Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 52

Thread: Anyone read this article? Any thoughts? page 5

  1. #41
    Zach's Avatar
    Zach is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,869
    Primal Fuel
    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndChance View Post
    Grains aren't quite in the same category as pure sugar, but yeah, in terms of nutrition per calorie, you're better off eating veggies, always.
    Except veggies are basically all fiber..

  2. #42
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,742
    Quote Originally Posted by Forgotmylastusername View Post
    Neckhammer, calling grains nutritionally void is almost as stupid as calling ground beef nutritionally empty.
    Ground beef is so much more nutritious they aren't even in the same league.

    What do you want me to say? I mean without even taking negative impacts on gut health and bio-availability into consideration they still come in at the bottom of the list. Facts are facts. If you want calories/carbs... well they are good for that I guess. Just try to stck to the less problematic sorts and use traditional prep methods.
    Last edited by Neckhammer; 03-24-2013 at 06:33 PM.

  3. #43
    2ndChance's Avatar
    2ndChance is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    315
    Quote Originally Posted by Zach View Post
    Except veggies are basically all fiber..
    I mean, except for all the vitamin A, C, and K...

  4. #44
    Forgotmylastusername's Avatar
    Forgotmylastusername is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    960
    Quote Originally Posted by magicmerl View Post
    I read that as being 'nutritionally void' relative to the calories ingested. I think that grains (and sugar) are pretty much the definition of empty calories.
    Yeah so did I.

    500 calories of 80/20 ground beef contains around


    Thiamin 0.08514 mg 6%
    Riboflavin 0.29304 mg 17%
    Niacin 8.36946 mg 42%
    Pantothenic Acid 0.99396 mg 10%
    Folate 13.86 mcg 3%
    Vitamin B6 0.63954 mg 32%
    Vitamin B12 4.2372 mcg 71%

    calcium 35.64 mg 4%
    Iron 3.8412 mg 21%
    Magnesium 33.66 mg 8%
    Phosphorus 312.84 mg 31%
    Potassium 534.6 mg 11%
    Sodium 132.66 mg 6%
    Zinc 8.2764 mg 55%
    Copper 0.12078 mg 6%
    Selenium 29.7 mcg 42%






    500 calories of oats has roughly

    Vitamin B6 0.16898 mg 8%
    Thiamin 1.08346 mg 72%
    Riboflavin 0.19738 mg 12%
    Niacin 1.36462 mg 7%
    Pantothenic Acid 1.91558 mg 19%
    Folate 79.52 mcg 20%

    Calcium 76.68 mg 8%
    Iron 6.7024 mg 37%
    Magnesium 251.34 mg 63%
    Phosphorus 742.66 mg 74%
    Potassium 609.18 mg 13%
    Zinc 5.6374 mg 38%
    Copper 0.88892 mg 44%
    Manganese 6.98072 mg 349%


    To call one "nutritionally void" is plain stupid. You can also add beta glucan and other flavanoids which oats contain.

  5. #45
    magicmerl's Avatar
    magicmerl is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    3,169
    What's the nutritional profile of cooked oats?
    Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

    Griff's cholesterol primer
    5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
    Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
    TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
    bloodorchid is always right

  6. #46
    Zach's Avatar
    Zach is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,869
    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndChance View Post
    I mean, except for all the vitamin A, C, and K...
    Except its locked in the fiber...

  7. #47
    Forgotmylastusername's Avatar
    Forgotmylastusername is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    960
    Quote Originally Posted by magicmerl View Post
    What's the nutritional profile of cooked oats?
    Unless a bit of B5 gets destroyed by cooking, then exactly the same. Adding water doesn't affect the caloric content.
    Last edited by Forgotmylastusername; 03-24-2013 at 09:05 PM.

  8. #48
    magicmerl's Avatar
    magicmerl is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    3,169
    My rule of thumb is to look at the food and see how many micronutrients have a higher %DV score than Calories. That way it doesn't matter what the portion size is, you can look at a dimensionless number.

    E.g. Wheat flour, white, unenriched - beats Calories with: Manganese, Selenium
    Porridge: Thiamin, Magnesium, Phosphorus, Manganese, Selenium

    compared to other plant food

    Boiled Potatoes: C, B6, Thiamin, Niacin, Pantothenic Acid, Magnesium, Phosphorus, Potassium, Sodium, Copper, Manganese
    Kidney Beans, cooked: K, Thiamin, B6, Folate, Iron, Magnesium, Phosphorus, PotassiumSodium, Zinc, Copper, Manganese

    or meat

    Bacon: A, C, Thiamin, Riboflavin, Niacin, B6, Folate, B12, Panthogenic Acid, Iron, Magnesium, Phosphorus, Potassium, Zinc, Copper, Manganese, Selenium
    Chicken Liver: A, Thiamin, Riboflavin, Niacin, B6, Folate, B12, Pantothenic Acid, Iron, Magnesium, Phosphorus, Potassium, Zinc, Copper, Manganese, Selenium

    Quote Originally Posted by Forgotmylastusername View Post
    Unless a bit of B5 gets destroyed by cooking, then exactly the same. Adding water doesn't affect the caloric content.
    Really? So bioavailability means nothing?
    Last edited by magicmerl; 03-24-2013 at 09:12 PM.
    Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

    Griff's cholesterol primer
    5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
    Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
    TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
    bloodorchid is always right

  9. #49
    Forgotmylastusername's Avatar
    Forgotmylastusername is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    960
    Quote Originally Posted by magicmerl View Post
    My rule of thumb is to look at the food and see how many micronutrients have a higher %DV score than Calories. That way it doesn't matter what the portion size is, you can look at a dimensionless number.

    E.g. Wheat flour, white, unenriched - beats Calories with: Manganese, Selenium
    Porridge: Thiamin, Magnesium, Phosphorus, Manganese, Selenium

    compared to other plant food

    Boiled Potatoes: C, B6, Thiamin, Niacin, Pantothenic Acid, Magnesium, Phosphorus, Potassium, Sodium, Copper, Manganese
    Kidney Beans, cooked: K, Thiamin, B6, Folate, Iron, Magnesium, Phosphorus, PotassiumSodium, Zinc, Copper, Manganese

    or meat

    Bacon: A, C, Thiamin, Riboflavin, Niacin, B6, Folate, B12, Panthogenic Acid, Iron, Magnesium, Phosphorus, Potassium, Zinc, Copper, Manganese, Selenium
    Chicken Liver: A, Thiamin, Riboflavin, Niacin, B6, Folate, B12, Pantothenic Acid, Iron, Magnesium, Phosphorus, Potassium, Zinc, Copper, Manganese, Selenium


    Really? So bioavailability means nothing?
    Bioavailablity is individual and dependent on gut health. Cooking, whether oats or meat might make some nutrients more available whilst partially destroying others.

    Your comparison of white flour is hardly encompassing of grains in whole. Nobody denies white flour is mainly empty calories.

    By far the best way you look at nutrient density is on a calorie per calorie basis. But even that doesn't take into account all the other beneficial nutrients and antioxidants. Anyone that says "grains are empty calories" are showing their ignorance.

  10. #50
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,742
    Quote Originally Posted by Forgotmylastusername View Post
    Unless a bit of B5 gets destroyed by cooking, then exactly the same. Adding water doesn't affect the caloric content.
    Actually that is quite the point. Looking at uncooked grains is just plain stupid. You can't eat them in that form! It don't count. Their nutritional profile changes quite drastically in cooked form vs. non-cooked, but all the grain pushers will only show you the non-cooked data and hide their head in the sand.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •