4 ms·
I do not recall “carbs” ever being used to mean “nutritional value”. In fact it’s almost always the opposite, with “empty carbs” (i.e. foods that contain carbs
by orev 3y ago
I do not recall “carbs” ever being used to mean “nutritional value”. In fact it’s almost always the opposite, with “empty carbs” (i.e. foods that contain carbs and almost no other vitamins, etc.) being the primary target of campaigns telling people to avoid them. If anything, carb-heavy foods would benefit from having lower carbs, since it would increase the relative amounts of actually healthy stuff in them.
Focusing on carbs leads to situations where people may be overweight, but also malnourished, which is increasingly common in poor areas.
- tyrfing 3y agoWould straw or rock have excellent nutritional value, then?
- jefftk 3y agoIf you can't get anything out of it then it doesn't have nutritional value.
- thaumasiotes 3y agoIn other words, when we say "nutritional value", what we mean is carbohydrates. This is something that everyone understands when we're talking about bears, but somehow forgets when we're talking about people. Those "empty" carbs are 99% of the reason you eat anything. "Nutritional value" and "energy content" are the same thing.
- orev 3y agoIf you’re not trolling, I think you need to learn more about the difference between carbs, other nutrients, and indigestible material. “Carbs” does not mean “anything you can digest” (which seems to be how you’re using it). For all animals, of course ensuring that you have enough energy to function is a primary concern, but health studies in modern contexts always assumes that the supply of carbs is a solved problem (modern foods generally have far more carbs than most people need), but at the expense of reducing other nutrients.
- jefftk 3y agoNo, that's stronger than I'd say and I suspect than you think? For example, I think almost anyone would say the nutritional value of 100 calories of whole wheat flour is greater than 100 calories of enriched white flour, is greater than 100 calories of plain white flour.
- thaumasiotes 3y agoSure, but the differences there are very small compared to the nutritional value of the 100 calories of white flour. Note also that 100 calories of whole wheat flour is more flour than 100 calories of white flour, which will matter to people who need to eat, but gets glossed over as you do the calorie-for-calorie comparison.
- throwup238 3y agoThey have to be qualified as “empty carbs” because fiber is a complex carbohydrate and that’s pretty crucial to gut microbiome health and blood sugar regulation.
- datameta 3y agoAfaik empty carbs moreso refers to starch or sugar containing foods that otherwise bring little to the table in terms of vitamins, minerals, etc. Especialy high glycemic index food items.
- orev 3y agoThe presence of fiber alone doesn’t necessarily offer these kinds of health benefits. It largely has to do with the structure of the fiber and if it’s affecting the speed of digestion of the food. A smoothie is far less healthy than the unprocessed fruit (assuming nothing else is added to the smoothie) simply because the act of blending the fruit liberates the sugars from inside the cells, allowing faster absorption (and resulting in insulin spikes/crashes). Any fiber is still better than none, but it’s not just a matter of amounts.
- jcutrell 3y agoThis is in itself misleading. Carbs are the fundamental nutrient required for energy production (specifically for glycogen). So much so that without them the body undergoes glycogenesis. Carbohydrates might be “empty” in that they aren’t filling / are higher calorie per gram, but they are no less a nutrient.
- orev 3y agoWithin a general nutrition context, yes of course carbs are essential, however in a modern context the supply of carbs is so abundant that the conversation mostly revolves around the over abundance of them, while other nutrients are neglected. This and many other studies are highlighting this problem, where people crops have been optimized for size, yield, and fast growth (which almost always results in empty carbs being produced quickly), at the expense of all the other nutrients being reduced.
- jimnotgym 3y agoI didn't say carbs meant nutritional value. However when a product containing mostly carbs is said to have half the nutritional value it used to hand, one might reasonably assume that the components of its nutritional makeup had reduced in proportion. The headline is clickbait. What they meant was that some of the micronutrients were there in a lower proportion. That is a very different story