General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Re: Oats or Ice-cream?

Started by MMu · · Last activity · 3 posts · 379 views

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
6 June 2005
Last activity
7 June 2005
Original author
MMu
Posts
3
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
379
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–3 of 3
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. "joni" <[email hidden]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    But from looking below at calories wise, is this suggesting
    that you could put on more weight eaiting oats, than eating ice-cream?

    the difference is 23 calories.. that is pretty much no difference at all..
    especially when you take different brands and demographic variations into
    account.

    Quoted message said:

    You would put on more 'weight' with the oats but less bodyfat than if
    you ate the icecream I would think.

    and what would this non-bodyfat weight be then? water? muslce tissue?

    Quoted message said:

    This is why the calories in,
    calories out theory doesnt always hold true as the source (nutrition)
    of the calories may determine how the body will use it or store it. I'd
    really like to see a study that puts two groups of people on a
    maintenance diet of say 2000 calories a day, same exercise etc and
    other criteria the same except of where those calories come from. Have
    one group eating healthy variety of foods and the other just [censored]
    calories. Would one gain (bodyfat)? Would they stay the same? I wonder
    what would happen.

    The calories labeled on food are energy contents and do not take
    digestibility factors into account..
    this means that a diet high in simple sugars that has 100kcal and a diet
    with complex carbs that has 100kcal will not actually deliver the exact same
    ammount of energy because the first does not need to be digested.
    I guess the difference however will be rather marginal.

    Food calories are a great tool to estimate energy intake for large numbers
    of people, but its not a good tool to exactly calculate the energy balance
    of an individual unless additional parameters are measured as well.

    Quoted message said:

    joanne

  2. MMu said:

    The calories labeled on food are energy contents and do not take
    digestibility factors into account..
    this means that a diet high in simple sugars that has 100kcal and a diet
    with complex carbs that has 100kcal will not actually deliver the exact same
    ammount of energy because the first does not need to be digested.
    I guess the difference however will be rather marginal.

    I would think the difference between these would be more than
    'marginal' because those 'digestibility factors' play a big part in how
    your body uses the two foods comparitively. Even tho the are close in
    calories, the simple sugar item would be more likely to increase an
    insulin spike response which in turn it is more likely to be shoved
    into a fatcell for stored energy at some later date that never comes.
    Whereas a slow digesting complex carb like oats, has a slower insulin
    response and is more likely to be used for energy needed to complete
    tasks at hand than to be stored. So even tho certain foods have the
    same amount of calories as another, its those digestive factors that
    determine how the body uses or stores them as bodyfat.

    joanne

  3. "joni" <[email hidden]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    MMu said:

    The calories labeled on food are energy contents and do not take
    digestibility factors into account..
    this means that a diet high in simple sugars that has 100kcal and a diet
    with complex carbs that has 100kcal will not actually deliver the exact
    same
    ammount of energy because the first does not need to be digested.
    I guess the difference however will be rather marginal.

    I would think the difference between these would be more than
    'marginal' because those 'digestibility factors' play a big part in how
    your body uses the two foods comparitively. Even tho the are close in
    calories, the simple sugar item would be more likely to increase an
    insulin spike response which in turn it is more likely to be shoved
    into a fatcell for stored energy at some later date that never comes.
    Whereas a slow digesting complex carb like oats, has a slower insulin
    response and is more likely to be used for energy needed to complete
    tasks at hand than to be stored. So even tho certain foods have the
    same amount of calories as another, its those digestive factors that
    determine how the body uses or stores them as bodyfat.

    Generally no objection there (however: insulin repsonse from one isolated
    food item does not say much about the insulin response when that item is
    combined in a diet with others);
    I was talking about "calories in food are not calories in the body" though.

    Quoted message said:

    joanne

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.