Let's talk Nutrient/Calorie DENSITY!!!

<div>
(colby2152 @ Aug. 16 2007,09:07)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">e^pi meant 78, but his point is valid nonetheless</div>
Oh crap!!!! Yeah, I'm a math teacher. Hey, we all make mistakes, right!?!?!?!
biggrin.gif
tounge.gif
 
haha cheers for that, hey totentanz that IS true, do u often have sugar? i'm NOT having a go haha i'm just curious, is that like okay to do in the context of its GI rating? hmmm this is interesting, as IN is it not going to spike my blood sugar levels? which if i do it often enough can be harmful?

and etothepii can you explain what you mean when you said percentage-wise is more important than grams? do u mean that if there are 22grams per 100grams of food, u mean 22%? how is that different from calculating it grams-wise?

cheers for the loverrrrly discussion!
laugh.gif
i'm just thinking of alternatives of different foods when i honestly can't eat that much... or meals that i can eat more quickly lol i usually take like, 30 minutes to eat MINIMUM lol
 
I'll try to get my math right this time!!!
biggrin.gif
 
wink.gif



Here is 100 grams of chicken breast, taken from nutritiondata.com:Chicken Breast

Calories: 110
Calories from fat: 11

Total fat: 1g
Saturated fat: 0g
Trans fat: 0g
Cholesterol: 58mg
Sodium: 65mg
Total Carbohydrates: 0g
Fiber: 0g
Sugar: 0g
Protein: 23g
Vitamin A: 0
Vitamin C: 0
Calcium: 1
Iron: 4

OK, there is 100g of matter in that food, but adding up all the nutrients above together we get less than 25g of food, 15g moisture. Nutritiondata.com confirms this by listing it's moisture content as 75%.

Looking at protein, you might say it's only 23% protein, that is, 23/100 = .23.

But, protein has 4 calories per gram (rounded off, actually, it's a little over 4 calories per gram). 23*4= 92, and 92/110 = .84, or 84%. Nutritiondata.com lists it as 90% protein. They must have exact, and not rounded calculations.

So we see that chicken is much more than 25% protein. Do you consider 90% protein to be protein dense?

So the nutrient density of food is not detemined by dividing grams, but calories. Otherwise, you are figuring in moisture, which while critical for life, has no impact on nutrient ratios.

Here's another illustration for you:

Ninety-nine grams of water has zero calories, 0 fat, carb, protein, etc. Add 1g of oil to that water. Our new beverage is &quot;99% fat free,&quot; right? Nope, it has 9 calories, and all 9 calories come from fat. The beverage is 100% fat.
 
<div>
(_Simon_ @ Aug. 17 2007,06:41)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">haha cheers for that, hey totentanz that IS true, do u often have sugar? i'm NOT having a go haha i'm just curious, is that like okay to do in the context of its GI rating? hmmm this is interesting, as IN is it not going to spike my blood sugar levels? which if i do it often enough can be harmful?</div>
Yes, when I am bulking, I put loads of sugar on my cereal when I actually eat cereal, throw tons of it in my coffee and tea.

GI? Do you have diabetes? Then why worry about GI? Unless there is diabetes in your family? I've used sugar extensively my entire life and I was lean my entire life until I began weightlifting, and even then, I've found it tough to get above 15% bodyfat, so... I personally think that for normal folks, the whole GI theory doesn't really matter. It hasn't made a difference in fat gain for me, and it hasn't effected my health.

But if you really are concerned, I guess you could just usethe large amounts of sugar centered around your workout, and then keep it at a minimum most of the rest of the day.
 
Simon, you should know that the whole GI doesn't work in theory because unless you are consuming sugars entirely on its own, it doesn't apply. I'm sure when you eat carbs, you combine it with fat's and protein. Also the GI is also affected from the previous food that you ingested, so unless your stomach is empty and you just consume sugar's alone, then that's an entirely different thing.
 
oh wow, thanks heaps for that e^pii!!! i actually never new that, you've taught me something VERY valuable! thanks ay
smile.gif


hmmm GI DOES matter in terms of what you are eating it WITH (protein and fats) and also the meals still inside ya, BUT that doesn't lower the GI particularly of SUGAR a lot lower does it? having about 110grams of sugar to me is definitely not a good idea, but i dunno ay, i need to do more research.......
 
<div>
(_Simon_ @ Aug. 21 2007,08:34)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">hmmm GI DOES matter in terms of what you are eating</div>
Okay, if you say so.
 
haha NO not because III say so
biggrin.gif
but because it has been said. lol not that truth is determined by what has been said, but what i MEAN is that that's how many diabetics BECOME diabetics, due to HIGH CONSTANT sugar intake (or high gi foods in general) and no i know that's not the only cause but yeah it's one of them i think. and i don't mean EVERYONE becomes diabetic from doing that, but yeah anyways ;) correct me if i'm wrong, i may be HAHA!
 
Okay, so during your last physical, did your doctor say that anything was wrong with your blood sugars? I just got a physical and everything was fine, even though I use (maybe abuse?) sugar quite extensively. Although cholesterol was just slightly higher than we'd both like.
 
haha nah i don't eat sugar alot only postworkout, but yeah i'm just saying if i DID eat alot would it be harmful. and yeah while your bloodsugar level is good, doesn't mean everyone's levels are affected in the same way. but nonetheless i don't think mine will go crazy if i ate too much sugar... hmmm... haha!
i'll SEE!
biggrin.gif
 
Is there any diabetes in your family? I just don't see what the concern is unless you have a familial history of, or some other reason to fear the 'beetus.
 
nah there isn't BUT although there is a huge chance of getting diabetes if your family have had it, that's not the only way to get it ay! cheers ;)
 
Yeah, but if there is no history and your doctor hasn't said anything during your annual physical, then you are probably okay. Unless you get real fat or something.
 
As Totentanz says, if your family has a history of diabetes than there is cause for concern regarding GI balance.

However, low-GI foods w/a protein and carbohydrate balance in the diet regulates blood sugar, increases energy (mental and metabolic), and aids in loss of adipose tissue.
 
actually now that i remember :S my grandmother has diabetes, but no one else!

thanks for that ay, good stuff. i might have sugar every now and then, but not for every meal, i still don't trust that LOL
biggrin.gif
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">thanks for that ay, good stuff. i might have sugar every now and then, but not for every meal, i still don't trust that LOL </div>

The GI level of table sugar is 64 which is lower than what you will get from crackers, cereals, breads, some grains, some fruits, and about half of the snacks you will find in the grocery store. Contrary to popular belief, pasta has low GI.

Although Slapz (correct me if I mistaken you) would disagree, there is nothing wrong with table sugar or aspartame as long as they are taken in moderation.
 
<div>
(etothepii @ Aug. 17 2007,07:52)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I'll try to get my math right this time!!!
biggrin.gif
 
wink.gif



Here is 100 grams of chicken breast, taken from nutritiondata.com:Chicken Breast

Calories: 110
Calories from fat: 11

Total fat: 1g
Saturated fat: 0g
Trans fat: 0g
Cholesterol: 58mg
Sodium: 65mg
Total Carbohydrates: 0g
Fiber: 0g
Sugar: 0g
Protein: 23g
Vitamin A: 0
Vitamin C: 0
Calcium: 1
Iron: 4

OK, there is 100g of matter in that food, but adding up all the nutrients above together we get less than 25g of food, 15g moisture. Nutritiondata.com confirms this by listing it's moisture content as 75%.

Looking at protein, you might say it's only 23% protein, that is, 23/100 = .23.

But, protein has 4 calories per gram (rounded off, actually, it's a little over 4 calories per gram). 23*4= 92, and 92/110 = .84, or 84%. Nutritiondata.com lists it as 90% protein. They must have exact, and not rounded calculations.

So we see that chicken is much more than 25% protein. Do you consider 90% protein to be protein dense?

So the nutrient density of food is not detemined by dividing grams, but calories. Otherwise, you are figuring in moisture, which while critical for life, has no impact on nutrient ratios.

Here's another illustration for you:

Ninety-nine grams of water has zero calories, 0 fat, carb, protein, etc. Add 1g of oil to that water. Our new beverage is &quot;99% fat free,&quot; right? Nope, it has 9 calories, and all 9 calories come from fat. The beverage is 100% fat.</div>
First post here, and perhaps a bit off topic, but this is something that has had me perplexed for quite some time.

The example shown for 100g chicken breast comes from data pertaining to raw chicken.  Fine.  Here is my dilemma.  On sites such as nutritiondata.com, calorieking, USDA, etc..  You have the option of selecting the method in which prepared in a variety of ways.  When doing so and comparing &quot;raw&quot; to &quot;cooked&quot; the numbers change signifigantly.  I don't eat my chicken raw, but I don't prepare it in the way these websites give you the option of either.  I generally either cook them on the grill with some pepper or in a non-stick frying pan with cooking spray.

For someone like myself who tracks calories and macronutrients like it's a second job, it's important for me to have the most accurate data possible.  If I'm calculating over a day that I'm ingesting 225 grams of protein, but in reality because of inaccurate information I'm only getting say 200, then I'm possibly shortchanging myself and feel would be cheating myself out of the max gains possible.  

This not only applies to protein, but to all three major macronutrients.

I would love to have the luxury of being able to just wing it with my daily food intake, but I have to keep detailed logs, otherwise I will severely undereat.  

The more I think about, the more I think alot of what I have been doing is wrong in some way.  I have an extremely hard time making gains, despite taking in a fairly large excess.  (according to my calculations, that is)

I am 5' 7&quot; 152.5lb, and have a current daily goal of 3100 calories.  Macro split is 50% carb, 30% prot, 20% fat.

For an added measure, I am also attaching a typical daily log for myself.

Any and all input is greatly appreciated.

Thanks everyone for reading!
 
The way meat is prepared, and cooked vs, raw data is important. Meat loses water and fat when cooked (usually). So 4 ounces of chicken may only weigh 3.4 ounces once grilled, or whatever. So, weigh your meat after it's cooked, and select the proper cooking method from your calorie databases for the most accurate records.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top