3 ms·
I think that applies much more to juices, not smoothies. And the reasoning in the article you cited doesn't really make sense to me. If you keep the pulp and f
by jimmywanger 10y ago
I think that applies much more to juices, not smoothies.
And the reasoning in the article you cited doesn't really make sense to me. If you keep the pulp and fiber in a smoothie without adding juices or sugar, how is that different from eating whole fruit?
The article says that blending fruit "releases the sugars", which makes no sense. How is that different from chewing? Wouldn't chewing also remove sugars?
- DanBC 10y agoBlending is much more thorough chopping than chewing, even if you're really thoroughly chewing. > If you keep the pulp and fiber in a smoothie without adding juices or sugar, how is that different from eating whole fruit? It's much much easier to drink 6 oranges that have been blended than it is to eat six oranges.
- jimmywanger 10y agoI guess (after Googling around) that it has to do with time of consumption and the breaking of cell walls. This mainly applies to fruit, if I'm reading things correctly. If you puree kale and cucumbers, there shouldn't be much downside to drinking that as long as you don't add anything - there's little sugar in those vegetables as it is, so overconsumption won't be that awful for you.
- tracker1 10y agoFair enough... but every smoothie recipe I've seen adds a lot of carbs to the mix either via direct sugars and/or high-sugar fruits/juices.
- shiven 10y agoI think this is the most reasonable explanation. Glycemic load seems to be the key. Otherwise, nothing wrong with eating vs blending.
- grzm 10y agoI suspect that the amount of processing that's done to make a smoothie is significantly more than compared to mastication that it affects how the food is further processed by the digestive system. Similarly, I think baby food is pureed not only because babies lack teeth, but because it's easier to digest.