Awesome.
Did you even read the link?
They apparently found that a cake baked with sugar syrup had a few less calories than a cake baked with table sugar. No one was carbonizing anything LOL0 -
Stockholm_Andy wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Anyone else get somewhat annoyed when people get excited by the concept that they can destroy food?
Assuming that this is correct (you certainly can heat sugar enough to carbonize it and basically destroy its caloric value) then all you are doing is wasting it. If you heat sugar enough to the point where it is non-caloric you haven't just magically turned the sweet stuff into zero calorie sweet-stuff, you've turned it into ash. At that point why even add it? Understand that if you have heated sugar enough to make it non-caloric that it will then no longer be sugar, no longer be sweet, and serve no purpose in being in your food. You have just taken a food stuff that someone bothered to cultivate, harvest, turn into a product and provide you to you and you burn it so you don't have to get calories from it. Awesome.
Did you even read the link?
They apparently found that a cake baked with sugar syrup had a few less calories than a cake baked with table sugar. No one was carbonizing anything LOL
I read the OP's title and assumed that was what we were talking about.
Also I used logic to assume that what we were talking about was a claim that if you take 100 calories of X and bake it you end up with 80 calories of X. Regardless of how exactly you end up with 80 calories of X the net result of that is that you just lost 20 calories of usable energy. Not sure why that is a positive thing. Pretty sure if you heat sugar enough to remove its caloric value you are either going to break it down (carbonize it) or you are perhaps going to cause it to react with other molecules and maybe form undigestable adducts. Either way you end up with something that isn't sweet and isn't digested so....yeah.2 -
Stockholm_Andy 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.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Stockholm_Andy wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Anyone else get somewhat annoyed when people get excited by the concept that they can destroy food?
Assuming that this is correct (you certainly can heat sugar enough to carbonize it and basically destroy its caloric value) then all you are doing is wasting it. If you heat sugar enough to the point where it is non-caloric you haven't just magically turned the sweet stuff into zero calorie sweet-stuff, you've turned it into ash. At that point why even add it? Understand that if you have heated sugar enough to make it non-caloric that it will then no longer be sugar, no longer be sweet, and serve no purpose in being in your food. You have just taken a food stuff that someone bothered to cultivate, harvest, turn into a product and provide you to you and you burn it so you don't have to get calories from it. Awesome.
Did you even read the link?
They apparently found that a cake baked with sugar syrup had a few less calories than a cake baked with table sugar. No one was carbonizing anything LOL
I read the OP's title and assumed that was what we were talking about.
Also I used logic to assume that what we were talking about was a claim that if you take 100 calories of X and bake it you end up with 80 calories of X. Regardless of how exactly you end up with 80 calories of X the net result of that is that you just lost 20 calories of usable energy. Not sure why that is a positive thing. Pretty sure if you heat sugar you are either going to break it down (carbonize it) or you are perhaps going to cause it to react with other molecules and maybe form undigestable adducts. Either way you end up with something that isn't sweet and isn't digested so....yeah.
No me neither really just the modern world I guess.
My Grandfather got paid for his sweat. I pay a gym to sweat.
He paid a significant part of his salary to feed his family. I pay for diet Coke because it has no calories.
Also to be fair journalists spin science all the time. The researches were probably just researching.
0 -
Science journalism is dead. Journalism is undead...or vampires...or whatever is lower than death.3
-
stanmann571 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »@lemurcat12Sabine_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.
Very weird. I tried to send her a PM but the app removed her name and asked me for one.
I hope she's okay as well.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »@lemurcat12Sabine_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.
Very weird. I tried to send her a PM but the app removed her name and asked me for one.
I hope she's okay as well. 0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »@lemurcat12Sabine_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.14 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »@lemurcat12Sabine_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.
^ Yep.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions