Quizno's Subs

[Brad Johnson]

Riley, buddy, you need to do a little brushing up on both food chemistry and biology.

'Refined' sugars are those that have been stripped of natural vitamins and minerals (calcium, magnesium, phosphorus,  and some other trace minerals and enzymes).  The human body needs these minerals in order to  digest sugar. When you eat refined sugars, the body pulls these nutrients from itself (tissue and bone).

The body doesn't need "trace minerals and enzymes" in sugar to digest it.  The body converts food sugars and other carbohydrates directly to glucose (blood sugar) without the aid of outside ingredients.  Any glucose that isn't burned immediately by cellular activity is stored (i.e. converted to fat) for later use. It has exactly ZERO to do with the "processed" nature of the food and everything to do with the amount of carbohydrates, complex or otherwise, that you ingest.

Processed foods (mostly carbohydrates) have been chemically altered to increase their shelf life.  This changes a complex carb into a simple carb; it removes fiber, healthy oils, vitamins and minerals.

A) They have not been "chemically altered".  The ingredients remain the same as if you'd made it in your own kitchen.  The only change is the addition of a minute amount of preservative which doesn't "chemically alter" anything about the basic food, it retards the growth of bacteria and mold.  The "chemically altered" mantra is the hallmark of Scare-Ya nutrition zealots.  Their use of the term indicates an appalling lack of actual knowledge in their supposed field of "expertise."

B) The preserving agents and "processing" have nothing to do with changing carbohydrate states.  Cooking does that.  Did you know that anything that's not a protein, fat, or and undigestable fiber is technically a carbohydrate?  It gets called by all sorts of food terms - sugar, starch, bread, etc. - but it's still a carbohydrate in some form.  The simplest carbohydrates (monosaccharides) are sugars like  sucrose and fructose.  The ladder climbs steadily from there up to the most complex carbohydrates (starches, etc.).  You take a simple carbohydrate, sugar, add flour, and place it under intense heat to create a foodstuff loaded with complex carbohydrates, bread.

C)  Carbohydrates and "fiber, healthy oils, vitamins and minerals" are mutually exclusive food ingredients.  There is no oil in sugar, at least not in it's natual form.  Also, any "vitamins and minerals" present in sugar are there as impurities.  Pure sugar is straight sucrose.  It is a white crystalline material that does not contain any type of oil or trace minerals.  That really yummy taste from supposedly "pure and natural" brown sugar is actually a complex mixture of impurities, including really nummy things like sulpher and several carcinogens.

Here's a statement of fact.  The intrustion of processed foods is so complete that even in our own home kitchens we cannot avoid simple carbohydrates being converted to polyshaccharides.  Oh no!  Oh my!  It's been "processed" and it did something vewy scawy sounding!!!  Oh, did I mention that's a fancy-pants, intentionally misleading way of saying that simple carbs are converted to complex ones by cooking?  That's right, COOKING.  The very thing you do in your kitchen every day is an "industrial process".  Every time you bake a loaf of bread you are converting simple carbohydrates in to disaccharides and polysaccharides.  Every time you take a "free range" egg and heat it you are radically altering the protien structure.  Every time you salt something you are adding a "chemical preservative."  The list is virtually endless.

Here's another statement of fact - Processed carbohydrates are aldehydes or ketones with many hydroxyl groups added.  A true statement?  Abosolutely.  Misleading?  You bet.  ALL carbohydrates are aldehydes or ketones with many hydroxyl groups added.  That is the chemical definition of a carbohydrate.  The "processed" part is added to make it sound like Big Food has done something horribly unnatural to your meal.  It's an intionally misleading way of being technically correct while preying on an unknowing consumer's worst nightmares.

The terms "processed" and "industrial process" used in conjunction with food is, most often, a blatant scare tactic.  It is a nothing term, scary sounding and ominous.  It is used to make people think something artifical (and thus dangerous) has been done to their food.  It is used in ignorance or outright intentional deceit.

Here... the Wiki entry on Carbohydrates.  Not complete, but a decent primer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrates

Brad

[wooderson]

I've run through the organic 'Corn Flake' options at Kroger's - bran flakes w/ cane juice (yech, it really was like eating cardboard. crunchy cardboard), corn flakes w/ cane juice (okay, but not something I want to eat dry - they actually tasted sweeter than Kellogg's). I need to hit up Whole Foods or Central Market or one of those places. Until then I just switched to plain 'Mini Wheats.' Soggy cardboard, but soggy cardboard that keeps me full with one small bowl in the morning.

I had a Galligaskin's sandwich today - it was ok. The bread was so-so compared to the 'boutique sandwich' chains. Good meat, though. Didn't think to ask if they would toast my sandwich.

[Paddy]

Any glucose that isn't burned immediately by cellular activity is stored (i.e. converted to fat) for later use. It has exactly ZERO to do with the "processed" nature of the food and everything to do with the amount of carbohydrates, complex or otherwise, that you ingest.

Wrong. All carbohydrates are not equal.  Those with a higher glycemic index (simple carbs from processed, refined foods) will release sugars faster than the body can metabolize.  Insulin then converts these sugars to fat.  Lower glycemic index foods (complex carbs from fruits and vegetables, whole grains, even pasta) release sugars more slowly; they don't get stored as fat.

Oh, did I mention that's a fancy-pants, intentionally misleading way of saying that simple carbs are converted to complex ones by cooking?  That's right, COOKING.  The very thing you do in your kitchen every day is an "industrial process".  Every time you bake a loaf of bread you are converting simple carbohydrates in to disaccharides and polysaccharides. 

No. A loaf of bread made with refined white flour is a much simpler carb than a loaf of bread made with whole grains.  The simpler carbs convert to sugar faster and the excess sugar is stored as fat.

The terms "processed" and "industrial process" used in conjunction with food is, most often, a blatant scare tactic.

No, Brad, foods actually are processed. Nutrients are stripped away and artificial ingredients are added. 

  It is a nothing term, scary sounding and ominous.

Apparently to you it is.

It is used to make people think something artifical (and thus dangerous) has been done to their food.  It is used in ignorance or outright intentional deceit.

It's a conspiracy.  OK.

All your other remarks about

'The "chemically altered" mantra is the hallmark of Scare-Ya nutrition zealots.

and

Oh no!  Oh my!  It's been "processed" and it did something vewy scawy sounding!!! 

are intended to ridicule, but they really just add to the 'My God, they're trying to take away our Cheetos'
hysteria.

The rest of your narrative is made up of sentences cribbed from various sites merely to look impressive, and doesn't support your conclusions.   

[Perd Hapley]

I've had it with all of you, and am going out for some Twinkies and chocolate whole milk.  Super-sized!

[Brad Johnson]

Wrong. All carbohydrates are not equal.  Those with a higher glycemic index

A nutri-mercial catch phrase only ten words into the response.  You pretty much lost me right there.

Those with a higher glycemic index (simple carbs from processed, refined foods) will release sugars faster than the body can metabolize.  Insulin then converts these sugars to fat.  Lower glycemic index foods (complex carbs from fruits and vegetables, whole grains, even pasta) release sugars more slowly; they don't get stored as fat.

First, carbohydrates don't "release" sugars, they are converted to sugar.  Second, I never contended anything except that an excess glucose in the bloodstream is converted to, and stored as, fat.  The source and speed of conversion is only relevent in the fact that simple carbs spike your blood sugar levels hard while more complex carbs have a more sustained moderate effect on levels.  Your insulin production may vary widely during the day to compensate for different conversion rates, but in the end if you have any excess of glucose from any source it gets coverted to fat.

No. A loaf of bread made with refined white flour is a much simpler carb than a loaf of bread made with whole grains.  The simpler carbs convert to sugar faster and the excess sugar is stored as fat.

Agronomy lesson...  The part of the seed containing all the carbohydrates is a starch called the endosperm.  Both wheat and white flour contain the endosperm.  White flour has had the bran and germ coats removed.  The lightening process may affect the color and certain nutrients, but it doesn't change the levels or kinds of starches in the flour.  In other words, the refining process for white flour doesn't change the carbohydrate content one iota. 

No, Brad, foods actually are processed. Nutrients are stripped away and artificial ingredients are added.

Okay, how?  And I want it in mechanical and chemical language, not infomercial-ese.  There is this hysteria about "processing" but no one has yet supplied any kind of response as to what "processing" actually means.

The rest of your narrative is made up of sentences cribbed from various sites merely to look impressive,

Accusations demand proof.  Links?

Riley, you need to know that I have done an extensive self-study into nutritional needs as they relate to blood sugar (which is directly related to carbs, carb types, and how they are processed by the body).  Along with my own nutritional needs my former father-in-law was a long-time insulin dependent diabetic.  I made it a point to make sure I had every ounce of information in relation to his condition.  I extended that research when my own health began to decline from weight-related issues. 

Brad

[Paddy]

The glycemic index is a measurement of how rapidly food converts to sugar.  The higher the faster, triggering the insulin flood that converts excess sugar to stored fat.  Generally, the more highly processed a food is, the higher the glycemic index.

Here are a couple of non 'nutri-mercial' links on the glycemic index:

The Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University (scroll down to 'Obesity' which says, in part

This may explain why 15 out of 16 published studies found that the consumption of low-glycemic index foods delayed the return of hunger, decreased subsequent food intake, and increased satiety (feeling full) when compared to high-glycemic index foods (14). The results of several small short-term trials (1-4 months) suggest that low-glycemic load diets result in significantly more weight or fat loss than high-glycemic load diets (15-17).

Harvard School of Public Health

One of the most important factors that determine a food's glycemic index is how highly processed its carbohydrates are. Processing carbohydrates removes the fiber-rich outer bran and the vitamin- and mineral-rich inner germ, leaving mostly the starchy endosperm.

Published medical study on the glycemic index of foods and body weight regulation
Dietary glycemic index and the regulation of body weight.

and another:

Association Between Dietary Carbohydrates and Body Weight.

There is increasing evidence of a relationship between a food's glycemic index and its influence on weight.  In any event, it can't be ignored. That's what I mean by 'all carbs are not equal'.

[Paddy]

There is also a food additive, MSG, that has been shown to damage the hypothalmus, which regulates hunger.

And, there is the addictive nature of sugar and cravings for carbs.

Two more reasons why processed foods cause obesity.

[Perd Hapley]

OK, that signature is ban-worthy.  It's not as ugly as some people's self-portrait avatars, but still...

[K Frame]

OK, that signature is ban-worthy.  It's not as ugly as some people's self-portrait avatars, but still...

Actually, I'm inclined to agree...

[Brad Johnson]

There is increasing evidence of a relationship between a food's glycemic index and its influence on weight.

I almost laughed out loud when I read that.  "Glycemic index" is a late-comer $64,000 term for what sensible eaters have known for decades.  It's almost as much of a revelation as the CSPI announcement a few years back that "Mexican food is high in fat."

I guess I missed something after I logged off last night.  What's with the sig line Mike and fistful are talking about?

Brad

[Gewehr98]

I was wondering when Riley would get around to throwing MSG into the thread.   

[Paddy]

So Brad, are you saying that gram for gram carbohydrates in Nacho Cheese Doritos provide the same nutrition as brown rice?  And it would make no difference to a diabetic, or someone trying to control weight?  One is just as good as the other?

This was the sig:



"I should have listened to Riley and laid off the junkfood.  Now they call me Halfton."

[Brad Johnson]

Nope.

If you recall I already clearly stated that I was not debating the way different carbs are converted to glucose. 

I consider the term "carbs" to be about as descriptive as the term "processing."  It is a broad generalization encompassing an almost unlimited combination of more specific items and issues.  The type and quantity of "carbs" in a specific food is unique to that food.  The way the body processes it is unique to a particular type of carbohydrate.

Ugh on the sig.  I remember that guy from Discovery Channel.  If I recall, they got him down to "only" 600 or so pounds.  I remember him having a hissy fit about his weight being "genetic", then they showed what he ate (or that he berated his wife into cooking) on a daily basis.  Genetic, my lilly white rear end!  The guy was overweight because he kept shoveling food down his piehole.

Brad

[Paddy]

I consider the term "carbs" to be about as descriptive as the term "processing."  It is a broad generalization encompassing an almost unlimited combination of more specific items and issues.  The type and quantity of "carbs" in a specific food is unique to that food.  The way the body processes it is unique to a particular type of carbohydrate.

Agreed. Both are so general as to mean different things to different people. 

A question for you.  Given that obesity is so prevalent in industrialized countries, what would postulate is the cause?  I agree that it's because they eat too much, but that's not an answer.  Eating too much is a symptom of a deeper underlying problem(s).  Why do obese people eat too much?

[Brad Johnson]

I agree that it's because they eat too much, but that's not an answer.  Eating too much is a symptom of a deeper underlying problem(s).  Why do obese people eat too much?

Interesting conundrum.

Personally I think that the reason for a person's nutrional (mis)behavior are as unique as the individual in question.

As a society we have more free time than ever.  We spend that time doing things we enjoy, or at least can reasonably afford to enjoy.  We're hard-wired to enjoy food as a matter of survival.  More than that, we are hard-wired to enjoy the foods that ensure the greates short-term energy and long-term survivability, namely sugars, proteins, and fats.  Unfortunately, those foods also tend to be the most calorie-concentrated.  As a result we tend to ingest far more than is necessary.

As a society we are also have become accustomed to convenience.  The desire for convenience usually results in someone developing a service to mee the perceived need.  In the case of the food provider industry, those providers will try and serve the most desired items.  Now we're back to our hard-wired desire for foods that are high in sugars, fats, and proteins.  Now throw in the issue of competition and you get the increased portion sizes to make the consumer feel they are getting more for their money.  Now throw in our societal conditioning condition to either "clean up your plate" or "eat it all to get my money's worth" and you have a recipe for extreme nutritional overindulgence.

We are also a society that has taken the "work smarter, not harder" concept to heart.  Unfortunately we've come up with an endless variety of ways to accomplish things with the least amount of physical effort, including such mundane things as everyday domestic and travel needs.  The fact that there is a multi-billion dollar entire industry built around people paying to exercise is proof of that.

So, back to the question of why.  My take on it?  In general we have become a society of "enjoyers".  We enjoy punching buttons instead of having to physically work.  We enjoy being able to call up someone and have a couple of supreme pizzas and a 3 liter soda delivered to our door instead of going to the kitchen and making something from scratch.  We enjoy being able to drive that 10 blocks to work instead of walking or biking there.  We enjoy that evening of sitting in front of the tube watching History Channel, munching on pizza and sipping a beer or soda, instead of continuing to work into the evening just to meet basic living needs.  Unfortunately we enjoy it so much that the net effect is we desire more than we require.  Since we can afford it, both in time and money, we do it because it feels good.  And we've done it for enough generations that it has become the norm rather than the exception.  The result?  An entire population of slightly-to-significantly overweight people.

In terms of the morbidly obese I think even they are an execption to the general problem of societal obesity.  They are the few where the wires haven't just crossed, they've been plugged into the wrong jacks.  Their sense of need has completely overpowered all levels of caution or common sense.  Most people will do what's needed when faced with a situation of "change habits or die".  I think those who are morbidly obese lack the ability to force themselves to change.  The issue could be physiological, psychological, societal, or a combination of all three, but these folks lack whatever it takes to tell themselves "No." 

It really makes me wonder when these people will find ways to get other people to meet their perceived "needs" whey they, themselves, become physically unable to do so.  The ultimate astonishment is that there are people out there who will go along with it.  They willingly assist someone so grossly obese they can't care for their own daily hygiene needs to continue their cycle of self-destruction.  Sometimes they even accelerate it.  Such is the case of the guy above, who's wife would cook him whatever he wanted whenever he wanted it.  As a result he ended up over a thousand pounds!  He was so physically limited he couldn't roll over or sit up to use any kind of toilet apparates.  He had to urinate and defecate on himself then rely on someone else to clean it up.  Yet she still bought or made him everything he wanted, putting it right in front of him and watching him slop it down.

Brad

[charby]

[Paddy]

Depression may also be a driving force behind some overeating and obesity; an effort to get the endorphin rush after gorging.

Anyway, so it's the easy availability of large portions of cheap, high fat, high sugar foods that is the reason for the 'outbreak' of obesity?  This, combined with a lazy exercise deficient lifestyle due to modern conveniences?

To test that hypothesis, I suggest a comparison of those conditions with similar conditions of the past, before any significant 'processing' was done to foods.  The purpose is to exclude modern 'processing' as the culprit.

There are people in the past who had no restrictions on food intake.  They had serfs to bring it and servants to cook and serve it.  Price was no object. They could eat as much as they wanted whenever they wanted.

Pharoahs and their families and households, the Roman elite,  Royal families in Europe and elsewhere, all of these people would qualify as having no limits on food intake.  Then came the Dark Ages (not much recorded there) and into the Renaissance.  More royalty with virtually no restrictions. 

Were they all obese?  I don't know, but I'll try to research it.

[Brad Johnson]

There are people in the past who had no restrictions on food intake.  They had serfs to bring it and servants to cook and serve it.  Price was no object. They could eat as much as they wanted whenever they wanted.

...

Were they all obese?  I don't know, but I'll try to research it.

I think you'll find that the ruling classes, the ones who sat on their behinds all day consuming the richer foods available to them in almost endless quantities, tended toward avoirdupois.  The ones who did the serving did not.

Brad

[mtnbkr]

I think you'll find that the ruling classes, the ones who sat on their behinds all day consuming the richer foods available to them in almost endless quantities, tended toward avoirdupois.  The ones who did the serving did not.
Brad

Merely look at the artwork of the time.  People with money were shown to be heavy.  The standard of beauty of the time was larger than today.  Gout was known as a rich man's disease because only the rich could afford to eat that way.

Chris

[Joe Demko]

The ruling classes in long ago days did eat more and much richer food than the rabble.  However, they were still physically active because the amusements they favored were quite physical e.g. hunting from horseback, dancing, tennis (which is a much older game than you think), roque, and so on.  Also, the men frequently practiced with swords and other weapons.  Henry VIII was actually a notably athletic, handsome fellow through most of his life.  Our image of him today as "fat bastard" comes mainly from Charles Laughton's movie portrayal.  Going back a few thousand years earlier, since Pharaohs were mentioned, Egyptian tomb art shows the nobility out riding/racing in their chariots, hunting game with bows, spears, and throwing sticks, and other vigorous activity.
Maybe more what you are looking for in terms of corpulent rich people can be found in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  A certain amount of fleshiness was considered attractive at the time because it showed that you were wealthy enough to eat well and that you didn't do hard physical work like a common laborer.

[Paddy]

I've only found one fat Pharaoh so far, a woman with pendolous breasts

Sounds like a codeword. 'The mummy has pendulous breasts'

'John has a long mustache'

 

[280plus]

Holy crap, 170 replies to a thread on Quizno's sandwiches? Don't think I'm reading it all... 

FWIW, too damn expensive if you ask me. 

[Phyphor]

YEa, and they suck too.  Subway may not be great but they are more tolerant of customizing your munchies

[280plus]

Well, I did notice subway got on the "Mmmm toasty" wagon pretty darn quick...

 

[Firethorn]

let's beat it!!!!

Hey, at least it'd be good exercise!

I'll agree with the weight problem being a symptom of our very industry:
1. Work no longer requires physical labor for the majority of jobs
2. Transportation no longer requires even the effort of staying on a horse
3. Even play is before a screen today, instead of running around yards.

So our average physical activity level is lower than it's ever been.

4. Food, relative to income, is very low in cost compared to the past*
5. Food is available with ever increasing amounts of processing
6. Fat was sold as leading to more fat - actual studies have shown that simple sugars lead more to fat than eating fat.  The simpler the more pronounced the effect.  Due to subsidies companies use high fructose corn syrup, which is even simpler than sugar.
7. Very frequently sugars and fats are added to food to make it taste better and cover up the fact that it's not fresh

So we're eating more calories of simpler sugars.  Simpler sugars  cause a spike in glucose levels in the blood, triggering fat storage mechanisms - the more complex the sugar, all the way up into barely-digestible just short of indigestible fiber, the longer it takes to break down, the less pronounced the spike, the stabler your metabolism tends to be, the fewer hunger pangs you experience, and without those spikes or excessive eating due to hunger pangs, you're not going to put on the weight like you would if you're eating lots of simple sugars.

Combine this with a relative tolerance and ability to accommodate the fatties and we have issues.  After a certain point these people can't move for themselves - historically this has usually resulted in the problem correcting itself because as the person became fatter, they could no longer get food(that was fairly expensive, or at least labor intensive to obtain), resulting in at least a stabilization.

I've seen people state that after a certain point these people need enablers to keep gaining weight - once they can no longer move to get food themselves they have to have somebody who brings it too them.  Otherwise they eventually get so fat they can't get food, whether that be entering the kitchen or going to a restaurant or grocery store.  While there would indeed be problems with nutrition - getting the proper vitamins and such, they are at least not going to gain any more weight.  Indeed, as they lose weight they should eventually regain mobility.  Then they can get food again.

*Yes, I know a number of staples have increased relatively recently, but work with me.  How many poor actually have to worry about putting food on the table other than problems with them not being able to cook for themselves?