Other Resources Nutritional Cafe » Whole grain vs multi-grain Rss Feed  
Moderators: DerekL, Ron Reply
2013-11-10 11:13 PM

User image


371
1001001002525
Subject: Whole grain vs multi-grain
So I made the switch to whole gain everything at the start of this year, when I started my IM training. It took me a good month to get over the taste and now I prefer it. My normal weekend meal is whole gain spaghetti but when I went shopping today I noticed they have multi-grain spaghetti too. I looked at the nutrition label and it looks like the multi grain blows the whole grain out of the water. The whole grain hardly has anything except carbs and a little fiber but the multi-grain has a few vitamins and 2 more grams of protein (7 vs 5). I know I should have whole grain items but looking at the labels, it looks like multigrain is the way to go. I bought multi-grain this week and will try it next weekend. I know whole grain tends to digest slower and release energy slower, which makes it great for endurance things, but considering I eat these meals 12+ hours before my training days (normally..sometimes I make a 9-10am lunch and then head out), that benefit seems mute. Any thoughts?


2013-11-11 7:32 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Veteran
225
10010025
Calgary
Subject: RE: Whole grain vs multi-grain
I prefer to eat whole grain because the healthy parts of the grain (bran, germ and endosperm (I just looked this up)) are not lost in the processing. Multi-grain just means that there are different types of grain so the wheat flour (for example) is likely white flour. I don't think the terms are mutually exclusive - multi-grain products can also be whole grain. I would consider whole grain to be a higher standard and that's what I will generally try to consume.

I did some Googling in response to your question and learned that, in Canada, the term whole wheat can still be applied when 70% of the wheat germ is removed. Therefore the term that I should be looking for to avoid this is "100% whole grain whole wheat". So it's important to know what the terms on the product labels really mean where you live.

Don



Edited by donw 2013-11-11 7:32 PM
2013-11-11 9:06 PM
in reply to: 0

User image


371
1001001002525
Subject: RE: Whole grain vs multi-grain
Yeah I always buy 100% whole grains since the food industry has lobbied so hard to confuse people. Originally genetic modified food could be labeled as organic food here thanks to lobbyists. Things thankfully changed..at least for this one item. Question still remains though. I know whole grain is better for you since it includes the entire grain but looking the the nutritional label, the benefits are lost on me since the multigrain appears to provide more in term of vitamins and minerals. I'm trying to figure out what the benefit is over multigrain here, since the label isn't showing it. I do try to stay away from normal processed grain if I can.

Edited by Blastman 2013-11-11 9:07 PM
2013-11-12 6:59 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Minneapolis, MN
Subject: RE: Whole grain vs multi-grain
Unfortunately I believe you really have to scrutinize the label. I have read that any label stating whole grain just means it has to have 51% "whole grains".
There are many examples where out government allows its public to be mislead by labels. Where companies are allowed to use fillers and claim things as long as they are up to certain percentages. Ie "heart healthy" "low fat" "extra virgin olive oil""all natural".

Edited by peteweb55403 2013-11-12 7:00 AM
2013-11-12 10:15 AM
in reply to: Blastman

User image

Master
1722
1000500100100
Nashville, TN
Subject: RE: Whole grain vs multi-grain
honestly I would stay away from grains No sugar no grains... look up fitness confidential

best investment u can to
2013-11-21 3:27 PM
in reply to: Blastman

New user
103
100
Subject: RE: Whole grain vs multi-grain
Originally posted by Blastman

Yeah I always buy 100% whole grains since the food industry has lobbied so hard to confuse people. Originally genetic modified food could be labeled as organic food here thanks to lobbyists. Things thankfully changed..at least for this one item. Question still remains though. I know whole grain is better for you since it includes the entire grain but looking the the nutritional label, the benefits are lost on me since the multigrain appears to provide more in term of vitamins and minerals. I'm trying to figure out what the benefit is over multigrain here, since the label isn't showing it. I do try to stay away from normal processed grain if I can.


Usually the multi-grain is not whole grain and the added vitamins come from "enriched" grains...which typically the body cannot absorb. So the whole grain is still way better for you.


2013-11-21 3:29 PM
in reply to: cxk9758

New user
103
100
Subject: RE: Whole grain vs multi-grain
Originally posted by cxk9758

honestly I would stay away from grains No sugar no grains... look up fitness confidential

best investment u can to


Blah, whole grains are really, really good for the body.
2013-11-22 7:18 AM
in reply to: 1Dude

User image

Expert
1028
100025
Detroit, MI. Kinda.
Subject: RE: Whole grain vs multi-grain
Originally posted by 1Dude

Originally posted by cxk9758

honestly I would stay away from grains No sugar no grains... look up fitness confidential

best investment u can to


Blah, whole grains are really, really good for the body.



Grains - the original fast food. Popular and relentlessly promoted as "healthy" because they are dirt cheap, not because they have any significant value beyond cheap energy. Not saying I don't eat them, but I certainly don't fool myself into pretending they are good for me or necessary in any way. They are the first thing to go when I need to trim down.
2013-11-22 9:25 AM
in reply to: Zero2Athlete

New user
103
100
Subject: RE: Whole grain vs multi-grain
Originally posted by Zero2Athlete

Originally posted by 1Dude

Originally posted by cxk9758

honestly I would stay away from grains No sugar no grains... look up fitness confidential

best investment u can to


Blah, whole grains are really, really good for the body.



Grains - the original fast food. Popular and relentlessly promoted as "healthy" because they are dirt cheap, not because they have any significant value beyond cheap energy. Not saying I don't eat them, but I certainly don't fool myself into pretending they are good for me or necessary in any way. They are the first thing to go when I need to trim down.


Grains are nutritious and grains (carbs) are a necessary nutrient.

Here is an example of how grains are nutritious - more so than what most people think:
Which breakfast has more protein - two eggs or a bowl of whole grain oatmeal?
-Neither, they both have the same amount of protein.

Which breakfast has more artery clogging cholesterol - two eggs or a bowl of whole grain oatmeal?
-Obviously the eggs and yes, the cholesterol in eggs will clog your arteries because cholesterol is cholesterol and the oatmeal has fiber that will prevent arteries from clogging. Fiber is another necessary nutrient often overlooked.

Which breakfast has more fiber - two eggs or a bowl of whole grain oatmeal?
-Obviously the oatmeal because animal based foods contain zero fiber and fiber is required for good long term health.

Which breakfast has protein that has been linked to cancer - two eggs or a bowl of whole grain oatmeal?
-The eggs. Animal based proteins have been linked to cancer while plant based proteins have not.

A single serving of oatmeal provides 19% of a daily supply of Iron.

There are many doctors and researchers agree that whole grains are nourishing and very good to eat. While I will also say that there are foods that are more nutrient dense than grains such as spinach an broccoli but grains are good for the body.

And yes, whole grains are excellent at helping to control weight.


2013-11-22 10:59 AM
in reply to: 1Dude

User image

Expert
1028
100025
Detroit, MI. Kinda.
Subject: RE: Whole grain vs multi-grain
Originally posted by 1Dude

Originally posted by Zero2Athlete

Originally posted by 1Dude

Originally posted by cxk9758

honestly I would stay away from grains No sugar no grains... look up fitness confidential

best investment u can to


Blah, whole grains are really, really good for the body.



Grains - the original fast food. Popular and relentlessly promoted as "healthy" because they are dirt cheap, not because they have any significant value beyond cheap energy. Not saying I don't eat them, but I certainly don't fool myself into pretending they are good for me or necessary in any way. They are the first thing to go when I need to trim down.


Grains are nutritious and grains (carbs) are a necessary nutrient.

Here is an example of how grains are nutritious - more so than what most people think:
Which breakfast has more protein - two eggs or a bowl of whole grain oatmeal?
-Neither, they both have the same amount of protein.

Which breakfast has more artery clogging cholesterol - two eggs or a bowl of whole grain oatmeal?
-Obviously the eggs and yes, the cholesterol in eggs will clog your arteries because cholesterol is cholesterol and the oatmeal has fiber that will prevent arteries from clogging. Fiber is another necessary nutrient often overlooked.

Which breakfast has more fiber - two eggs or a bowl of whole grain oatmeal?
-Obviously the oatmeal because animal based foods contain zero fiber and fiber is required for good long term health.

Which breakfast has protein that has been linked to cancer - two eggs or a bowl of whole grain oatmeal?
-The eggs. Animal based proteins have been linked to cancer while plant based proteins have not.

A single serving of oatmeal provides 19% of a daily supply of Iron.

There are many doctors and researchers agree that whole grains are nourishing and very good to eat. While I will also say that there are foods that are more nutrient dense than grains such as spinach an broccoli but grains are good for the body.

And yes, whole grains are excellent at helping to control weight.





Oh boy...

-Your bowl of oatmeal - 10 grams of protein (incomplete proteins at that, but I'll let that go)...and no one needs 70% of their calories to come from carbs. NO ONE. 2 eggs, btw, have 14 grams of protein.

-Eggs = elevated cholesterol is outdated advice from the 70s. Many more recent studies not only do not associate eggs with elevated cholesterol, but rather carbohydrates have begun to become the suspect. Further, blaming cholesterol for artery clogging is like blaming rapid breathing for a pneumonia patients breathing problems - cholesterol clogged arteries and the rapid breathing are symptoms of other problems: the cholesterol is doing it's job in response to arterial damage..just like the rapid breathing is a response to elevated CO2 and/or low O2 levels. You wouldn't tell a pneumonia patient to hold their breath, would you?

No one is overlooking fiber, but you can get more of for fewer worthless carb if you eat green stuff. also, fiber will not prevent artery clogging -you're thinking of the bowels.

Bulemia can help one lose weight too - doesn't make it a good idea or effective for maintaining a healthy body composition, which should be the goal...chase some number on a scale? why? I've never gotten a date by telling a girl how much I weigh...I get dates because I look good.

Don't even get me comparing the "nutrients" in oatmeal/grains with the nutrients in other sources of energy and btw, the "need carbs for energy" thing is also outdated and was taken out of context from the beginning. That was quick and hope it doesn't come off like I'm trying to be an..___, just in a hurry and and gotta run back to work.
2013-11-22 3:47 PM
in reply to: 1Dude

User image

Kansas
Subject: RE: Whole grain vs multi-grain

Originally posted by 1Dude
Originally posted by Zero2Athlete
Originally posted by 1Dude
Originally posted by cxk9758 honestly I would stay away from grains No sugar no grains... look up fitness confidential best investment u can to
Blah, whole grains are really, really good for the body.
Grains - the original fast food. Popular and relentlessly promoted as "healthy" because they are dirt cheap, not because they have any significant value beyond cheap energy. Not saying I don't eat them, but I certainly don't fool myself into pretending they are good for me or necessary in any way. They are the first thing to go when I need to trim down.
Grains are nutritious and grains (carbs) are a necessary nutrient. Here is an example of how grains are nutritious - more so than what most people think: Which breakfast has more protein - two eggs or a bowl of whole grain oatmeal? -Neither, they both have the same amount of protein. Which breakfast has more artery clogging cholesterol - two eggs or a bowl of whole grain oatmeal? -Obviously the eggs and yes, the cholesterol in eggs will clog your arteries because cholesterol is cholesterol and the oatmeal has fiber that will prevent arteries from clogging. Fiber is another necessary nutrient often overlooked. Which breakfast has more fiber - two eggs or a bowl of whole grain oatmeal? -Obviously the oatmeal because animal based foods contain zero fiber and fiber is required for good long term health. Which breakfast has protein that has been linked to cancer - two eggs or a bowl of whole grain oatmeal? -The eggs. Animal based proteins have been linked to cancer while plant based proteins have not. A single serving of oatmeal provides 19% of a daily supply of Iron. There are many doctors and researchers agree that whole grains are nourishing and very good to eat. While I will also say that there are foods that are more nutrient dense than grains such as spinach an broccoli but grains are good for the body. And yes, whole grains are excellent at helping to control weight.

I appreciate your response (and adore oatmeal because of many of the things you pointed out) but have to disagree with the bolded.

I believe that not everyone's body works the same, and some people are more sensitive to grains than others (leaving intolerances, allergies and Celiac Disease aside). While you may thrive and feel better on a whole grain like oats, others will experience inflammation/boating/discomfort and have a really difficult time with weight management while eating lots of grains. (some suggested reading on this topic would be Wheat Belly).

Many athletes, myself included, have had success eliminating grains. My background is that I have Celiac Disease so my diet has never included wheat, rye or barley - but many of my staples used to be other grains like rice and rice-based products, corn and potatoes. Over time I'm not sure if my body changed or what, but relying on those grains/carbs as staples had a direct effect on how I felt and more pointedly, my weight. Earlier this year I cut out all grains and most carbs - and combined with training - lost 13 pounds. I actually hit my goal weight today .

Grains and carbs, IMO, can be useful in very limited and strategic doses (say, before a marathon or recovery from an endurance event), but for a lot of folks they are not necessary and even detrimental to their weight and health.



2013-11-27 11:41 AM
in reply to: Blastman

User image

Master
1722
1000500100100
Nashville, TN
Subject: RE: Whole grain vs multi-grain
no grains!!!
2013-12-04 11:09 AM
in reply to: Zero2Athlete

New user
103
100
Subject: RE: Whole grain vs multi-grain
Originally posted by Zero2Athlete

Originally posted by 1Dude

Originally posted by Zero2Athlete

Originally posted by 1Dude

Originally posted by cxk9758

honestly I would stay away from grains No sugar no grains... look up fitness confidential

best investment u can to


Blah, whole grains are really, really good for the body.



Grains - the original fast food. Popular and relentlessly promoted as "healthy" because they are dirt cheap, not because they have any significant value beyond cheap energy. Not saying I don't eat them, but I certainly don't fool myself into pretending they are good for me or necessary in any way. They are the first thing to go when I need to trim down.


Grains are nutritious and grains (carbs) are a necessary nutrient.

Here is an example of how grains are nutritious - more so than what most people think:
Which breakfast has more protein - two eggs or a bowl of whole grain oatmeal?
-Neither, they both have the same amount of protein.

Which breakfast has more artery clogging cholesterol - two eggs or a bowl of whole grain oatmeal?
-Obviously the eggs and yes, the cholesterol in eggs will clog your arteries because cholesterol is cholesterol and the oatmeal has fiber that will prevent arteries from clogging. Fiber is another necessary nutrient often overlooked.

Which breakfast has more fiber - two eggs or a bowl of whole grain oatmeal?
-Obviously the oatmeal because animal based foods contain zero fiber and fiber is required for good long term health.

Which breakfast has protein that has been linked to cancer - two eggs or a bowl of whole grain oatmeal?
-The eggs. Animal based proteins have been linked to cancer while plant based proteins have not.

A single serving of oatmeal provides 19% of a daily supply of Iron.

There are many doctors and researchers agree that whole grains are nourishing and very good to eat. While I will also say that there are foods that are more nutrient dense than grains such as spinach an broccoli but grains are good for the body.

And yes, whole grains are excellent at helping to control weight.





Oh boy...

-Your bowl of oatmeal - 10 grams of protein (incomplete proteins at that, but I'll let that go)...and no one needs 70% of their calories to come from carbs. NO ONE. 2 eggs, btw, have 14 grams of protein.

-Eggs = elevated cholesterol is outdated advice from the 70s. Many more recent studies not only do not associate eggs with elevated cholesterol, but rather carbohydrates have begun to become the suspect. Further, blaming cholesterol for artery clogging is like blaming rapid breathing for a pneumonia patients breathing problems - cholesterol clogged arteries and the rapid breathing are symptoms of other problems: the cholesterol is doing it's job in response to arterial damage..just like the rapid breathing is a response to elevated CO2 and/or low O2 levels. You wouldn't tell a pneumonia patient to hold their breath, would you?

No one is overlooking fiber, but you can get more of for fewer worthless carb if you eat green stuff. also, fiber will not prevent artery clogging -you're thinking of the bowels.

Bulemia can help one lose weight too - doesn't make it a good idea or effective for maintaining a healthy body composition, which should be the goal...chase some number on a scale? why? I've never gotten a date by telling a girl how much I weigh...I get dates because I look good.

Don't even get me comparing the "nutrients" in oatmeal/grains with the nutrients in other sources of energy and btw, the "need carbs for energy" thing is also outdated and was taken out of context from the beginning. That was quick and hope it doesn't come off like I'm trying to be an..___, just in a hurry and and gotta run back to work.


LOL, that's just so broken...

I still find it amazing, in a perplexing way, that despite all the food induced health problems in America just how many people get, and believe, nutritional information from advertising campaigns.
2013-12-04 11:17 AM
in reply to: Zero2Athlete

User image

Veteran
200
100100
Gatineau, Quebec
Subject: RE: Whole grain vs multi-grain


Oh boy...

--Eggs = elevated cholesterol is outdated advice from the 70s. Many more recent studies not only do not associate eggs with elevated cholesterol, but rather carbohydrates have begun to become the suspect. Further, blaming cholesterol for artery clogging is like blaming rapid breathing for a pneumonia patients breathing problems - cholesterol clogged arteries and the rapid breathing are symptoms of other problems: the cholesterol is doing it's job in response to arterial damage..just like the rapid breathing is a response to elevated CO2 and/or low O2 levels. You wouldn't tell a pneumonia patient to hold their breath, would you?



Good analogy, I myself prefer the one where blaming Cholesterol for artery clogging, is like blaming the Firemen because the house burned down :-)
2013-12-04 3:06 PM
in reply to: lisac957

New user
103
100
Subject: RE: Whole grain vs multi-grain
Originally posted by lisac957

Originally posted by 1Dude
Originally posted by Zero2Athlete
Originally posted by 1Dude
Originally posted by cxk9758 honestly I would stay away from grains No sugar no grains... look up fitness confidential best investment u can to
Blah, whole grains are really, really good for the body.
Grains - the original fast food. Popular and relentlessly promoted as "healthy" because they are dirt cheap, not because they have any significant value beyond cheap energy. Not saying I don't eat them, but I certainly don't fool myself into pretending they are good for me or necessary in any way. They are the first thing to go when I need to trim down.
Grains are nutritious and grains (carbs) are a necessary nutrient. Here is an example of how grains are nutritious - more so than what most people think: Which breakfast has more protein - two eggs or a bowl of whole grain oatmeal? -Neither, they both have the same amount of protein. Which breakfast has more artery clogging cholesterol - two eggs or a bowl of whole grain oatmeal? -Obviously the eggs and yes, the cholesterol in eggs will clog your arteries because cholesterol is cholesterol and the oatmeal has fiber that will prevent arteries from clogging. Fiber is another necessary nutrient often overlooked. Which breakfast has more fiber - two eggs or a bowl of whole grain oatmeal? -Obviously the oatmeal because animal based foods contain zero fiber and fiber is required for good long term health. Which breakfast has protein that has been linked to cancer - two eggs or a bowl of whole grain oatmeal? -The eggs. Animal based proteins have been linked to cancer while plant based proteins have not. A single serving of oatmeal provides 19% of a daily supply of Iron. There are many doctors and researchers agree that whole grains are nourishing and very good to eat. While I will also say that there are foods that are more nutrient dense than grains such as spinach an broccoli but grains are good for the body. And yes, whole grains are excellent at helping to control weight.

I appreciate your response (and adore oatmeal because of many of the things you pointed out) but have to disagree with the bolded.

I believe that not everyone's body works the same, and some people are more sensitive to grains than others (leaving intolerances, allergies and Celiac Disease aside). While you may thrive and feel better on a whole grain like oats, others will experience inflammation/boating/discomfort and have a really difficult time with weight management while eating lots of grains. (some suggested reading on this topic would be Wheat Belly).

Many athletes, myself included, have had success eliminating grains. My background is that I have Celiac Disease so my diet has never included wheat, rye or barley - but many of my staples used to be other grains like rice and rice-based products, corn and potatoes. Over time I'm not sure if my body changed or what, but relying on those grains/carbs as staples had a direct effect on how I felt and more pointedly, my weight. Earlier this year I cut out all grains and most carbs - and combined with training - lost 13 pounds. I actually hit my goal weight today .

Grains and carbs, IMO, can be useful in very limited and strategic doses (say, before a marathon or recovery from an endurance event), but for a lot of folks they are not necessary and even detrimental to their weight and health.




I would like to call shens on wheat belly and here's an article that touches on some of the blatant issues with that book:
http://noglutennoproblem.blogspot.com/2012/03/wheat-belly-busted.ht...
I would like to add that one of the links (in the above article) to the actual studies is broken and it can be found here:
http://www.nature.com/ajg/journal/v101/n10/abs/ajg2006434a.html

According to one of the studies talked about in wheat belly when patients remove wheat/gluten from their diet 81% of them gained weight.

2013-12-06 4:44 PM
in reply to: Blastman

User image

Pro
4360
200020001001001002525
Vancouver, BC
Subject: RE: Whole grain vs multi-grain

OP, I've wondered this too. I'm not sure that we really got an answer. So from what I can tell:

  • What we are comparing as whole grain may not in fact be 100% whole grain and that's why the nutritional value doesn't seem as high as we expect
  • Our body probably isn't using the vitamins in the multi-grain anyway

Still, I'd like the answer too. If I see the labels and the whole grain and multi-grain have virtually the same amount of fiber, does it matter which I buy?



2013-12-09 9:32 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Kansas
Subject: RE: Whole grain vs multi-grain

Originally posted by 1Dude I would like to call shens on wheat belly and here's an article that touches on some of the blatant issues with that book: http://noglutennoproblem.blogspot.com/2012/03/wheat-belly-busted.ht... I would like to add that one of the links (in the above article) to the actual studies is broken and it can be found here: http://www.nature.com/ajg/journal/v101/n10/abs/ajg2006434a.htmlAccording to one of the studies talked about in wheat belly when patients remove wheat/gluten from their diet 81% of them gained weight.

"Call shens" LOL.

For EVERYTHING written (especially on the inter-webs), there is an equal and opposite opinion we can all dig up. To each their own.



Edited by lisac957 2013-12-09 9:34 AM
2013-12-09 10:36 AM
in reply to: lisac957

User image

Pro
9107
500020002000100
Subject: RE: Whole grain vs multi-grain

Just give me some brown rice, I'm happy.

2013-12-09 10:59 AM
in reply to: lisac957

User image

Expert
1028
100025
Detroit, MI. Kinda.
Subject: RE: Whole grain vs multi-grain
Originally posted by lisac957
For EVERYTHING written (especially on the inter-webs), there is an equal and opposite opinion we can all dig up. To each their own.




I saw a study that says that's not true.



But true. I love grains but don't think they're good for me. I'm much healthier, look/feel/perform better/get dates easier when I minimize intake of them.
2013-12-09 9:25 PM
in reply to: Zero2Athlete

User image

Veteran
357
1001001002525
Waukegan, IL
Subject: RE: Whole grain vs multi-grain
Originally posted by Zero2Athlete

Don't even get me comparing the "nutrients" in oatmeal/grains with the nutrients in other sources of energy and btw, the "need carbs for energy" thing is also outdated and was taken out of context from the beginning. That was quick and hope it doesn't come off like I'm trying to be an..___, just in a hurry and and gotta run back to work.



So I just read through most of this and had a question for you (genuine question, no criticism). The way I understand nutrition is that carbs are converted into energy (sugar) that are stored to be used on demand (glycogen stores). Fat can be burned for energy as well, but at a slower rate. Proteins can be used for energy but in an extremely inefficient and often detrimental way. That's the basics that I understand about nutrition, which could be wrong.

So when you're saying that carbs are needed for energy, what are you referring to? I'm asking because it doesn't fit in with my understanding. Are you referring to the amount of carbs that the typical American eats? Are you referring to carbs in general not being a necessity, like we once thought?

Thanks for the clarification!
2013-12-10 8:59 AM
in reply to: The Chupacabra

User image

Expert
1028
100025
Detroit, MI. Kinda.
Subject: RE: Whole grain vs multi-grain
Originally posted by The Chupacabra

Originally posted by Zero2Athlete

Don't even get me comparing the "nutrients" in oatmeal/grains with the nutrients in other sources of energy and btw, the "need carbs for energy" thing is also outdated and was taken out of context from the beginning. That was quick and hope it doesn't come off like I'm trying to be an..___, just in a hurry and and gotta run back to work.



So I just read through most of this and had a question for you (genuine question, no criticism). The way I understand nutrition is that carbs are converted into energy (sugar) that are stored to be used on demand (glycogen stores). Fat can be burned for energy as well, but at a slower rate. Proteins can be used for energy but in an extremely inefficient and often detrimental way. That's the basics that I understand about nutrition, which could be wrong.

So when you're saying that carbs are needed for energy, what are you referring to? I'm asking because it doesn't fit in with my understanding. Are you referring to the amount of carbs that the typical American eats? Are you referring to carbs in general not being a necessity, like we once thought?

Thanks for the clarification!


You're pretty right on. Carbs are our "efficient" energy for moving muscle. Fat is slower to burn, and burning protein is the least efficient (It consumes more energy to process than carbs/fats..so you don't get to use every calories for moving muscle). That said, the scientists were not incorrect when they said that carbs was the most efficient source of energy. But that's not nearly the end of the story.

Look at most people in the western world. Why would anyone that isn't starving, especially an overweight person, need to uber-efficient with our energy processing? Do we really need every single calorie eaten to be available as energy if we aren't burning that many calories? I don't think so - because every single calorie available as energy that isn't burned gets stuck on your butt as fat. Especially true when we eat things that trigger an insulin flood. Insulin is the primary fat storage hormone - it's presence tells the body to start converting carbs to fat anyway, so you're not tricking your body into not storing fat by not eating fat ( plus it comes with other side effects.). If we really needed our energy to be efficient, we shouldn't eat anything but honey or bags of sugar..and certainly not whole grains - they aren't as efficient to burn as wonder bread.

But, I can hear you ask now, don't our brains/nervous system require glucose from carbs?! Yes. (We won't get into the ketosis discussion for this one). An adult human brain/CNS needs 300-400 calories per day from glucose. That equates to just 100 grams per day...that's only 20% of a 200 calorie diet - not nearly 50-70% as many would have you believe you need.

As athletes, we do need more to perform well... but remember that most of the time we are in an aerobic state - even when running. Varying percentages of calories burned during an endurance workout are glucose burned and the rest is fat burning. 50% is really a fair average...meaning even if you burn 800 calories running an hour a day, only 400 of those need to be glucose calories. So 200 grams/800 calories per day from carbs are more than enough - that's that's still less than 40% of calories from carbs once the person adjusts total calorie intake for activity level. The point is: every carb we eat that isn't burned as fuel winds up being stored as fat.


New Thread
Other Resources Nutritional Cafe » Whole grain vs multi-grain Rss Feed  
RELATED POSTS

whole grain question

Started by brosemail
Views: 844 Posts: 5

2011-10-27 6:09 PM ipull400watts

Interesting Article on Whole Grains

Started by uhcoog
Views: 631 Posts: 1

2010-12-20 10:27 AM uhcoog

Interesting Article on Whole Grains

Started by uhcoog
Views: 2250 Posts: 17

2011-01-21 12:19 AM neverstopexploring

Triathletes and Whole Grains?

Started by olliedawg
Views: 1199 Posts: 14

2009-05-16 4:03 PM Bioteknik

7 grain waffles ROCK MY WORLD!!!!!!!

Started by sirsam16
Views: 854 Posts: 2

2003-12-31 7:47 PM rixrock
RELATED ARTICLES
date : December 18, 2012
author : Nancy Clark
comments : 1
Want to add a nice crunch, along with vitamins and minerals, to your sports diet? This article goes over the uses of flax, chia, sunflower, hemp and sesame seeds along with several grains.
 
date : August 11, 2011
author : FitWerx
comments : 0
Dean from Fitwerx answers a BT member question about what kind of bike should be the "next bike."
date : May 24, 2010
author : Tri Swim Coach
comments : 0
Discussion on preventing over-rotation, free golf, strength and core training, the importance of the kick and high turnover vs low turnover.
 
date : February 22, 2010
author : mrakes1
comments : 0
Discussions on caloric needs for weightloss and workouts plus whole wheat breads.
date : October 8, 2008
author : FitWerx
comments : 2
What kind of time difference would one expect in changing from a road bike with aerobars to a tri bike with aerobars over a HIM distance if using the same wheelset?
 
date : October 9, 2007
author : dr_forbush
comments : 9
The boat was being tossed around. Someone noted that there were whitecaps on the waves. Another guy said, “This is going to be challenging.” I began to wonder what he meant by 'challenging'.
date : May 1, 2006
author : KevinKonczak
comments : 0
Discussions on periodization, tubular vs clinchers, swimming cadence, 650's vs 700's, plan priority, RAAM after double IM and swim training before race day.
 
date : March 5, 2006
author : sport88
comments : 0
The mental, the physical and all the rest. I have come to realize one of the most important sides of sports is mental.