 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / June 2005Oats or Ice-cream?
I know nutrition, health and protein wise, oats is healthier than ice-creams. But from looking below at calories wise, is this suggesting that you could put on more weight eaiting oats, than eating ice-cream? Wildberry Swirl Drumstick Ave quantity per 75g serving: Energy (kJ): 905 (220 Calories) Protein (g): 2.0 Fat (g): - total - 9.6 - saturated - 7.5 Carbohydrate (g): 30.3 - sugar (g): 24.3 Sodium(mg): 70 VitaBrits Quantity per 66g (Approximately 4 Buiscuts)serving: Energy (kJ): 1000 (243 Calories) Protein (g): 7.2 Fat (g): - total - 1.4 - saturated - 0.8 Carbohydrate (g): 45 - sugar (g): 0.8 Sodium(mg): 270 On 4 Jun 2005 05:49:05 -0700, amsdcj@hotmail.com wrote in <news:1117889345.725474.309580@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> on sci.med.nutrition : > I know nutrition, health and protein wise, oats is healthier than > ice-creams. But from looking below at calories wise, is this suggesting [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > - sugar (g): 0.8 > Sodium(mg): 270 What about satiety?  SignatureEnrico C > But from looking below at calories wise, is this suggesting > that you could put on more weight eaiting oats, than eating ice-cream? You would put on more 'weight' with the oats but less bodyfat than if you ate the icecream I would think. 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 crap calories. Would one gain (bodyfat)? Would they stay the same? I wonder what would happen. joanne The oats people would fart a lot of weight off. > > But from looking below at calories wise, is this suggesting > > that you could put on more weight eaiting oats, than eating ice-cream? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > joanne So calories is just a way to determine, how much it would take to burn it off? Which would make you bigger (appearence) (i.e. stomach)? >> 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. > 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? > This is why the calories in, > calories out theory doesnt always hold true as the source (nutrition) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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. > joanne > 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 >> The calories labeled on food are energy contents and do not take >> digestibility factors into account.. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > 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. > joanne |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.