PDA

View Full Version : Orange Juice and Carbs



John04Civic
02-24-2006, 07:17 PM
Are the carbs in orange juice the good carbs that are healthy , or more like the processed carbs we see in like packaged food.

I have been craving for some OJ in my morning meals, but wanted to make sure is a healthy add on and not too much in the carbs field. Most I have seen are 27 - 34gs

Thanks,

John

Spartacus
02-24-2006, 07:20 PM
its not the carbs themselves that are bad, its a question of 'are there lots of nutrients along for the ride'

and in oj you get everything except the fibre in oranges

eatit
02-24-2006, 08:12 PM
Are the carbs in orange juice the good carbs that are healthy , or more like the processed carbs we see in like packaged food.


no such thing. There are carbs that fit into your diet and carbs that don't.

John04Civic
02-24-2006, 08:35 PM
no such thing. There are carbs that fit into your diet and carbs that don't.
Well I mean I'm not sure what you mean by that. I thought there were two types of carbs, complex / simple , along with fast burning and slow burning. Oatmeal is slow burning carbs that are simple I thought (example)

John04Civic
02-24-2006, 08:35 PM
no such thing. There are carbs that fit into your diet and carbs that don't.
Well I mean I'm not sure what you mean by that. I thought there were two types of carbs, complex / simple , along with fast burning and slow burning. Oatmeal is slow burning carbs that are simple I thought (example)

Unreal
02-24-2006, 09:22 PM
If it fits into your daily caloric goal, then go for it. Juice can add up quickly and if your cutting it can be very hard to fit into your diet.

DumbDude
02-25-2006, 07:32 AM
They are simple carbs. Theres a time and place for them too. If you really want it and you are trying to cut try to drink it around your workout time.

TheGimp
02-25-2006, 09:31 AM
Actually in the morning when hepatic glycogen levels are depleted after a night's sleep is a good time for fructose consumption.

DumbDude
02-25-2006, 11:37 AM
Actually in the morning when hepatic glycogen levels are depleted after a night's sleep is a good time for fructose consumption.
Morning is good too. Wonder what his goals are...?

Spartacus
02-25-2006, 08:09 PM
Well I mean I'm not sure what you mean by that. I thought there were two types of carbs, complex / simple , along with fast burning and slow burning. Oatmeal is slow burning carbs that are simple I thought (example)

yes, carbs can be classified according to whether they are single sugars, two sugars bonded together, or really long chains. But its not a significant distinction (other than knowing that >50-75g fructose might be suboptimal, and some carb chains are indigestible (fibre, resistant starches, etc)). the fast/slow thing, GI, isn't correlated with sugar length. ANd there is no benefit to only eating complex carbs or only food with low GI. oatmeal is low gi mostly because of the soluable fibre.

Optimum08
02-25-2006, 10:46 PM
if they fit into your caloric goals, go for it, but drinkin juice can add up the cals very quickly which can be very hard if your watching what you eat/need those cals for more protein etc....

John04Civic
02-26-2006, 08:49 PM
Morning is good too. Wonder what his goals are...?
A Six pack pretty much is the #1 goal. I just don't know the b/f% level required to get it.

I need some Body fat calipers and then I can tell you where I am truly at right now.

Jorge Sanchez
02-27-2006, 07:45 AM
About 10% is the common wisdom. But as with almost everything else, it is an individual thing.

DumbDude
02-27-2006, 08:23 AM
A Six pack pretty much is the #1 goal. I just don't know the b/f% level required to get it.

I need some Body fat calipers and then I can tell you where I am truly at right now.
dont waste your carbs on OJ if you are cutting.

intargc
02-27-2006, 12:31 PM
If it fits into your daily caloric goal, then go for it.

I keep hearing this (mainly on this forum) and it simply does not sound right.

If this was true, then we could all just simply bulk cleanly and cut cleanly on potato chips, sugar and pizza. You can't just simply tell someone "There's no such thing as good carbs or bad carbs" Yes there are. There are complex and simple carbs that are better to consume than empty carbs. There are a such thing as empty calories; such as those you'd consume from sugar.

Do you think someone would be safe bulking on 3,000 calories a day from sugar filled foods and drinks and loading up on potato chips? No. Otherwise, let's all just drink tons of Coke and eat Dorito's for every meal.

Having these things as an addition to a proper diet, fine... but to me that statement sounds like "Hey, splurge on crap as long as you can fit it in!" Anyone can fit it in. For instance, instead of eating that meatloaf and veggies for dinner, I'll just have half a serving of meatloaf and no veggies and just cram down a coke and a pint of ice cream after the half serving of meatloaf. Hey, it fits in my calorie requirements for the day! I'll do this every meal!

Shouldn't you say "Nah, I'd rather get a nurtritious meal full of protein, vitamins, complex carbs and calories" instead of "They may be empty calories, but they're calories!"

eatit
02-27-2006, 12:55 PM
I keep hearing this (mainly on this forum) and it simply does not sound right.

it is


Do you think someone would be safe bulking on 3,000 calories a day from sugar filled foods and drinks and loading up on potato chips? No. Otherwise, let's all just drink tons of Coke and eat Dorito's for every meal.

As long has the person doesn't have issues with high cholesterol, sodium issues or other health problems... it's pretty much fine as long as they get their protein and micronutrients in.


but to me that statement sounds like "Hey, splurge on crap as long as you can fit it in!" Anyone can fit it in. For instance, instead of eating that meatloaf and veggies for dinner, I'll just have half a serving of meatloaf and no veggies and just cram down a coke and a pint of ice cream after the half serving of meatloaf. Hey, it fits in my calorie requirements for the day! I'll do this every meal!

I guess that is what it sounds like to you... but it's not what's being said. First off the caloric totals of cramming down coke followed by a pint of ice cream are far greater than half a meatloaf portion (assuming it's a somewhat healthy meatloaf) and veggies (once again assume they're not deep fried or something). What's being said is as far as fat loss/weight gain goes a calorie is a calorie. 3000 calories of pizza and ice cream = 3000 calories of chicken breast (more or less, i mean, to assume that the body deals with them in exactly the same matter would be a stretch but in the big picture...)



Shouldn't you say "Nah, I'd rather get a nurtritious meal full of protein, vitamins, complex carbs and calories" instead of "They may be empty calories, but they're calories!"

Well, in terms of having optimal micronutrient intake the answer is yes, i suppose you should. Of course someone is going to fill those values with greater ease if they eat "clean" and avoid the "junk". But too many people seem to get caught up in "clean" eating and obsess over trivial details that really in the scheme of what you're trying to accomplish mean little to nothing.

Also there are the psychological benifits to this. If you understand that a calorie is a calorie and god damn you're going to drink that milk shake you can then make room for it in your diet by dropping those "clean" and complex carbs and a bit of protein and fat here and there and indulge.

Of course that very same benifit can be a huge a binge trigger. Some people fair far better only allowing themselves to eat clean and as soon as they get the taste of "empty calories" in their mouth they can't stop. But that doesn't change the fact that a calorie is a calorie.

intargc
02-27-2006, 01:32 PM
I just know and have read from many different qualified (meaning, highly educated with degree's and professions in nutrition) nutritionist that fully disagree with the notion of a calorie being a calories. A carb being a carb. Etc... Sugar based calories aren't beneficial in large amounts. Meaning, basing your calories/carbs on sugar based items instead of nutritious foods.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't eat sugar or such things. Ice cream and chocolate and cake's and such have proven to be highly anabolic. However, this is in moderation. To consider that you can gain lean weight off of just consuming chips, fries, pizza and sugar filled foods as long as you don't go over your daily caloric requirements is asinine and I have yet to actually see this as being correct in any nutrition based article I have read. I've heard it on this forum only.

On the other hand, realizing that after eating wholesome foods rich in vitamins, protein, complex-carbs and calories that you have some remaining calories for the day and so you want some ice cream, candy or whatever... That's a different story.

I'm also speaking from experience. I used to eat nothing but crap. Chips, pizza, TONS of candy, coke, etc... On my old diet, I was consuming well over 3,500 calories a day, but my actual food intake (things such as sandwiches and meat) was around 1,500 calories. What did I get from that? Nothing but a fat stomach. I didn't gain any muscle mass. When I started eating REAL foods such as chicken, beef, complex carb rich foods and such and based my diet on about 3,000 - 3,500 calories a day without all of the candy and crappy junk foods, I actually started to put on muscle mass.

I just don't argue with educated analysis + results. However, feel free to if you want.

eatit
02-27-2006, 01:46 PM
To consider that you can gain lean weight off of just consuming chips, fries, pizza and sugar filled foods as long as you don't go over your daily caloric requirements is asinine and I have yet to actually see this as being correct in any nutrition based article I have read. I've heard it on this forum only.

you haven't heard it in this forum at least as far as i'm aware (feel free to dig a quote in context to prove me wrong though.)(and on a side note unless all those foods are protein fortified it'd be impossible to read 1g protein/1 lb lbm without being insane with calories)
what's being said is:


after eating wholesome foods rich in vitamins, protein, complex-carbs and calories that you have some remaining calories for the day and so you want some ice cream, candy or whatever... That's a different story.


spot on, bingo. You've got it. AFTER you've done everything else, if you've got room. Go nuts.



I'm also speaking from experience. I used to eat nothing but crap. Chips, pizza, TONS of candy, coke, etc... On my old diet, I was consuming well over 3,500 calories a day, but my actual food intake (things such as sandwiches and meat) was around 1,500 calories. What did I get from that? Nothing but a fat stomach. I didn't gain any muscle mass. When I started eating REAL foods such as chicken, beef, complex carb rich foods and such and based my diet on about 3,000 - 3,500 calories a day without all of the candy and crappy junk foods, I actually started to put on muscle mass.

You're not really argueing the points i made only inforcing them. When you were eating well over 3,500 calories a day of nothing but crap i'm pretty sure you were not reaching any of the requirements i was talking about before. Chances are most of your calories were fat and carbs (even what you state as "actual food" intake is dubious, sandwiches can go from healthy (no mayo, healthy bread choices, lean good quality cuts of meat) to really really unhealthy super quick (fatty cuts of meat, mayo, bacon on top).

As an experiment for yourself try this (if you're interested). Try tracking the nutritional break down of an average day when you used to "eat nothing but crap" and see if it even comes close to meeting your protein requirements. Also, i have the sneaking suspicion that while you were "eating nothing but crap" you probably were not lifting weights and exercising and if you were chances are you were not doing it well.

intargc
02-27-2006, 02:08 PM
spot on, bingo. You've got it. AFTER you've done everything else, if you've got room. Go nuts.

I obviously misunderstood your comments then.


You're not really argueing the points i made only inforcing them. When you were eating well over 3,500 calories a day of nothing but crap i'm pretty sure you were not reaching any of the requirements i was talking about before. Chances are most of your calories were fat and carbs (even what you state as "actual food" intake is dubious, sandwiches can go from healthy (no mayo, healthy bread choices, lean good quality cuts of meat) to really really unhealthy super quick (fatty cuts of meat, mayo, bacon on top).

As an experiment for yourself try this (if you're interested). Try tracking the nutritional break down of an average day when you used to "eat nothing but crap" and see if it even comes close to meeting your protein requirements. Also, i have the sneaking suspicion that while you were "eating nothing but crap" you probably were not lifting weights and exercising and if you were chances are you were not doing it well.

No, this is when I first started lifting. All I heard was "eat more calories" and I was like "Word." I did... I ate tons of calories. I was getting well over 1g of protein per lb of body weight. Mainly from the meat I ate and 2 protein shakes. 1 protein whey isolate shake being 48g (24g x 2 scoops). The meat I ate was tuna or lean beef / chicken breats. Having a tuna sandwich for lunch (1 can of tuna) + Say, for instance, 2 slices of meatloaf equalling 1/2lb of meat was around 80 - 100g of protein right there. So, for argument sake, let's go with 80 + 48 + 48. 176g. At the time, I weighed 155lbs. So, well over my lean-body-weight in protein. The vast majority of my calories were coming from candy and ice cream and cakes, pastries, etc... (I'm a sugar addict and will probably pay for it with some form of diabete's when I'm older. haha).

McIrish
02-28-2006, 12:17 AM
If anyone has any definitive research (again, I'd prefer backed by some sort of advanced degree... I'm elitist on that regard, so sue me) regarding this debate, I'd love to see it. All I've heard EVER is individual claims (which I find dubious) that "I got ripped on pizza and pop because I made sure to get the ride amount of protein, etc.," but I still find that a hard pill to swallow. I also heard a perhaps apocryphal quote that was attributed to Lyle McDonald - something along the lines of "I bet you I could get ripped on table sugar." Diabetes aside, it just flies in the face of conventional wisdom. Now, mind you, I take "conventional wisdom" with a grain of salt, but how many guys are there out there who ACTUALLY get ripped on pizza and pop? If it were possible, wouldn't more people do it?

eatit
02-28-2006, 09:33 AM
the first thing that pops to my mind would be christian bale. He went from his super skinny "The Machinist" state (look at my avatar) to playing the role of batman in just a few months. To bulk up for the role he stuffed his face on pizza, ice cream and doughnuts and then cut back down.

I don't have access to any decent health or nutrition journals so i won't be able to find those for you. But think of it this way. Why would two people taking in identical calories, identical macros gain weight any different (assuming they had the same genetics here)? Just using logic is there any reason to assume otherwise?

And why more people don't do it? Because it would be hard as all hell to bulk properly or cut properly on junk. Think about it. You could either have that single tiny snickers bar or you could plate after plate of veggies. Which do you think will blunt appetite more and leave you satisfied?

On another note, read up on power lifters and what they do to become so huge. They're all certainly successful "bulkers" (more muscle than any body builders) and usually get to that point through and endless string of all you can eat buffets and gorge fests.

MJS
02-28-2006, 10:11 AM
A nutritionist friend told me something interesting about OJ the other day... all of the Vitamin-C that is in it doesn't get into your system because of the sugars in OJ. She says that a 8oz glass will only provide about 15% of your DV, where as it says that it should be close to 100%.

Holto
02-28-2006, 03:16 PM
A nutritionist friend told me something interesting about OJ the other day... all of the Vitamin-C that is in it doesn't get into your system because of the sugars in OJ.

This is rediculous. I hate to sound rude but I have yet to meet a nutritionist that had a clue.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
02-28-2006, 03:21 PM
A nutritionist friend told me something interesting about OJ the other day... all of the Vitamin-C that is in it doesn't get into your system because of the sugars in OJ.The nutritionist is a dumb ass and that correlation makes no sense whatsoever. I'm studying to be a nutritionist and nothing as ridiculous as that has come up. That person is a fool and your friend should never converse with that moron again.

eatit
02-28-2006, 05:50 PM
scarz: I actually just sent in my application to transfer from the liberal arts faculty to the land and food systems faculty at UBC.

Where are you studying? How are you finding it so far? Would you recommend it? And how difficult are you finding the math and science portions of it?

Just curious cause i sent my application with the thought of transfering but i have yet to come to a solid decision, want to talk to as many people about it before hand as possible.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
02-28-2006, 09:45 PM
scarz: I actually just sent in my application to transfer from the liberal arts faculty to the land and food systems faculty at UBC.

Where are you studying? How are you finding it so far? Would you recommend it? And how difficult are you finding the math and science portions of it?

Just curious cause i sent my application with the thought of transfering but i have yet to come to a solid decision, want to talk to as many people about it before hand as possible.I'll be transferring to ASU for the Bachelor of Science program they have there. I'm probably only a quarter of the way through my journey to my Ph.D so I'm not the best person to be asking these questions. Someone with more college experience would be better (or someone with a degree).

There is quite a bit of math and a LOT of chemistry, anatomy, and various medical/biological classes. They are difficult, but then again...it IS college...and it IS a Ph.D. ;) I am still unclear on my major. I either want to be in the field of human nutrition or go into BioTechnology. I have a while to think about it. Overall, the direction I'm taking towards nutrition is quite fascinating, which is why I'm studying it to begin with. But seeing that this country is going farther into the hole of obesity, I'm starting to feel as though I can't help people. Of course, your word is more valid with a Ph.D behind your belt than just being a 21-year-old college student (so more peope will listen, I suppose). I don't know.

I think it's an interesting and cool field to be in, but you can do ANYTHING you want. It is college, after all.