Baked Potato "Fries"

[soxmuscle]

Buddy it doesnt make you more fat if u eat most of ur cals before bed..
When cutting i eat my biggest meal right before i go sleep cause mid night is when i get hungriest..and guess what?.. I get cut.

I always hear about how eating before bed is the worst thing you can do, but nobody says why.

 

[Biggly]

No he's right, the GI index is shite but it's like lactic acid burn, not technically correct but it's what everyone refers to it as. Spuds are a huge great lump of sugar. Period.

As for staying up another 10 hours, well you didn't exactly mention that bit!

No, you answered my question beautifully.. Not Jodi beautifully, but you atleast used big words and made it appear like you know your ass from your elbow. Thanks.

No problem


B.

 

[Biggly]

I always hear about how eating before bed is the worst thing you can do, but nobody says why.

It's the best thing to do for storing bodyfat, though any large meal before vegging out will do, actually sleeping is not required. Basically your metabolic rate drops like a stone, there's a brief period of anabolism but most of the night is slightly catabolic so yes, you need food, you just don't need 2 baked potatos in oil.

You can also get indigestion, disturbed sleep patterns, and other nasties if the meal is too large.

Tapering calories, especially carbs, down in the evenings is just too well established and proven to ignore. Same as eating lots of small meals during the day, is a calorie just a calorie? No, timing does matter.

I'm not moaning or having a dig, just trying to help. You asked, is it a good thing? In my opinion, no, it's gonna lead to fat gain - but obviously if you're on an overall calorie deficit, training like a hamster and staying up another 10 hours after, no, you'll get skinny


B.

 

[sensamilia]

I always hear about how eating before bed is the worst thing you can do, but nobody says why.

Cuase they say ur metabolism is slow at night and u dont need energy from the carbs and fat since ur going to bed and so that will only lead to fat gain, which is bs, cause its 24 hour metabolism which counts.
So eat your steak and potatos before bed or watever and be happy.

 

[tucker01]

I don't look at GI as intensely as I do other things, but it's definitely in the back of my mind when I make decisions of what to eat.

You simply don't care?

Nope. I couldn't give a crap to be honest.

What do you think happens to that GI rating when you combine it with some Protein and Fat?

It means a big stink of nothing.

All I concern myself with is healthy food choices.

 

[KelJu]

Fuck GI..... GI is fucking retarded. And means absolutely shit when thrown into a meal.

Post some data. I have read convincing research to suggest GI is relevant, especially to someone that is sensitive to carbs, which I am. The only way for me to successfully cut is with foods that have a very low GI value and far below maintenance calorie consumption.

 

[Biggly]

Cuase they say ur metabolism is slow at night and u dont need energy from the carbs and fat since ur going to bed and so that will only lead to fat gain, which is bs, cause its 24 hour metabolism which counts

So if he ate all 2600 or whatever calories he's on in one sitting that would be peachy? I kept my answer simple but you also have to allow for growth hormone, which peaks twice during the night but not with high blood sugar.

Sleep is something we still don't fully understand but we do know it's vital and a very basic part of our metabolism. The body most certainly does know the difference between awake and asleep and as such the rules somewhat fly out the window. For normal sedentary people there's probably little difference but when aiming for muscle growth and fat loss we're doing the very opposite of what our bodies like doing, which is losing expensive muscle and storing fat.

What do you like doing after a heavy meal? Going to sleep, right? Right there that gives you a clue, your body isn't thinking "Kewl! Now I can dump the fat and get ripped!" it's thinking something entirely different.

Exactly what no-one really knows but ripped isn't it.


B.

 

[tucker01]

Post some data. I have read convincing research to suggest GI is relevant, especially to someone that is sensitive to carbs, which I am. The only way for me to successfully cut is with foods that have a very low GI value and far below maintenance calorie consumption.

I don't have any data, just reading of my own. Obviously you are going to have to cater your diet to how you react to certain foods. But to paint a broad spectrum that GI is the culprit seems silly.

Glycemic Index, Glycemic Load, Satiety, and the Fullness Factor – NutritionData.com

Limitations of the Glycemic Index and the Glycemic Load

Some proponents of the Glycemic Index (including many diet books authors) would like you to believe that GI and GL are all that matters when selecting which foods to eat. In reality, diet is a more complex issue than that. ND agrees that the Glycemic Index is a marvelous tool for ranking carbohydrates (and much better than the old "simple" and "complex carbohydrate" designations). However, there are also many limitations to GI and GL, which are explained in this section. Consider this the warning that those diet book authors don't want you to hear...

1. Scarcity of GI data
   Although methods for determining Glycemic Index have been in existence for more than 20 years, GI values have so far only been determined for about 5% of the foods in ND's database. Seemingly similar foods can have very different GI values, so it's not always possible to estimate GI from either food type or composition. This means that each food has to be physically tested. GI testing requires human subjects, and is both relatively expensive and time-consuming. The fact that only a very limited number of researchers currently do GI testing compounds this problem. Food manufacturers continue to introduce thousands of new foods each year. Since GI testing is neither required nor common (at least in the U.S.), this problem is likely to get worse rather than better.(ND has derived a formula that can estimate the Glycemic Load for untested foods, based on comparative analysis with foods of similar composition. To learn more about this method, please see ND's Estimated Glycemic Load page.)
   
   
2. Wide variation in GI measurements
   The above Glycemic Index table shows a single value of GI for each food. In reality, though, the measurements are not so precise. Reported values are generally averages of several tests. There's nothing wrong with that methodology, but individual measurements can vary a significant amount. For example, baked Russet potatoes have been tested with a GI as low as 56 and as high as 111! The GI for the same fruit has even been shown to increase as the fruit ripens. This amount of variation adds a great deal of uncertainty to GI calculations.
3. GI values affected by preparation method
   The Glycemic Index gets even trickier when you take into account the changes in value that occur in response to differences in food preparation. Generally, any significant food processing, such as grinding or cooking, will elevate GI values for certain foods, because it makes those food quicker and easier to digest. This type of change is even seen with subtle alterations of the preparation, such as boiling pasta for 15 minutes instead of 10.
4. GI values affected by combination with other foods
   While tests for Glycemic Index are usually done on individual foods, we often consume those foods in combination with other foods. The addition of other foods that contain fiber, protein, or fat will generally reduce the Glycemic Index of the meal. The GI of this "mixed meal" can be estimated by taking a weighted average of the GI's of the individual foods in the meal. However, this averaging method may become less accurate as the total percentage of carbohydrate decreases. Therefore, foods like pizza often create a higher glycemic response than the simple weighted average of the ingredient GI's would predict.
5. Individual differences in glycemic response
   The rate at which different people digest carbohydrates also varies, so there are some individual differences in glycemic response from person to person. In addition it has been shown that one person's glycemic response may vary from one time of day to another. And finally, different people have different insulin responses (i.e. produce different levels of insulin), even with an identical glycemic response. This fact alone means that a diabetic can not rely completely on the Glycemic Index without monitoring his own blood sugar response. (This, of course, is a limitation of any food index, and not a specific limitation of GI.)
6. Reliance on GI and GL can lead to overconsumption
   It's important to remember that the Glycemic Index is only a rating of a food's carbohydrate content. If you use GI and GL values as the sole factor for determining your diet, you can easily end up overconsuming fat and total Calories. See example below...

 

[Biggly]

Kelju, a couple of points - first you're right, carbs are a major source of fat gain, but are you sure you're really on low GI carbs? It's a serious question, the GI index doesn't make much sense. There's a whole bunch of things wrong with it, as the measuring is totally unrealistic.

For a start it presumes 50 grams per serving but not every food comes like that in real life, secondly it presumes an empty stomach, which is unrealistic, thirdly it uses food eaten alone without anything else, totally unrealistic and we already know different combinations affect insulin spikes. Now add to all that the fact that some foods are "low" simply because blood sugar levels are low after eating them - which ignore the fact that some foods cause a very rapid spike of insulin, hence the low blood sugar! Others produce insulin but at a much slower pace, so blood sugar is high (I think they test after 20 or 30 minutes) so they get called "High GI" which is BS.

Basically it's a scale designed specifically for carb-sensitive people like you, notably diabetics - it's a scale of response, not the food per se and it's just too screwy to take it seriously. They've already moved to "insulin loading" to try and get around the GI problems, plus "Insulin Index" to get around the insulin loading problems!

Basically the concept is good, the actual implementation is crap and as such the actual GI index is not much use - more useful is to just look at the TYPE of carb: processed (crap) simple (same thing usually, crap) fibrous (better) complex as in natural (good) etc. Even then a "fast" carb is good -when you WANT an insulin spike.

Also, rather than proving the above, how's about you prove the GI index is useful? I've seen as many studies show no difference or worse than those that say it helps. I'd say the biggest advantage of low GI food is they tend to be better at controlling hunger pangs - but even that's uncertain as bread and potatos score highly at that...

Basically we don't fucking know but we do know GI index crap "aint all that".


B.

 

[Biggly]

and what IanDaniel said too


B.

 

[DaMayor]

Yeah, even though IanD came off as a GI~hater, he made a valid point. The Glycemic Index is just another tool, as is nutritional labeling, etc. None of these are the Bible of diet, and no information offered anywhere is completely accurate or otherwise absolute. it should all be based on common sense in food selection and your individual needs and responses to food(s).

I would still ditch the white potatoes, though.

 

[P-funk]

calories are a major source of fat gain not carbs.

 

[DOMS]

calories are a major source of fat gain not carbs.

I'm under the impression that the only real difference in macros, at least in terms of fat storage, is that ingested fats convert faster (more efficiently?) to body fat than carbs or protein. Is that correct, or just myth?

 

[danzik17]

calories are a major source of fat gain not carbs.

True enough but it's way harder to eat too much protein or fat than it is to eat too much carbs.

 

[Biggly]

calories are a major source of fat gain not carbs.

OK I'll re-phrase it - carbs are a major source of calories, which just happen to trigger high insulin production, which just happens to cause fat storage, which just happens to affect around 65% of the American population which just happens to believe the dumfuk idea that fat is fattening but carbs are just peachy. How's that?

Protein cycling will lose a bit of fat but slow muscle growth, even regress it if done too often. Fat cycling is counterproductive as the body will cling to fat and quit making as much testosterone - but carb cycling is a well-proven fat-buster.

A calorie is not just a calorie - and this is from a guy who sells calorie-counting software. The macro-ratio plays a pretty major part, as does timing. Sure, too high in calories and you'll get fat, too low and you'll get skinny. If we were a bunch of schoolgirls worrying about flabby thighs then sure, just cut calories and avoid fat, as that's an easy way of cutting calories. However if you want to build muscle eat some damn fat, especially EFAs and if you want a 6 pack cut back on the carbs. Want more muscle? More calories, especially protein and carbs, you don't need extra fat as you'll get that with the protein anyway.

It aint just calories, not least because it aint just "bodybuilding", are you cutting, bulking or what?




B.

 

[P-funk]

If you maintain your body weight on 3000 calories. You then lower your caloric intake to 2600 calories. That equals a 400 calorie deficit. Whether you eat more carbs or not, the fact is you have a 400 calorie deficit. Add in exercise and you will loose weight.

 

[juggernaut]

Looks good to me.

You can try parboiling the fries first, so the potato is soft, then dry and throw in the oven to crisp up.

tried this last night-excellent option.

 

[Biggly]

If you maintain your body weight on 3000 calories. You then lower your caloric intake to 2600 calories. That equals a 400 calorie deficit. Whether you eat more carbs or not, the fact is you have a 400 calorie deficit. Add in exercise and you will loose weight.

Sure. I just said that but let's take your example, 3000 calories minus 400. If I eat 2600 calories of fat and carbs will I lose fat or gain it, stay the same?

Lose it, right? No as I'll be losing muscle and long term would gain fat.

Let's take 2 different "3000 calories".

Diet 1: 50% protein, 40 carbs, 10% fat - Mr Bodybuilder

Diet 2: 20% protein, 50% carbs, 30% fat. Mr Average

Which is most fattening?

I'll give you a clue, look up the word thermogenesis. In terms of calories USED as nutrition we get this:

Diet 1: Protein at 50% of 3000 - 1500. Now take away the 25% or so used just to digest it and we get 1125. The carbs are 40%, so 1200, carbs use up to 10% of the calorific value in digestion, so that's 1080. Fat is only about 4%, so 300 cals minus 4%, 288.

1125+
1080+
288
......
2493


Diet 2, Mr Average, still 3000 calories.

Protein at 20%, 600, minus thermo, 450
Carbs at 50%, 1500 - 10%, 1350
Fat at 30%, 900, minus 4% thermo, 864

450+
1350+
864
......
2664


Yeah I'm splitting hairs, that's only a difference of 171 calories.

Tell me, if you have a calorie deficit of 170 every day for a month, what happens?

170 x 28 = 4760 calories, or in 6 pack terms, 1.36lb of flab.

But a calorie is a calorie and who cares about nearly one and half pound of flab every month?

Don't get me wrong, if you noticed you were gaining flab you'd just do 25 instead of 20 mins cardio or something, my point is simply that nutrition is worth looking at a bit closer than just saying a calorie is a calorie.

Not all calories are equal all the time. As for "add exercise", that would reduce the available calories anyway, even if you stayed at 3,000

Anyway, whatever, 2 bakes spuds in oil late at night is not so good, that's all I wanted to say really.




B.

 

[DaMayor]

I just burned 250 calories reading this thread.