7 ms·
Just asked a friend about this: > 1 egg, two slices whole wheat bread, one slice of cheddar, two.. leaves of lettuce .. and he said it's wrong and useless (!)
by thro1 5y ago
Just asked a friend about this:
> 1 egg, two slices whole wheat bread, one slice of cheddar, two.. leaves of lettuce ..
and he said it's wrong and useless (!) - giving me examples and numbers as:
protein assimilability from bread is 40% etc.
Is there a way to get correct answers from Wolfram regarding this ?
(assimilability of doesn't work)
Edit: Excuse me, what's wrong with you downvoters - it's a legit question. Or is there something wrong with assimilability?
Are you happy being off with your answers by 60% - or jealous that a human can have better answers?
- onion2k 5y agoWolfram isn't reporting how much protein you'll get from eating something; it's reporting how much there is in the bread. Protein assimilation depends on a huge range of factors, and varies significantly between individuals (based on everything from gut microbiome to health factors to how much you chew your food to your saliva production to... Well, it's a long list). There's no way a website could report the amount of protein you will get from bread. Reporting how much is in the bread makes much more sense. It's a shame your friend didn't explain that. This is something that actually annoys me immensely when people say "you eat too much!" to fat people. Two people can have the exact same diet and the exact same exercise regime, and if one assimilates particular foods more effectively they'll be getting more calories, and put on weight. Food intake is far more complex than many people believe.
- barabba 5y agoSo you're saying that "fat people eat too much" is a statistically inaccurate statement?
- marcinzm 5y ago>This is something that actually annoys me immensely when people say "you eat too much!" to fat people. Two people can have the exact same diet and the exact same exercise regime, and if one assimilates particular foods more effectively they'll be getting more calories, and put on weight. Food intake is far more complex than many people believe. I don't see why that statement is inaccurate. It's not "you eat more than me" but "you eat too much." As in you eat too much versus how much your body is able to burn of the calories it assimilates.
- moron4hire 5y agoThe problem is that it is usually presented as a "simple" solution. "Just eat less. Reduce your food intake until you're at a calorie deficit". For some people, that can mean eating three small, but satisfying meals a day. For others, it can mean eating extremely strict rations for only two meals a day, leaving the person constantly hungry and cranky. Then it becomes a will power issue, which as we all know is a function of brain energy reserves (right, we all know that, right?!). Throw in a mentally challenging job versus just phoning it in and it's really not actionable advice.
- Invictus0 5y agoIt's a willpower issue for 3 days, the time it takes for your stomach and appetite to readjust to a lower volume of food intake. Anyone who's fasted knows how easy skipping meals is--it's certainly not the agonizing test of willpower you and many nonfasters seem to think it is. And by the way, if diet and exercise are not the path to weight loss, then what is?
- marcinzm 5y agoYou also don't need to eat that much less if you're at a stable weight. 10% less a day means you lose a pound every 1-2 weeks. In my experience people seem to not like it when you tell them, after they ask, that you lost weight simply by eating a bit less every day consistently for a year.
- LordOfWolves 5y agoIt might help to explain what your friend says is “wrong and useless” so others could provide feedback. It also might help to avoid insinuating things about strangers online in order to promote discussion and not stifle it.
- chihuahua 5y agoIt seems that Wolfram Alpha also has some difficulty figuring out whether I'm talking about raw oats or cooked oats, even when I use the word raw in my query. As a result, it can be off by a factor of 3. I agree that it's not useful if you have to carefully check the output every time.
- ksaj 5y agoI would expect it to work properly with the word oatmeal.
- scythe 5y ago>protein assimilability from bread is 40% This is wrong; the digestibility of gluten is 80-90%. Your friend was probably thinking of the PDCAAS, which is more like 45 for gluten. But this is nutritional quality vs an egg white equivalent as defined by the bioavailability and concentration of essential amino acids (egg = 100 by definition; the score is based on the lowest fraction of any EAA, so gelatin — no tryptophan — has PDCAAS 0), not the fraction absorbed or utilized. For an idea of what utilization looks like see e.g.: https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/nutrients/nutrients-10-00180/article_deploy/nutrients-10-00180.pdf https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/nutrients/nutrients-10-001...
- aasasd 5y ago> The net protein utilization is profoundly affected by the limiting amino acid content—the essential amino acid found in the smallest quantity in the foodstuff. It is therefore a good idea to mix foodstuffs that have different weaknesses in their essential amino acid distributions. > The limiting amino acid for wheat is lysine. From what I gather, you still can process all of the protein from wheat if you get lysine from somewhere else: > A vegetarian or low animal protein diet can be adequate for protein, including lysine, if it includes both cereal grains and legumes. This also means that any statements about protein utilization from compound meals are more-or-less bogus if done without calculating the different amino acids.
- kragen 5y agoYou can improve the protein assimilability of bread by combining it with a high-lysine protein (and I'm not sure but I think eggs and cheddar might fit the bill) but you may not care if you're looking for low-glycemic-index low-fat calories rather than amino acids specifically. I don't know what's wrong with the downvoters.