Difference in nutritional value when fruit is blended?

LotusCass
LotusCass Posts: 145 Member
in Food and Nutrition
My standard breakfast most days is a green smoothie with baby spinach, 5 strawberries, half cup blueberries, small chunk of avocado, no fat yoghurt and a half scoop of protein powder. I’ve recently started weight watchers and had been counting g the berries as zero points as fruit is zero. I discovered at a meeting today that when blended fruit has points, and a fair bit of them. My strawberries and blueberries blended equal in points to 2 slices of streaky bacon. I just don’t get that. I now have 4 extra points each day if I continue with my smoothies. The coach at WW explained it was to do with blending the fruit releasing more sugars or something?? I have heard before that people feel more full when eating fruit rather than drinking which is why it’s better to eat your fruit, but I don’t get why they have so many more points when blended. Can anyone help with this?

Replies

  • LotusCass
    LotusCass Posts: 145 Member
    MikePTY wrote: »
    If I had to *guess* I would say that WW assigns points to smoothies because they assume that you are going to use more berries in a smoothie than you would just eating them plain, so you be eating more calories. But nutritionally or calories wise there is no difference between blended fruit and non-blended fruit. 100 grams of strawberries has the same amount of calories whether you eat them whole or blended. Just like a food being "0 points" doesn't mean it doesn't actually have calories. Plenty of 0 points foods do. The WW way is to assume that if you eat enough 0 points food, youll get full easier without eating too many calories. But ultimately, your body only recognizes how many calories something has, not the number of WW points.
    Thanks for that Mike! WW actually has a section in Their ‘create a recipe’ part of the app that asks if the recipe is consumed as a drink. If you say yes it adds points. So I put in The weight of the fruit, created my smoothie as a recipe, clicked that it’s a drink, and it’s 4 points more than if not. That just doesn’t make sense to me.
  • LotusCass
    LotusCass Posts: 145 Member
    I found this on their website:

    Fruit and most vegetables are ZeroPoint™ foods when you eat them. But once they become part of a smoothie, the experience of eating them changes. Research shows that liquids don’t promote the same feeling of fullness as solid foods do. When you drink something, it eliminates the act of chewing which may impact the signals between your belly and your brain. This means that the smoothie or juice you’re drinking will not promote the same feelings of fullness between meals, as eating the fruit or vegetable might.

    On the left: It would take a while to eat all the ingredients on the left of the image above. Afterwards, you’d probably feel quite full, like you’ve eaten a main meal.

    On the right: In a smoothie it's possible to consume the same amount of fruit in just a few sips. The result: you may feel hungry again sooner, and be more likely to eat more later, as a result.

    What if the fruit is in my soup or stew?

    If it’s something you’ll drink, like a juice or smoothie, the nutrition data for fruits and vegetables counts towards the total SmartPoints value of the drink. If fruit or veg are included in something you’ll eat, like a salsa, sauce, stew, or soup, fresh fruits and most vegetables are ZeroPoint foods, in those recipes.

    I find that so strange. 4 extra points is a lot just because it doesn’t make me feel as full.
  • missysippy930
    missysippy930 Posts: 2,577 Member
    It doesn’t make sense. Calories are calories, however they are consumed. Nothing is zero calorie except water. I would struggle on WW. I realize people have success on their plan, but it’s just too convoluted for me.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    The thing that doesn't make sense is giving fruit 0 points in the first place, since fruit has calories. But yes, if they are going to give them zero points, treating them differently when in a smoothie doesn't really make sense either, at least not for a lot of people. I think the problem is that WW can give fruits and veg 0 points since they assume most won't eat that much, and with smoothies some go overboard with fruit (although personally I make a lot of smoothies that include some fruit but are quite nutritionally balanced, with more vegetables and some protein and fat).

    I think WW is trying to encourage people to eat in a way that they think will be sustainable and allow one to maintain going forward, but without setting it forth specifically -- it's almost like they want to trick you into it with the points. I personally think it makes more sense to focus on calories initially and to figure out what for you personally is a sustainable way to eat within cals. And while some find smoothies not satiating, some of us find them very much so.

Categories