Why food labels are wrong about calories

[Pseudonym]

The problem with food labels is that they only show numbers. They don't represent how processed the food is, or how digestible.

 

It's not exactly news that non-processed food is better for you than the processed stuff. But I hadn't realised there could be such a difference in absorption...

 

 

Take carbohydrates, which provide more than half of the world’s calories. Their energy is often packaged in starch grains, dense packets of glucose that are digested mainly in your small intestine. If you eat a starchy food raw, up to half the starch grains pass through the small intestine entirely undigested. Your body gets two-thirds or less of the total calories available in the food. The rest might be used by bacteria in your colon, or might even be passed out whole.

 

Even among cooked foods, digestibility varies. Starch becomes more resistant to digestion when it is allowed to cool and sit after being cooked, because it crystallizes into structures that digestive enzymes cannot easily break down. So stale foods like day-old cooked spaghetti, or cold toast, will give you fewer calories than the same foods eaten piping hot, even though technically they contain the same amount of stored energy.

 

Cool, eh? Although I'm having trouble thinking of a starchy food that you might eat raw.

 

This is from an article written by a couple of Harvard professors and published on The Conversation. It's worth the read, and the links to studies look like they could be interesting too.

 

http://theconversation.com/why-most-food-labels-are-wrong-about-calories-35081

[GyzzBrah]

One thing iifymers should consider I guess. I now lol at raw vegans claiming better for body, bet a lot of the vitamins and shit are trapped in the cell too.

Also the bro's who pre make food for a whole week