"Super" foods

[FrontEnder]

If high carbs lead to high calories (e.g. sugary drinks can do this as they don't give you a feeling of satiety), then this is true. Otherwise, that sounds like another fad diet piece of nonsense.

From my own experience, high carbs definitely means more calories. A lot of staple meals nowadays are over 50% carb rich food.

Sandwiches, pasta, pizza, curries etc. Its pretty normal to have a big portion of rice, pasta, spuds or bread.

I've personally found that just swapping the carbs for veg can be difference between a calorie surplus and a defecit.

I dont have any evidence to back it up, but i think its likely theres been a trend towards nore carbs (including sugars) and meat and less veg over the last 50 years or so.

[FrontEnder]

To add, avoid carbs after 6pm if you can. no pasta no potatoes just no. Makes a huge difference.

[northernladyuk]

It's really not! Have a proper look at the material.

All the respectable research I've seen suggests that weight loss in a low carb diet comes from a reduction in calories. Am I missing something?

[contractorinatractor]

You sound confused. What is the quantum of 'nutrition'?

Freshness is positively correlated with just how much of the original vitamins, protein, and various other properties are present.

Unique processing starches and synthetic chemicals are sprayed on packaged food in order to try preserve the appearance of these products. Take pre-packed sliced apple or melon from M&S as an example: if you open this, it will degrade extremely quickly in front of your eyes. Why? Because it was packaged a week or two in the past. This aligns with the obsession in the UK, particularly, with appearance of things being a sign they are of better quality.

If you've been to Spain before, you'll see that we get uniformly rather tasteless single colour peppers. When I've worked in other countries the fresh markets have been awash with great tasting multi-coloured peppers. If anybody on this forum grows their own fruit/veg they will know that no two really look the same. Supermarkets have brought us up from childhood to think that things must look perfect in order to be the best. My own experience is that supermarkets generally stock the crappest quality items that will make the most profit for the supermarket.

[northernladyuk]

I give up.

[contractorinatractor]

Not always true though; I remember seeing something about the humble carrot; there were lots more (or rather - the body could absorb much more) of a certain vitamin or whatever only once it had been mushed up/cooked (can't remember exactly), in the raw carrot the body wasn't able to extract the same amount.

For certain foods, such as tomatoes and carrots, the body breaks it down better cooked, certainly. What I was referring to was a common marketing gimmick which runs something like the following:

"Roibois tea leaves contain high levels of vitamin C and anti-oxidents."

This is true, raw (unrprocessed, and not packaged 2 years ago!) roibois tea leaves DO contain lots of vitamin C and anti-oxidents. But that doesn't mean that stewing those tea leaves in boiling water for a few minutes and drinking it means you are drinking a drink high in vitamin C in anti-oxidents. It's pure marketing: provide a fact mostly unrelated to the end product preparation method and people will buy.

Monash University in Australia are currently examining the way the body absorbs nutrients from food. If you eat some blueberries, what percentage of those vitamins within that blueberry are absorbed and usable by your body?

This is taking nutrition to new levels - but I maintain that the more processed or layers of processing a food product enters, the less value it is to your body.

Little pre-cut carrot sticks with houmous in a tub? Buy your own carrots, dip them in a pot of houmous. Which is likely highest in benefit for your body? The latter isn't covered in preservatives and complex synthetic starches.

The synthetic starches are news to most people - UK and US law is such that they a company does NOT have to list chemicals used in the processing of food. If you seen a true list of chemicals on your M&S pre-cut melon slices, you likely wouldn't purchase it. The effect to humans of these chemicals is currently 'unknown', as it will take decades to show any result. Plus, it's difficult to quickly pin down cause and effect.

The preservatives and synthetic starch industry is absolutely massive.

[TheGreenBastard]

All the respectable research I've seen suggests that weight loss in a low carb diet comes from a reduction in calories. Am I missing something?

"Respectable" because it fits your warped world view?

Low carb diet's success comes in part due to the biology of digesting said carbs; especially simple carbs which have horrible effects on the endocrine system. Calorie equivalency is a myth; 4K calories from meat + veg is far less likely to induce the onset of type 2 diabetes (the disease of the fat and lazy) when compared to typical modern "diets" that include copious amounts of simple sugars.

[rl4engc]

I dont have any evidence to back it up, but i think its likely theres been a trend towards nore carbs (including sugars) and meat and less veg over the last 50 years or so.

Not convinced about that. The humble spud and bread has always been the staple diet in this country, with meat and veg added when the money/weather dictated it. Then as we got to the 70's and started embracing other cultures, we discovered rice from the Chinese and Pasta off the Italians.

I'd agree 100% sugar is a lot more prevalent these days though in food and drink, I always laugh when I see fatties in supermarkets getting 4x2L bottles of coke/fizzy drinks. They honestly must think "I'm thirsty, I need a fizzy sugary drink.."

[original PM]

Not convinced about that. The humble spud and bread has always been the staple diet in this country, with meat and veg added when the money/weather dictated it. Then as we got to the 70's and started embracing other cultures, we discovered rice from the Chinese and Pasta off the Italians.

I'd agree 100% sugar is a lot more prevalent these days though in food and drink, I always laugh when I see fatties in supermarkets getting 4x2L bottles of coke/fizzy drinks. They honestly must think "I'm thirsty, I need a fizzy sugary drink.."

That's fattist.

But also very true - it is always the porkers you see with their trollies full of pre packed convenience food which is easy to ding in a microwave.

Maybe if they stood up for 20 minutes and actually cooked some stuff healthy stuff they would get a 2 fold benefit - 1 for not sitting on their lardy asses watching tulip on the tulipbox without moving for hours on end and 2 they may actually get some decent food.

[rl4engc]

The synthetic starches are news to most people - UK and US law is such that they a company does NOT have to list chemicals used in the processing of food.

So if I buy a bag of humble carrots from say Aldi, is it covered in this synthetic tulipe? What about local greengrocer? i.e. where's the cut off point?