Complex vs. simple carbs.

Brak

New Member
The question is simple...or is it more complex than I think? Anyway, I find myself trying to decide between pretzels (0 fat, but simple carb) and triscuits (a little fat, but whole grain).

I notice in one of Bryan's sample diets for bulking (only 2,500 calories BTW) he mentions eating things like rice and potatoes...not things like BROWN rice or sweet potatoes. Is this another myth...that whole grain, complex carbs are converted more slowly by the body, thus allowing them to more readily be used for energy rather than converted into fat? How many of you are eating complex carbs, like whole grain breads and avoiding white bread?

Help me out here, fat free pretzels or whole grain triscuits? Oh, and if you want to make this into a discussion about fat, I'd welcome that too. See, I could have just said white bread vs. wheat bread...but the fat thing confuses me too. If something says it has 12 g of fat, but only 2 grams are saturated, is that a good thing, like the other 10 grams must be split between monounsaturated and polyunsaturated and therefore would be considered a good source of my omega 6 & 9 that I should be trying to get? Oh, the way this is relevant to the pretzel vs. triscuit discussion is that the triscuits seem like the obviously better choice because they are whole grain, but they contain fat. (3 grams, 0 grams of saturated fat) so the fat discussion might be a relevant part of the pretzel/Triscuit equation. But then again, like I said above, maybe whole grains are not the obvious choice, Bryan seems to advocate eating potatoes and white rice?:confused:?:confused:

Help,

Brak
 
Well complex carbs defiantly rise and fall much more slowy then simple carbs and provide a constant source of energy and also help reduce hunger between meals.

I believe its best to eat simple carbs with a protein drink post workout as there is a much sharper rise in BGL(Blood Glucose Level) which helps shuttle nutrients into cells.

I personally stick to wholesome/grain foods low in GI (Glycemic Index) as much as possible and being a diabetic this is even more important for me.

hope this is some help as there are far more experienced people then me that could provide a better answer.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I notice in one of Bryan's sample diets for bulking (only 2,500 calories BTW)
Based on weighing 160 lbs. If you weigh more eat more
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (dkm1987 @ Oct. 05 2004,9:23)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I notice in one of Bryan's sample diets for bulking (only 2,500 calories BTW)
Based on weighing 160 lbs. If you weigh more eat more
I should not have tried to pull the total cal per day into this since I am already trying to address simple vs complex carbs and sat fat vs whatever other fat there may be.

But as long as I have...I just think it is funny how widely opinions vary on how many calories per day are needed. I have found the formulas in the Eating for Size article to be pretty close to right for me. But in that article he touches on something important: "If you have been "semi-dieting" for some time prior to deciding to gain weight, your body will be accustomed to fewer calories than your "normal" BMR." So, in the same way that your current level of conditioning affects how many sets you may need to do, how conditioned to eating a lot will determine the results you get from a given amount of calories. At 190lbs, all the formulas say my BMR is about 2072, and I'd need to eat between 2600 and 3000 cal to gain weight. But I have put on 9 pounds in a little more than two weeks eating around 2200or 2300 calories, so I figure my real BMR must have been closer to 1800 calories when I was 181lbs. Strange, but true.

Anyway, now that I have gotten my own thread off track, let me hear from some people who know what they are talking about with carbs (why Bryan recommends rice instead of brown rice). And what fats are out there other than saturated fat that I should be watching out for.

Thanks Monster, and c'mon Dan, I know you are good for more than a one line answer that didn't even address my main question. ;)

Brak
 
I have discovered that, for me, using complex carbs and avoiding trans fats etc, makes a huge difference. My diet used to include some simple sugars and a bit of the "bad" fats and I used to gain weight just fine. The problem was that a good portion of it was fat that had to be dieted away. By being more strict with my diet I've been able to continue making gains without gaining ANY appreciable fat. In fact, I've had to recently increase my caloric intake in order to continue gaining weight.

Eating "cleanly" has made all the difference for me.
 
Oh, and yes, you definitely have to play around with your calories to find the best balance for your body, lifestyle, etc. Formulas and guidelines only get you in the right neighborhood, its up to you to find the right address.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Brak @ Oct. 05 2004,9:58)]and c'mon Dan, I know you are good for more than a one line answer that didn't even address my main question. ;)
Brak
Unfortunatley I was a little rushed and I just wanted to make sure since you had pointed that out that it was clarified.

Simple versus complex.

In the end it is energy balance. Complex carbs have a better chance at satiety since the fiber in complex carbs digest slower, also the fiber can not be converted to glucose, that I am aware of, so it has a more limiting effect on Insulin. So there are differences. Now why Bryan chooses the foods he points out, I have no idea, glycemic index of white potatoes vs sweet potatoes, white has around 100+ depending on size and when eaten alone, sweet has about half of that.

A great place to look for glycemic index of foods http://www.glycemicindex.com/

On to your Triscuits question

Look at this page about Nabisco's labeling practice on "triscuits" http://www.afpafitness.com/articles/fatsecrets.htm

You'll notice that your math on devising the amounts of Mono, Poly fats aren't exactly correct, since the FDA does not require some fats to be labeled.

But ultimately Brak it is a matter of calories in versus calories out, now the make up of those calories is important, you simply wouldn't get the same effect by eating 3000Kcals of twinkies versus 3000Kcals of a balance well planned diet, but you alreay know this.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (dkm1987 @ Oct. 06 2004,11:13)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Brak @ Oct. 05 2004,9:58)]and c'mon Dan, I know you are good for more than a one line answer that didn't even address my main question. ;)
Brak
Unfortunatley I was a little rushed and I just wanted to make sure since you had pointed that out that it was clarified.
Simple versus complex.
Look at this page about Nabisco's labeling practice on "triscuits" http://www.afpafitness.com/articles/fatsecrets.htm
Wow,

I knew I could count on you for some worthwhile contribution. dang! That means my Jalepeno Ranch dressing that has 12 grams of fat per serving, but only 2 grams of saturated fat might be much worse for me that I originally thought. dang!

Well, even though the pretzels have highly processed white flour that has a higher glycemic index than the whole wheat in a Triscuit, it seems that the trans-fat in the triscuit makes it the more likely suspect for making me gain weight in the form of flab rather than muscle. There is so much more to food than I thought. Maybe the trans-fat isn't as bad as the high glycemic index of the white flour, arrgh! Couldn't all of this be broken down into something simple like a food's "clean factor" so those of us trying to eat clean would have an easier time figuring it out?

Double dang!

Although I have learned from this post, the only thing practical that I can apply to my diest is that I should stay away from twinkies.

Where is MrNasty, the nutritionist in training when I need him. Is a couple grams of trans fat worse that a higher glycemic index carb?

Brak
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (BoSox @ Oct. 06 2004,3:42)]so Dan, would you recommend the Twinky diet with HST?
Depends on your individual goals and aspirations there Bosox, Perhaps you should read the FAQ
laugh.gif
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Brak @ Oct. 06 2004,4:04)]Is a couple grams of trans fat worse that a higher glycemic index carb?
Brak
In the end Brak, a couple grams probably isn't worth the energy worrying about. Ultimately it's about energy balance and moderation, eat as clean as you can (and are willing too). I personally would rather eat a box of Triscuits than twinkies, if that helps you any. :D Plus just think you wouldn't have Fiber problems :D
 
After reading that article, specifically the math part, I thought I had learned something...that if the polyunsaturated fat plus the monounsaturated fat does not equal the total fat that there is a third category called trans-fat which is where this extra fat must be hiding...right?

Not right...I just read my label on my reduced fat Triscuits (what is it with my Triscuit facsination ;) ). It read: Total Fat=3g, Saturated Fat=0g, Trans Fat=0g, Polyunsaturated Fat=1.5g and Monounsaturated Fat=.5g. So the math on the Triscuits still isn't adding up, but the good people at Nabisco have decided to list the fact that none of the total fat is trans fat. Yet they still have not disclosed where that extra gram of fat is hiding! How many kinds of fat are there, this is ridiculous! Granted, 1 gram of whatever the heck it is shouldn't really matter much, but it does have huge implications for other lables I might be looking at. Like my dressing that has 12 grams of fat and only 2 of it is from saturated fat. How am I ever to know what the other 10 grams are...good (the stuff I actually need to be trying to eat) or bad?

Frustrating.

Brak
 
I say just avoid processed food as much as possible, then you can't go wrong. If you want pretzels, make them yourself. Just kidding, if you want a salty savoury snack, go for peanuts or cashews. Processed food is full of rubbish, which should be avoided. Also, for some foods the more white a food is the more it has been processed - so when choosing pasta, rice, bread and other flour products go for the brown or wholemeal stuff...
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Brak @ Oct. 07 2004,12:35)]How am I ever to know what the other 10 grams are...good (the stuff I actually need to be trying to eat) or bad?
Frustrating.
Brak
GO to the USRDA website and load their Nutibase Nutrient Database when you enter a food into it it will show you pretty much every substrate and their amounts per the serving size you select.
 
Got a link? You'd be surprised at how many differnt things come up when you google usrda.

thanks,

Brak
 
Well, Brak, if it helps with your Triscuit<span style='font-size:6pt;line-height:100%'>®</span> fascination (don't we all like them, really?), this recent story in the Los Angeles Times [free registration required] confirms (or, at least, is consistent with) Nabisco's labeling that Triscuits now contain no trans-fat.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Manufacturers of packaged foods, already facing a 2006 deadline to display trans fat content on the nutritional labels of their products, have unleashed a flurry of trans-fat-free offerings, including reformulated versions of Crisco shortening and <span style='color:990000'>Triscuit snack crackers</span>.
Or maybe that's almost no trans-fat. The Nabisco Web site says:

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Where a product contains less than 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving, the FDA requires that the content be listed in the package’s Nutrition Facts box as &quot;0g&quot;. We use that same definition of &quot;0g&quot; on this website. When a label shows 0 grams trans fat per serving and lists a “partially hydrogenated” vegetable oil (such as soybean or cottonseed, among others) in the ingredients, the product may contain <span style='color:990000'>up to 0.49 grams of trans fat</span> per serving.
So, in order to get to the bottom of the <span style='color:008800'>Great Triscuit Trans-Fat Mystery</span>, I called the friendly people at Nabisco (1-800-323-0768 between the hours of 9AM and 9PM EST) who said <span style='color:FF3300'>the Reduced Fat Triscuits have 0.5 g of trans-fat</span>. (I'm not so sure how reliable that information is because the customer service rep on the phone, helpful as she was, could not get the total grams of fat to add up either.) So there you have it, sort of!

(Anyone up for Twinkies<span style='font-size:6pt;line-height:100%'>®</span> next?)
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (jeffw @ Oct. 08 2004,2:20)]Well, Brak, if it helps with your Triscuit<span style='font-size:6pt;line-height:100%'>®</span> fascination (don't we all like them, really?), this recent story in the Los Angeles Times [free registration required] confirms (or, at least, is consistent with) Nabisco's labeling that Triscuits now contain no trans-fat.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Manufacturers of packaged foods, already facing a 2006 deadline to display trans fat content on the nutritional labels of their products, have unleashed a flurry of trans-fat-free offerings, including reformulated versions of Crisco shortening and <span style='color:990000'>Triscuit snack crackers</span>.
Or maybe that's almost no trans-fat. The Nabisco Web site says:
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Where a product contains less than 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving, the FDA requires that the content be listed in the package&amp;#8217;s Nutrition Facts box as &quot;0g&quot;. We use that same definition of &quot;0g&quot; on this website. When a label shows 0 grams trans fat per serving and lists a &amp;#8220;partially hydrogenated&amp;#8221; vegetable oil (such as soybean or cottonseed, among others) in the ingredients, the product may contain <span style='color:990000'>up to 0.49 grams of trans fat</span> per serving.
So, in order to get to the bottom of the <span style='color:008800'>Great Triscuit Trans-Fat Mystery</span>, I called the friendly people at Nabisco (1-800-323-0768 between the hours of 9AM and 9PM EST) who said <span style='color:FF3300'>the Reduced Fat Triscuits have 0.5 g of trans-fat</span>. (I'm not so sure how reliable that information is because the customer service rep on the phone, helpful as she was, could not get the total grams of fat to add up either.) So there you have it, sort of!
(Anyone up for Twinkies<span style='font-size:6pt;line-height:100%'>®</span> next?)
Nabisco gets away with being labeled as TFA free in that it only has .5g serving, any macronutrient can be considered &quot;x&quot; free at that unit in the U.S. Triscuits were also reduced in serving size to reduce the fat content and calories.
 
i know this started as a simple vs. complex carb thread, but if you want good information on trans fat, try http://www.cspinet.org. the Center for Science is the Public Interest is predimoninantly responsible for the presence of nutritional labeling as it exists today and has just recently won the decade long battle to have mandatory labeling of trans fat content according to the fda. i highly recommend their publication, the nutrition action healthletter, which is written by nurtitionists for non-nutritionisits.
-bug
 
Back
Top