Question on Oatmeal

Nutrition
41

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
benmoore wrote:
On GL vs. GI:

If you are controlling portions - who the shit cares about GL values?

Because eating 50 grams of carrots is much harder than eating 50g of rice or white bread. Portion size is not so black and white because things like fiber get in the way. Carrots have a high GI but low GL, but some people won’t eat them because they only see the GI value. It’s the same guy who will eat a candy bar because it’s GI value is on the moderate side, but GL value is through the roof and think he isn’t doing himself any harm. Or at the very least, not making a better food choice.[/quote]

Again, the GI was DEVELOPED FOR DIABETICS…why do you even care if you’re a healthy adult?! Blood sugar and insulin levels will not determine your fat oxidation nearly as much as eating in a caloric deficit. Coffee, protein, zero calorie artificial sweeteners all raise insulin/blood sugar. You will still burn fat.

42

[quote]elusive wrote:
No one is saying 2,000kcals = 2,000kcals and I’m not sure why people must take someone else’s arguement to the extreme to make it look bad.

A 2,000kcal diet with lets say, 200grams of Protein, 200grams of carbs and 50grams of fat (2,050, close enough) is given to two people. They both get their protein from complete sources like poultry, whey, eggs, fish, beef ect. One eats 200grams of carbs worth of fat free ice cream, cereal, pancakes, candy and other junk. The other will eat 200grams of carbs worth of oats, veggies and fruits. There will NOT be a difference in body comp between the two people due to their diet. If you think there will be a difference, then you don’t understand metabolism, at all.

Of course there are other benefits to whole grains, fruits and veggies related to health, but I’m strictly speaking from a body comp stand point.

And yes, I’ve experimented with having only junk as my carb sources.[/quote]

Then you have just defied Dr. John Berardi’s G-Flux Principle.

Why would BB’rs and fitness models bother to eat clean, if the body makes no difference in metabolizing clean food versus crap food? Come on man, please. You think the body’s metabolic response to broccoli is equal to that of pancakes? Are you kidding me.

43

[quote]phatkins187 wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
benmoore wrote:
On GL vs. GI:

If you are controlling portions - who the shit cares about GL values?

Because eating 50 grams of carrots is much harder than eating 50g of rice or white bread. Portion size is not so black and white because things like fiber get in the way. Carrots have a high GI but low GL, but some people won’t eat them because they only see the GI value. It’s the same guy who will eat a candy bar because it’s GI value is on the moderate side, but GL value is through the roof and think he isn’t doing himself any harm. Or at the very least, not making a better food choice.

Again, the GI was DEVELOPED FOR DIABETICS…why do you even care if you’re a healthy adult?! Blood sugar and insulin levels will not determine your fat oxidation nearly as much as eating in a caloric deficit. Coffee, protein, zero calorie artificial sweeteners all raise insulin/blood sugar. You will still burn fat.[/quote]

Because the degree by which insulin is raised is not the same. Do you think protein raises insulin as much as table sugar? Why do Diabetics even bother measuring their sugar level before they eat if all food raises insulin equally?

44

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Then you have just defied Dr. John Berardi’s G-Flux Principle.

Why would BB’rs and fitness models bother to eat clean, if the body makes no difference in metabolizing clean food versus crap food? Come on man, please. You think the body’s metabolic response to broccoli is equal to that of pancakes? Are you kidding me. [/quote]

uh oh you guys, we’ve done it now…we’ve just DEFIED Berardi’S G-FLUX PRINCIPLE!!!11

may Berardi have mercy on our souls.

except that (1) Berardi’s G-Flux theory isn’t about whether a “calorie is a calorie”, and furthermore Berardi himself has stated that those athletes who have high energy requirements may need to resort to eating things like pizza, burgers, and drinking chocolate milk with meals in order to consume the nessesary calories for their goals (this is in addition to their daily servings of protein, fruits, veggies etc.)

so yeah, the “metabolic response” to broccoli is pretty much the same as pancakes. the difference being that a serving size of broccoli may be only 25 calories, while pancakes may pack in 500 or more.

45

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

Then you have just defied Dr. John Berardi’s G-Flux Principle.

Why would BB’rs and fitness models bother to eat clean, if the body makes no difference in metabolizing clean food versus crap food? Come on man, please. You think the body’s metabolic response to broccoli is equal to that of pancakes? Are you kidding me. [/quote]

50grams of CHO’s from broccoli and from pancakes, will be digested into glucose. Glucose will then be absorbed and enter the blood. Your body has no idea where that glucose came from, at all. The body then uses glucose for whatever its needed for/whatever is a priority at the moment. It can be stored as a triglyceride in adipose tissue or as glycogen in liver/muscle cells. It might be broken down for energy/ATP into pyruvate, then acetyl CoA which enters the Kreb cycle, which lends electrons to the electron transport chain blah blah blah. The body is not metabolizing broccoli or pancakes… Its metabolizing glucose and thats where I think alot of peoples thinking goes wrong. All of the body’s responses and metabolism of the food are happening to GLUCOSE, not the food itself.

Glucose = Glucose

46

[quote]elusive wrote:
MaximusB wrote:

Then you have just defied Dr. John Berardi’s G-Flux Principle.

Why would BB’rs and fitness models bother to eat clean, if the body makes no difference in metabolizing clean food versus crap food? Come on man, please. You think the body’s metabolic response to broccoli is equal to that of pancakes? Are you kidding me.

50grams of CHO’s from broccoli and from pancakes, will be digested into glucose. Glucose will then be absorbed and enter the blood. Your body has no idea where that glucose came from, at all. The body then uses glucose for whatever its needed for/whatever is a priority at the moment. It can be stored as a triglyceride in adipose tissue or as glycogen in liver/muscle cells. It might be broken down for energy/ATP into pyruvate, then acetyl CoA which enters the Kreb cycle, which lends electrons to the electron transport chain blah blah blah. The body is not metabolizing broccoli or pancakes… Its metabolizing glucose and thats where I think alot of peoples thinking goes wrong. All of the body’s responses and metabolism of the food are happening to GLUCOSE, not the food itself.

Glucose = Glucose[/quote]

Do you think the insulin response will be the same?

47

calories in…calories out.

48

Oatmeal is slow-digesting carbohydrate and therefore you are a beneficiary to this because you will have the “satisfied” feeling after eating it with hopefully another protein source whether it be a whey supplement or solid foods. Oatmeal is also rich in certain vitamins that are essential to health, and does not contain the highly scorned upon HFCS.

It shares the same pedestal as brown rice, sweet potatoes, and dark leafy vegetables such as spinach.

49

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
elusive wrote:
MaximusB wrote:

Then you have just defied Dr. John Berardi’s G-Flux Principle.

Why would BB’rs and fitness models bother to eat clean, if the body makes no difference in metabolizing clean food versus crap food? Come on man, please. You think the body’s metabolic response to broccoli is equal to that of pancakes? Are you kidding me.

50grams of CHO’s from broccoli and from pancakes, will be digested into glucose. Glucose will then be absorbed and enter the blood. Your body has no idea where that glucose came from, at all. The body then uses glucose for whatever its needed for/whatever is a priority at the moment. It can be stored as a triglyceride in adipose tissue or as glycogen in liver/muscle cells. It might be broken down for energy/ATP into pyruvate, then acetyl CoA which enters the Kreb cycle, which lends electrons to the electron transport chain blah blah blah. The body is not metabolizing broccoli or pancakes… Its metabolizing glucose and thats where I think alot of peoples thinking goes wrong. All of the body’s responses and metabolism of the food are happening to GLUCOSE, not the food itself.

Glucose = Glucose

Do you think the insulin response will be the same?[/quote]

I’m speaking within the context of dieting, where portions are controlled and carbs are always paired with atleast one other macronutrient (protein, for sure). Then yes, the insulin response will be very similar.

50

Here’s a pic of the Coach’s Oats I was talking about:

51

[quote]elusive wrote:

Do you think the insulin response will be the same?

I’m speaking within the context of dieting, where portions are controlled and carbs are always paired with atleast one other macronutrient (protein, for sure). Then yes, the insulin response will be very similar. [/quote]

I agree with pretty much everything elusive said.

When you eat a substantial amount of protein with any carb, the protein tends to lower the glycemic response of the combined meal. So even from an insulin perspective, it can hardly matter if you have cottage cheese + oatmeal, or cottage cheese + white bread. Or even cottage cheese + sugar.

Furthermore, ANY calorie deficit sufficient for fat loss will lower insulin levels because insulin release is related to portion size. Even carb-dominant diets have most people eating far fewer grams of carbs than they were before the diet.

And protein raises insulin too. In one study I looked at, beef raised insulin more than some starchy carbs.

Now from a health perspective, your calories are already restricted while dieting, so it would obviously be better to choose nutrient-dense foods, where oatmeal would win over sugar. And fiber-rich or slower-digesting foods are more satiating, which is very helpful when dieting. And the slower digesting foods may have a higher TEF, so digesting them would actually burn a few more calories.

But I have systematically tried different kinds of diets, tracking my progress with calipers and logging intake carefully, and I have convinced myself that only 2 things matter: 1) sufficient protein, and 2) calorie deficit. Even where protein calories are not the same as other calories, that effect is mostly explained by TEF.

I noticed that even on low carbs, like 30 g/day, I cannot eat all the fat I want and still lose. So I’m actually restricting both carbs AND fat. I’ve also noticed that when people are on a low-fat diet with 60% carbs, 20% protein, and 20% fat, they cannot eat all the carbs they want. So they are restricting both fat AND carbs. There is no getting around it, to diet down you have to restrict everything.

Some people will always be convinced that restricting carbs is more effective because carbs hold water. When you drop carbs, you drop water, pounds and inches. When you add carbs, you gain water. But for losing ACTUAL FAT, it is really all about the deficit, plain and simple.

52

that was really well said

53

I think this has been a very good discussion.

Even the people who posted responses that aren’t exactly accurate have contributed to those who will read this and hold the same misconceptions.

In high school I remember, looking up things about ketosis and thinking that ketones are just excreted in the urine so you can eat all the fat you want. What I learned very recently in theory is that the actual caloric value of ketones you can excrete daily is only around 100kcal. In practice, which I also experimented with earlier this year, I found myself getting fatter despite nearly no carbs in the diet. This debunked my previous misconception on fat metabolism.

54

I find Kashi instant oatmeal isn’t loaded w/sugar like others and is stuffed with fiber. Tastes good and chewy too.

55

[quote]triplab wrote:
I find Kashi instant oatmeal isn’t loaded w/sugar like others and is stuffed with fiber. Tastes good and chewy too. [/quote]

Isn’t the issue more with the fact that the instant varieties are highly processed and are therefore digested much faster causing a sharper insulin spike?

56

Well, Mark, I imagine you’re talking about the packets, but let me clarify that there are ‘old fashioned rolled oats’ and ‘instant oats’.

The difference is just that the instant oats, while still coming in the same cardboard tube, are just rolled oats that are cut up a little bit. If you put the old fashioned, whole rolled oat variety in the blender for a few seconds, you’ll have the same result: chopped rolled oats. More oat surface area leads to faster water absorption/cooking.

So, that said, I also looked up the GL’s of both kinds out of curiosity, and they’re the same. Either kind would become the same product in your mouth, so why should the digestion change? Perhaps I’ve beaten a dead horse on an obvious fact, but I know I can attest to having been confused before when hearing “instant oats” and thinking about the chopped whole oat grain kind.

57

[quote]nz6stringaxe wrote:
Well, Mark, I imagine you’re talking about the packets, but let me clarify that there are ‘old fashioned rolled oats’ and ‘instant oats’.

The difference is just that the instant oats, while still coming in the same cardboard tube, are just rolled oats that are cut up a little bit. If you put the old fashioned, whole rolled oat variety in the blender for a few seconds, you’ll have the same result: chopped rolled oats. More oat surface area leads to faster water absorption/cooking.

So, that said, I also looked up the GL’s of both kinds out of curiosity, and they’re the same. Either kind would become the same product in your mouth, so why should the digestion change? Perhaps I’ve beaten a dead horse on an obvious fact, but I know I can attest to having been confused before when hearing “instant oats” and thinking about the chopped whole oat grain kind.[/quote]

Oh noes you’ve revealed my true identity!

hehe Thanks for the clarification, I guess my understanding was somewhat skewed.
I still prefer the ‘good old fashioned’ kind though!