The Five Biggest Contradictions in Fitness
Latest Article

The Five Biggest Contradictions in Fitness

Itís no secret that when people contradict themselves, it has the effect of making the flaws in their actions or statements seem glaringly obvious. But what about when WE ourselves get caught contradicting ourselves by someone else?

By: Nick Tumminello Added: January 6th, 2014
More Recent Articles
Contrast Training for Size
By: Lee Boyce
An Interview with Marianne Kane of Girls Gone Strong
By: Jordan Syatt
What Supplements Should I be Taking? By: Jay Wainwright
Bench Like a Girl By: Julia Ladewski
Some Thoughts on Building a Big Pull By: Christopher Mason

Facebook Join Facebook Group       Twitter Follow on Twitter       rss Subscribe via RSS
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    70

    Peanut Butter???

    What are your guys opinions on eating 1-2 peanut butter & jelly sandwiches a day?

    They're my favorite!!!

    I see the PB is high in fat, but I've heard fat from PB isn't all that bad. (Which I would really like an explanation for.) It also seems to be a fairly good protein source.
    Last edited by baja_stx; 06-15-2003 at 06:42 PM.

  2.    Support Wannabebig and use AtLarge Nutrition Supplements!


  3. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    106
    i've always wondered what made non saturated fat different from saturated fat.
    Last edited by phi67; 06-15-2003 at 07:05 PM.

  4. #3
    WannaBeNotFat technogeeky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    243
    I'm certainly no expert, but my friend and some people on here reccomend a limited amount of natural (NATURAL ONLY) peanut butter each day.

    As for the jelly? That's probably all sugar. Not so good.
    Age: 20 [21]
    Weight : 340 [225]
    Bodyfat: 42.3% [10.0%]
    Height: 6'5

    Check out my workout blog: link
    What did I eat today? FitDay

  5. #4
    bench, deadlift & eat!!!!! Mic Soloist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Louisville, Ky
    Posts
    1,960
    I've been informed that jelly isn't a good idea for the most part....


    but natty p-nut butter is a



    -peace-
    Current Stats

    24 years old

    5'10 220 pounds



    Waist: 38 Shoulders 56 Chest: 47 Arms (cold): 17.5 Forearms: 13.5 Quads: 26.5 Calves: 16.5 Neck: 17.5

    PR's

    BB Bench: 315 @ 215
    Squats: 410 @ 205 (last winter)
    Deads 515 @ 214
    Total: 1240


    My Journal:

    http://www.wannabebigforums.com/show...&page=16&pp=25

    My AIM: MSOLOIST


    Intensity: Lunch comes up! And breakfast! MET- Rx! Egg whites! Hot Stuff! Designer Whey! Yohimbe! Coenzyme Q! L-Carnatine. MTCs. OKG. All immersed in a mixture of stomach acids that peels the ivory off your teeth.

  6. #5
    Wannabebig Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    New york
    Posts
    0
    Def stick with just the natural peanut butter...good fats in there ..I have about a half a jar of peanut butter a day..so basically i have about 4 jars a week of peanut buutter..

  7. #6
    Gen_chat worst nightmare
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    0
    Peanut butter is mmost of all a convinient source of calories, the fats it contains are not particulary beneficial for meat eaters who get enough Omega6 as it is.

  8. #7
    Gonnabebig Member JuniorMint6669's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Costa Mesa, CA
    Posts
    1,697
    If you are worried about jelly... smuckers makes a sugar free strawberry jelly that i think tastes great. I use it for PB&J and mix it with my cottage cheese. 1 tbs has 20 calories in it, not too bad.

  9. #8
    confused by simplicity bradley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    5,470
    Originally posted by phi67
    i've always wondered what made non saturated fat different from saturated fat.
    For one thing saturated fats will be solid at room temperature where as unsaturated fats will be liquid at room temperature.

    The difference between the two lies in the way the carbon atoms are bonded within the fatty acid. If all the carbon atoms between the first and last carbon atom (alpha and omega carbons respectively) are bonded with two hydrogen atoms then that fatty acid would be considered saturated.

    If a fatty acid has one double bond between carbon atoms then it is monounsaturated and if it shares two or more double bonds between carbon atoms it is polyunsaturated.
    Last edited by bradley; 06-16-2003 at 03:45 AM.

  10. #9
    Define Your Soul SoulOfKoRea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Suwanee, GA
    Posts
    1,546
    saturated - comes from animals
    unsaturated - plants
    My profile picture is about 5 years old, I'll get around to taking some progress pics eventually.

  11. #10
    Wannabebig Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    44
    Originally posted by SoulOfKoRea
    saturated - comes from animals
    unsaturated - plants

    well, to be more specific, the subject of saturated and unsaturated fat has to do with the number of bonds in the molecule. Go here for more info:
    http://www.encyclopedia.com/searchpo...x=0&Search.y=0

  12. #11
    Wannabebig Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    9
    There's probably little to worry about in the fats in peanut butter, even the ones containing trans-fats. A recent study found the levels of trans fats were completely undetectable. Evidently, it takes a minute amount to stabilize the peanut oil. I still eat natural, though.

    Also: peanut butter is mostly mono-unsaturated fat, which is basically a perfect fuel for your body.

    The other main type of fat in PB, poly-unsaturated fat, is the fat you might worry about. When your body burns it, free radicals are produced, introducing oxidative stress into your body. Not a big deal, though.

    Saturated fat (and dietary cholesterol for that matter) is probably nothing to worry about at all. Many doctors are convinced that the link between it and heart disease is complete bunk. Here's a site explaining why:
    The Cholesterol Myths by Dr. Ravnskov

  13. #12
    Skinny not scronny Stabber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Northern Eastcoast
    Posts
    597
    mmm natty peanut butter . Tastes like mama bird chewed up peanuts and spit them in my mouth
    Something has been taken from deep inside of me
    The secret Iíve kept locked away no one can ever see
    Wounds so deep they never show they never go away
    Like moving pictures in my head for years and years theyíve played

  14. #13
    Skinny not scronny Stabber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Northern Eastcoast
    Posts
    597
    Originally posted by bradley


    For one thing saturated fats will be solid at room temperature where as unsaturated fats will be liquid at room temperature.

    The difference between the two lies in the way the carbon atoms are bonded within the fatty acid. If all the carbon atoms between the first and last carbon atom (alpha and omega carbons respectively) are bonded with two hydrogen atoms then that fatty acid would be considered saturated.

    If a fatty acid has one double bond between carbon atoms then it is monounsaturated and if it shares two or more double bonds between carbon atoms it is polyunsaturated.
    How do you remember all this? Christ dude!
    Something has been taken from deep inside of me
    The secret Iíve kept locked away no one can ever see
    Wounds so deep they never show they never go away
    Like moving pictures in my head for years and years theyíve played

  15. #14
    confused by simplicity bradley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    5,470
    Originally posted by Senor Quack
    Also: peanut butter is mostly mono-unsaturated fat, which is basically a perfect fuel for your body.
    ~7.7 g mono and ~4.4g poly

    The other main type of fat in PB, poly-unsaturated fat, is the fat you might worry about. When your body burns it, free radicals are produced, introducing oxidative stress into your body. Not a big deal, though.
    Although fish oils are one example of polyunsaturated fat and those are very beneficial.

  16. #15
    confused by simplicity bradley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    5,470
    Originally posted by Stabber


    How do you remember all this? Christ dude!
    I remember some from bio classes in school, but most I have to look up to refresh my memory. I do not know all of this off the top of my head

  17. #16
    Ash "Money" Hegde Y2A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    4,791
    Originally posted by bradley


    I remember some from bio classes in school, but most I have to look up to refresh my memory. I do not know all of this off the top of my head
    Youre lying, we all know that you know everything
    "We fight our battles, we wage our wars, we settle the score, with honor and blood" - Atreyu

    Dontate to my favorite charity!

  18. #17
    zen idiot Scott S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Marion, IA
    Posts
    3,205
    Some crazy stuff in that webpage, Senor. Makes me wonder what, if anything, I *can* do to prevent atherosclerosis!

  19. #18
    Wannabebig Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    9
    Originally posted by Scott S
    Some crazy stuff in that webpage, Senor. Makes me wonder what, if anything, I *can* do to prevent atherosclerosis!
    All you have to do is keep your blood sugar levels stable throughout your life, eat more omega-3 fats (from fish or walnuts or canola oil) versus omega-6 and completely avoid trans-fats. This means eating less carbs. There's no such thing as a "complex carb". A piece of whole wheat toast, milled with modern methods, is just like eating sugar, as far as insulin response goes. I suggest reading "Protein Power Lifeplan" by David and Mary Eades.
    Last edited by Senor Quack; 06-18-2003 at 10:22 PM.

  20. #19
    confused by simplicity bradley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    5,470
    Originally posted by Senor Quack

    There's no such thing as a "complex carb". A piece of whole wheat toast, milled with modern methods, is just like eating sugar, as far as insulin response goes.
    I would have to disagree about the complex carb statement. There are plenty of complex carbs.

    As far as ww bread goes it would depend on the type of bread that you are eating. If you are eating ww bread that has whole wheat flour or stone ground wheat as the main ingredient you will be fine. If you are eating wheat bread that contains enriched wheat flour as the primary ingredient, then you should expect to see more of an insulin response.

  21. #20
    Wannabebig Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    9
    Originally posted by bradley


    I would have to disagree about the complex carb statement. There are plenty of complex carbs.

    As far as ww bread goes it would depend on the type of bread that you are eating. If you are eating ww bread that has whole wheat flour or stone ground wheat as the main ingredient you will be fine. If you are eating wheat bread that contains enriched wheat flour as the primary ingredient, then you should expect to see more of an insulin response.
    The site that holds the glycemic index database I search on isn't returning search results at the moment, but see if you can do a search for "whole wheat bread" versus "white bread" on it:

    http://www.glycemicindex.com/

    The results will probably startle you. The numbers will probably be pretty close, and both will be not too far off from just eating pure sugar. The trouble is, starch is no harder for your body to digest than plain sucrose. The only thing that might help make a carb less "complex" is if it is less processed. For instance, not baking a potato or grinding flour less fine.

    The trouble is, all flour, wheat or white, these days (except for some very rare specialty breads) is ground to a super-fine powder that can sometimes be digested even faster than sugar by your body.

    The idea of the "complex" carb is a complete myth and all dieticians had to do was look at the insulin responses of these foods they claim are better for you. They didn't, and I don't have any idea why this is so.

    Take a look at some other foods on there you previously thought were complex as well. I suggest looking at a baked potato, shredded wheat, etc. I think the GI is based on glucose, which should be 100. I think sucrose, table sugar, is around 70 or so.

    Whole grains like oatmeal would probably be slightly better, but when we cook it, it all but turns into a paste that is broken down very quickly.
    Last edited by Senor Quack; 06-19-2003 at 06:55 AM.

  22. #21
    confused by simplicity bradley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    5,470
    Originally posted by Senor Quack

    The results will probably startle you. The numbers will probably be pretty close, and both will be not too far off from just eating pure sugar. The trouble is, starch is no harder for your body to digest than plain sucrose. The only thing that might help make a carb less "complex" is if it is less processed. For instance, not baking a potato or grinding flour less fine.

    The trouble is, all flour, wheat or white, these days (except for some very rare specialty breads) is ground to a super-fine powder that can sometimes be digested even faster than sugar by your body.
    I am not disputing the values that certain foods have on the GI. Although whole wheat bread is slightly lower than white bread, but ww bread has not been stripped of it's nutrients like white bread. Even though the GI values are similar I don't think you can argue that eating a piece of bread is the same as eating a couple of tablespoons of sugar.

    The GI is not really that important outside of appetite control, and even then the GI of the overall meal is more important. If you are eating a chicken sandwich then obviously the GI of the bread will be lowered by the protein/fat content of the meat.

    The idea of the "complex" carb is a complete myth and all dieticians had to do was look at the insulin responses of these foods they claim are better for you. They didn't, and I don't have any idea why this is so.
    So you are telling me that there is no such thing as a complex carbs? A complex carb is composed of a chain of monosaccharides, and the body must break down these chains before being absorbed.

    Take a look at some other foods on there you previously thought were complex as well. I suggest looking at a baked potato, shredded wheat, etc. I think the GI is based on glucose, which should be 100. I think sucrose, table sugar, is around 70 or so.
    The foods you listed above are complex carbs regardless of the glycemic index. I have no doubt that the foods you listed above are high on the GI, but the GI is not that important to begin with.

    Complex carbs refers to the structure of the carbohydrate, not the insulin repsonse.

    Actually most GI scales are based on white bread (100) I believe.

  23. #22
    Wannabebig Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    9
    Originally posted by bradley


    I am not disputing the values that certain foods have on the GI. Although whole wheat bread is slightly lower than white bread, but ww bread has not been stripped of it's nutrients like white bread. Even though the GI values are similar I don't think you can argue that eating a piece of bread is the same as eating a couple of tablespoons of sugar.

    The GI is not really that important outside of appetite control, and even then the GI of the overall meal is more important. If you are eating a chicken sandwich then obviously the GI of the bread will be lowered by the protein/fat content of the meat.

    So you are telling me that there is no such thing as a complex carbs? A complex carb is composed of a chain of monosaccharides, and the body must break down these chains before being absorbed.

    The foods you listed above are complex carbs regardless of the glycemic index. I have no doubt that the foods you listed above are high on the GI, but the GI is not that important to begin with.

    Complex carbs refers to the structure of the carbohydrate, not the insulin repsonse.

    Actually most GI scales are based on white bread (100) I believe.
    No, I believe the GI is based on pure glucose (which is 100). White bread is probably somewhere around 70. Which is also where sucrose and most wheat breads are as well!

    Complex carbs are constantly recommended as a replacement in a person's diet for sodas and candy and refined grains. I'm saying that there's nothing all that complex about them at alll to your body and they're broken down almost instantly and absorbed as sugar, when eaten in their processed form that virtually everyone uses. (Such as baked potatoes, boiled rice, and whole wheat flour ground with machinery) And yes, the GI is a huge factor in a food's nutritional value. The higher the GI, the more you should eat it in moderation. If not, you will eventually develop insulin resistance and probably type-II diabetes. A recent study projected a third of all people will develop it in the next decade or two. Type-II diabetes is a very serious disease and isn't something you just get one day. It's a slow progression that began the day you started eating wheaties in the morning, a sandwich and coke at lunch, and pasta for dinner (or the GI equivalent) every day of your life.

    We weren't meant to eat cooked, processed grains every day. Complex carbohydrates are a myth if they are cooked or ground.

    Additionally, GI also influences your metabolism and the rate at which extra calories get stored as fat.

    You also mentioned that whole wheat bread is more nutritious. I think whole wheat bread is a pretty poor source of nutrients and fiber and you'd be better off eating a snickers bar and a multivitamin (the GI of the candy bar would probably be lower!). That is, of course, if you can find one without trans fat.
    Last edited by Senor Quack; 06-20-2003 at 09:08 AM.

  24. #23
    confused by simplicity bradley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    5,470
    Originally posted by Senor Quack
    No, I believe the GI is based on pure glucose (which is 100). White bread is probably somewhere around 70. Which is also where sucrose and most wheat breads are as well!
    Taken from the following site:
    http://vanderbiltowc.wellsource.com/...ent.asp?ID=620

    "The Glycemic Index (GI) measures how much and how fast 50 grams of a certain food's carbohydrate content raises your blood sugar level. At first, when researchers wanted to determine how fast certain foods cause a rise in blood sugar levels they used table sugar as their base number (giving it a score of 100). But most people didn't like eating pure sugar, so researchers began using white bread as their base. White bread raises blood sugar levels about 70 percent as much as table sugar, but when it's used as the base, it's given a score of 100.

    Today, table sugar and white bread are used almost interchangeably as a base for glycemic level research. It's important for you to know which was used as the base (sugar or white bread), because the GI numbers will differ. For example, pinto beans and plums have a GI of 55 if white bread is the base, but a GI of 39 if sugar is the base. Unfortunately, not all GIs identify what was used."


    Actually the scales can be based on white bread, sucrose, or glucose. It really does not matter that much which is used as the standard seeing as how it is just a measure to compare other foods to.

    Complex carbs are constantly recommended as a replacement in a person's diet for sodas and candy and refined grains. I'm saying that there's nothing all that complex about them at alll to your body and they're broken down almost instantly and absorbed as sugar, when eaten in their processed form that virtually everyone uses. (Such as baked potatoes, boiled rice, and whole wheat flour ground with machinery)
    I agree that some carbs do cause more of an insulin response when eaten, hence the reason that they are high GI. Like I said, I am not disputing the values that certain foods have on the GI. I will argue that even though foods like baked potatoes are high on the GI they offer more nutrients and are therefor more beneficial than drinking a soda. I would like to point out that baked potatoes are not processed in any way unless you peal them and use them for mashed potatoes or something similar.

    And yes, the GI is a huge factor in a food's nutritional value. The higher the GI, the more you should eat it in moderation. If not, you will eventually develop insulin resistance and probably type-II diabetes.
    Regardless of the GI of certain foods they are still going to contain nutrients, and just saying that all high GI foods can be lumped into the same nutritional category is not accurate IMO. Like I stated above a piece of ww bread has more nutrients than a piece of white bread. I am not saying that ww bread is the best source for these nutrients but it does contain more none the less.

    A recent study projected a third of all people will develop it in the next decade or two. Type-II diabetes is a very serious disease and isn't something you just get one day. It's a slow progression that began the day you started eating wheaties in the morning, a sandwich and coke at lunch, and pasta for dinner (or the GI equivalent) every day of your life.
    I am sure this study was looking at the typical American diet, and I also think it is an unfair assumption to blame the increase of type II diabetes on the increased consumption of high GI foods. I am not saying that this is not a factor, but I think the increasing percentage of overweight people coupled with the decrease in exercise plays a larger role than the GI of foods.

    We weren't meant to eat cooked, processed grains every day. Complex carbohydrates are a myth if they are cooked or ground.
    I am not disagreeing with you there, but again putting sodas and Snickers bars in the same category as baked potatoes and ww bread is not an accurate comparison IMO.

    Additionally, GI also influences your metabolism and the rate at which extra calories get stored as fat.
    Not as much as you might think. This is going back to the whole food combining thing which has been shown to not have as much effect as people like Berardi like to think it does.

    You also mentioned that whole wheat bread is more nutritious. I think whole wheat bread is a pretty poor source of nutrients and fiber and you'd be better off eating a snickers bar and a multivitamin (the GI of the candy bar would probably be lower!). That is, of course, if you can find one without trans fat.
    I said that whole wheat bread was more nutritious than white bread, and I never stated that it was the best source of any type of nutrients.

    I will say again that the GI is not as important as you make it out to be. It would be more important if you were eating carbs by themselves, but I think it is a fair assumption to assume that most people are eating mixed meals. The GI is a measure of one specific food and when combined with other macronutrients (fat/protein) the GI of that particular food will be lowered.

  25. #24
    Wannabebig Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    9
    Originally posted by bradley
    [B]

    Taken from the following site:
    http://vanderbiltowc.wellsource.com/...ent.asp?ID=620

    White bread raises blood sugar levels about 70 percent as much as table sugar, but when it's used as the base, it's given a score of 100.
    This is false. Though glucose was originally the base of the index (at 100), not table sugar, as your source indicates, it's true that it doesn't really matter. All of the scores are relative. However, 50g of sucrose, on the glucose-based scale, scores at 60. 50g of whitebread, however, averages around 70. Surprising?

    I agree that some carbs do cause more of an insulin response when eaten, hence the reason that they are high GI. Like I said, I am not disputing the values that certain foods have on the GI. I will argue that even though foods like baked potatoes are high on the GI they offer more nutrients and are therefor more beneficial than drinking a soda. I would like to point out that baked potatoes are not processed in any way unless you peal them and use them for mashed potatoes or something similar.

    Just cooking the baked potato turns it into an easily-digestable starchy paste. It's just mushy sugar as far as your body is concerned.
    Various baked potatoes average about 85 on the glycemic index, depeneding on the variety. Remember, sucrose was at 60! And remember, this is a "complex" carbohydrate.

    I am sure this study was looking at the typical American diet, and I also think it is an unfair assumption to blame the increase of type II diabetes on the increased consumption of high GI foods. I am not saying that this is not a factor, but I think the increasing percentage of overweight people coupled with the decrease in exercise plays a larger role than the GI of foods.
    I think it's pretty obvious that most nutritionists and scientisits have their heads buried in the sand as to the actual causes of type-II diabetes. Having a constantly-high blood sugar level leads to insulin-resistance and this in turn leads to obesity and diabetes. It's not the obesity that's causing diabetes. It's just another symptom of insulin resistance. When you are insulin-resistant, it is more difficult to lose weight. And you will, of course, exercise less.

    It is known for a fact that if your insulin is too high, your body will compensate and become less sensitive to it. This is the cause of type-II diabetes. Or, maybe it's the fact that most people aren't aware that "complex carbs" are a complete myth.

    I'm not even going to go into the complete farce that surrounds heart disease. I will say that insulin resistance is entirely to blame, and dietary fat and cholesterol are completely innocent. I am furious at the current conclusions made by the majority of nutritionists. People are dieing by the millions of easily preventable diseases. All it takes is one look at the glycemic index to see that noone is actually examining data.

    I urge you to read the website and book I linked to:
    http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm
    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

    Also read this to learn more about insulin resistance:
    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

    Another fantastic website authored by a PhD nutritionist (Dr. Cordain) is at:
    [url]http://www.thepaleodiet.com/[url]
    He has generously posted most of his research papers within the site:
    http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles.htm
    [url]
    Last edited by Senor Quack; 06-22-2003 at 01:59 PM.

  26. #25
    Define Your Soul SoulOfKoRea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Suwanee, GA
    Posts
    1,546
    Originally posted by JuniorMint6669
    If you are worried about jelly... smuckers makes a sugar free strawberry jelly that i think tastes great. I use it for PB&J and mix it with my cottage cheese. 1 tbs has 20 calories in it, not too bad.
    I'd stick to the real fruit, as in 100% simply fruit or spreadable fruit, most "jellies" contain High Fructose Corn Syrup...
    My profile picture is about 5 years old, I'll get around to taking some progress pics eventually.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •