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??
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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.
I'm really glad to hear that, thank you.2 -
Stockholm_Andy wrote: »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.......
Well, that sounds quite a bit less impressive than reducing available calories by 36%.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.
That's good to know, thanks. Will miss her thoughts on the forums.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.
She's alive and well. Just not here.
I have only been on very sporadically, but yesterday noticed that she was gone from my friends list, and was very, very sad. She will definitely be missed.1 -
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.
That's good to know, thanks. Will miss her thoughts on the forums.
Agreed, another knowledgeable member whose voice will be missed on the boards.
5 -
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.
Thanks for letting us know!1 -
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.
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.
@bpetrosky if you have other contact info for her would you show her this thread? I miss her too!7 -
kshama2001 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.
She's alive and well. Just not here.
@bpetrosky if you have other contact info for her would you show her this thread? I miss her too!
I think she's seen this thread as a non-logged in viewer. I miss her here too.2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Bottom line, no.
It doesn't get hot enough to alter the molecular makeup.
Browning = caramelization or maillard reaction (sugars and proteins respectively as I recall). Those are both a molecular change.
Maybe you mean it doesn't alter it enough to have a significant effect?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions