PDA

View Full Version : Quick question about Wendy's Chili



wrestlemaniac
02-06-2005, 02:01 PM
Last night I was low on cals for the day and out with friends and they were getting fast food and I kinda justified to myself that I needed the extra cals so I ordered a Wendy's Chili. I went home and looked up the nutritional info and was pleasently surprised (I knew it was pretty good for you, thats why I ordered it but I was still surprised). Here's the info for anyone thats curious :

Total Cals: 295
Total Fat : 8
Total Carbs: 32
Total Protien: 26

So I'm thinking this isn't bad for a once in a while snack at a fast food place when I'm with some friends. My only question is the GI of it. Does anyone know where I could find this info (I looked all last night and this morning)? I'd imagine it's pretty good since it's all real foods in it (like beans and beef etc) but it's still good to do your homework, right?

andy51
02-06-2005, 02:19 PM
Its definately better than a burger and I would imagine that the GI is quite low, because most of the carbs would be either complex or fibers from the beans. I think about the only ingredients are meat, beans, and spices.

Rik-s
02-06-2005, 02:37 PM
http://www.glycemicindex.com/ << Try there mate, may help you out :)

Cynical_Simian
02-06-2005, 04:14 PM
The GI is going to be quite low because of the fat, protein and fiber.

I'm not sure where you got the nutrition information you posted, but on the Wendy's website they have expanded nutrition info that includes the following: .5 g trans fat and 1170 mg sodium. Trans fat should be avoided entirely, and getting half of your daily sodium from a 300-calorie meal probably isn't a good idea either. The macros are pretty good by fast food standards, but you should probably avoid it if at all possible.

BCC
02-06-2005, 04:21 PM
I imagine their chili is loaded with sugar, therefore not low on the GI.

Cynical_Simian
02-06-2005, 04:30 PM
The GI of a food is not determined solely by its sugar content. For example, fruit and fat-free yogurt have low GIs despite high amounts of sugar because of their fiber and protein content, respectively. And yogurt with fat has an even lower GI than the fat-free variety.

Dirt
02-06-2005, 11:56 PM
The GI of a food is not determined solely by its sugar content. For example, fruit and fat-free yogurt have low GIs despite high amounts of sugar because of their fiber and protein content, respectively. And yogurt with fat has an even lower GI than the fat-free variety.

Yeah, except it's not a fair comparison. A good analogy is an American Chinese food dish. A lot of dishes are high GI because of the sugary sauces they use and this is despite the fact the dish itself will be containing chicken, beef, etc. That more closely relates to the chili example. If the sauce is loaded with sugar (I don't know if it is or not), it'll be a lot higher GI than you might expect. The entire argument is pretty moot though because if he's having this as a once in a while snack it's fine. In fact if it's once in a while he could order anything on the menu and it really wouldn't matter. All fast food is bad for you. There isn't any way around that fact, even the "healthier" choices like this chili aren't healthy. Frankly, you may as well grab a burger if you're there if you'd enjoy that more.

ebrunner
02-07-2005, 02:42 PM
Check the index--sucrose (sugar) isn't super-high GI like white bread or potato, or puffed rice cereal. It's more in the medium category.

Plus, beans are low GI, and the protein and fat in the beef lowers the overall effect even more.

I've always wondered why beans and legumes aren't a major carb source in the typical bodybuilding diet. They are lower GI than oats.

Eddan
02-08-2005, 04:43 AM
I've always wondered why beans and legumes aren't a major carb source in the typical bodybuilding diet. They are lower GI than oats.

I agree. I eat a lot of beans because of the low GI carb the decent protein is an added benefit.

Teh BDK
02-09-2005, 01:12 AM
I usually eat a fair amount of beans in a bb diet. The problem with beans is that you usually eat beans that come from cans and they have a ridiculous amount of added sodium. You can get low-sodium beans I think but man, they taste like crap.

If you're wondering, yes. I usually would just open a can and eat them straight up, maybe with a little ketchup.

Dirt
02-09-2005, 06:20 PM
Check the index--sucrose (sugar) isn't super-high GI like white bread or potato, or puffed rice cereal. It's more in the medium category.

Plus, beans are low GI, and the protein and fat in the beef lowers the overall effect even more.

I've always wondered why beans and legumes aren't a major carb source in the typical bodybuilding diet. They are lower GI than oats.

Yeah, but my point was that a sugary sauce will inflate the GI higher than what you'd expect if it wasn't in there. Giving the illusion of a healthier meal than it really is. It's moot that the contents of the chili (beans, meat, etc.) will lower the overall impact of the sugar because adding sugar to a dish will automatically increase its GI relative to the same dish w/o sugar added. That was really what I was getting at, and I'm pretty sure that's the reason BCC bothered to point out that they add sugar.

Beans aren't added to a typical BB diet because they're a pain in the ass to deal with. As someone pointed out, your typical canned beans have a ****load of sodium. Preparing your own beans is a long process (soaking, boiling, whatever). Compare that to eating oats, which you can just blend up in a shake, down with some water, cook in a microwave (2-3 min), cook on a stove (10-20 min). It's more of a time issue than anything. Also oats are obscenely cheap and you can eat them plain or with a little cinnamon or something. IMO beans (not from a tin) taste like ass unless prepared properly.