PDA

View Full Version : tomato based pasta sauce



JustinASU
07-23-2003, 05:07 PM
Is this bad on a cut? One of the ingredients was sugar...

SoulOfKoRea
07-23-2003, 05:39 PM
no it's not bad, just don't eat too much of it.

mmckinley
07-23-2003, 08:35 PM
tomatos have tons of lycopene which is a good antioxidant. Even ketchup has lots of it, so it's good to eat tomato stuff.

Ironman8
07-24-2003, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by JustinASU
Is this bad on a cut?

Calories in calories out :)

JustinASU
07-24-2003, 07:14 AM
Yes Iron but there was a bad word in the ingredients....sugar.

dirty-c
07-24-2003, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by Ironman8


Calories in calories out :)

Do you really believe that? Compare a 2000 calorie, high protein, moderate fat moderate carb diet with a 2000 calorie meal from McDonalds. Still think calories in calories out?

But, to answer your question, yes keep it in moderation. The one thing thats ironic about tomatoes is that they are just about the only vegetable that has potential to get more healthy the more crushed/processed they are. Lycopene is more bioavailable when the tomato is crushed down that in solid form.

Holto
07-24-2003, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by dirty-c


Do you really believe that? Compare a 2000 calorie, high protein, moderate fat moderate carb diet with a 2000 calorie meal from McDonalds. Still think calories in calories out?

if you were comparing a single 2000 cal meal taken once a day
to 3 meals a day then yes it would make a difference

your metabolism would lay down on one meal a day

however if you took that same McDonalds meal and broke it up into 3 meals then it would come down to energy balance cals in VS cals out

Relentless
07-24-2003, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by JustinASU
Yes Iron but there was a bad word in the ingredients....sugar.

you could use pesto sauce instead if you're concerned about the sugar

you can also sometimes find sauces that don't have sugar

bottom line: unless you're really tightly managing your insulin response/etc. and carbs (like PSYCHO tightly) then dont' sweat a lil' bit of sugar. it's not like you're LIVING on tomato sauce.

Y2A
07-24-2003, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by Callahan

it's not like you're LIVING on tomato sauce.

I was about to try the new tomato sauce diet :(

bradley
07-24-2003, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by dirty-c


Do you really believe that? Compare a 2000 calorie, high protein, moderate fat moderate carb diet with a 2000 calorie meal from McDonalds. Still think calories in calories out?

I would have to agree with Holto:)

http://www.wannabebigforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33842&highlight=meal+frequency




But, to answer your question, yes keep it in moderation. The one thing thats ironic about tomatoes is that they are just about the only vegetable that has potential to get more healthy the more crushed/processed they are

Tomatoes are technically a fruit.;)

http://www.ag.uiuc.edu/~robsond/solutions/horticulture/docs/tomato.html

dirty-c
07-25-2003, 06:43 AM
Yes bradley, it is a fruit, I forgot (common misconception). Now about the 2000 calorie thing, Holto was right in pointing out that it would make a difference if it were one meal, but suppose you divided that McDonalds meal into 4 - 500 calorie meals. I still think you'd be more likely to gain fat from the McD's than a 4 meal, 500 cal per meal, diet composed of whole grains, vegetables, fatty fish, and lean meat. Can you really say you think those two diets would behave the same way? I think thats preposterous.

For example, the McDonalds is composed of nutrient void highly processed highGI carbs (white bread buns, potatoes, sugar in the pop) coupled with highly saturated fats (cheap ground beef) and even worse, trans-fats (partially hydrogenated vegetable oil).

Now compare this with the diet I described. It seems to me that there is no way that diet/fat loss/muscle gain is as simple as "a calorie is a calorie". Nothing in life is ever that simple. If you can still subscribe to that belief, then thats your perrogative, but I'm not ready to jump aboard that train yet.

I think that nutrition is highly complex and probably counter intuitive. Most sciences that I've studied (physics, chem, elec. engineering) were. But maybe thats just me and I'm just stupid. Its a distinct possibility.

Holto
07-25-2003, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by dirty-c
I still think you'd be more likely to gain fat from the McD's than a 4 meal, 500 cal per meal, diet composed of whole grains, vegetables, fatty fish, and lean meat. Can you really say you think those two diets would behave the same way? I think thats preposterous.

imagine for this example the two groups burned 3000 cals in a day

regardless of how clean their diet is they still need to use 1000 cals from fat

I imagine the McDonalds group would feel like they have less energy but other than that the end result would be the same

the McD's group would likely deposit more fat from each meal but then they would be the faster of the two to start burning it again



For example, the McDonalds is composed of nutrient void highly processed highGI carbs (white bread buns, potatoes, sugar in the pop) coupled with highly saturated fats (cheap ground beef) and even worse, trans-fats (partially hydrogenated vegetable oil)

*** all of the above can be used for energy just fine

Now compare this with the diet I described. It seems to me that there is no way that diet/fat loss/muscle gain is as simple as "a calorie is a calorie". Nothing in life is ever that simple. If you can still subscribe to that belief, then thats your perrogative, but I'm not ready to jump aboard that train yet.

You will be

the reason why this "a calorie is a calorie" thing is not universally understood is because very few people actually track cals

even on this site only a SMALL percentage of people acutally do it to the letter

how many guys here think they are eating like horses, complain they can't gain weight and after posting a typical days foods it's like only 3000 cals

PS

I have lost 10 lbs in about 12 weeks of eating Pizza and drinking coke every day

bradley
07-26-2003, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by dirty-c
Now about the 2000 calorie thing, Holto was right in pointing out that it would make a difference if it were one meal, but suppose you divided that McDonalds meal into 4 - 500 calorie meals. I still think you'd be more likely to gain fat from the McD's than a 4 meal, 500 cal per meal, diet composed of whole grains, vegetables, fatty fish, and lean meat. Can you really say you think those two diets would behave the same way? I think thats preposterous.

Well the catch is protein and EFAs. If both of these diets were providing adequate protein and EFAs then yes, but I doubt you are going to get adequate amounts of EFAs eating at McDonald's.



For example, the McDonalds is composed of nutrient void highly processed highGI carbs (white bread buns, potatoes, sugar in the pop) coupled with highly saturated fats (cheap ground beef) and even worse, trans-fats (partially hydrogenated vegetable oil).


You can still lose weight consuming these types of foods, although I agree it is far from healthy. Like I said above you will still need some EFAs which would be hard to find on a McDonald's menu.



Now compare this with the diet I described. It seems to me that there is no way that diet/fat loss/muscle gain is as simple as "a calorie is a calorie". Nothing in life is ever that simple. If you can still subscribe to that belief, then thats your perrogative, but I'm not ready to jump aboard that train yet.

Well technically a calorie is a calorie, which is defined as "a unit of heat defined as the quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade at atmospheric pressure."

With that being said some calories are more beneficial than others. For example 1g of fish oil would be more beneficial than 1g of lard, but both contain 9 calories.

I have seen nothing that would lead me to believe that you can not lose/gain weight eating simple carbs and fatty foods, assuming that you are taking in adequate amounts of protein and EFAs. If you have anything to the contrary I would be interested in seeing it, but I agree that eating low GI carbs and lean cuts of meat, etc would be much more beneficial as far as overall health is concerned.:)



I think that nutrition is highly complex and probably counter intuitive. Most sciences that I've studied (physics, chem, elec. engineering) were. But maybe thats just me and I'm just stupid. Its a distinct possibility.

I agree that the nutrition is a complex issue, but it is based on a few solid principles. If you stick with these basic principles you will be successful as far as weight loss/gain is concerned.