Forum menu
She says she heard that despite their high calorific content, part calories in nuts "don't count" because they aren't absorbed, aka "you can't get fat from eating too many plain nuts".
Really?
Well they always seem to come out the other end in pieces, so there is some truth in that....
Contents of what kind of nuts?
I thought nuts were filled with protein... No wait... Oh those nuts! 😉
*s****s at Drac*
[URL= http://i.imgur.com/NdFsumq.pn g" target="_blank">
hmm, nut milk...
it's true though, i mean, what else would it be when you have that sensation of shitting a snickers.
(sorry marathon)
........ am disappoint.
I was expecting a short lived thread most suitable for a Friday and all I see is some dietary nonsense. Kryton you should be ashamed - please post pics of MrsKryton to make amends.
Kryton you should be ashamed - please post pics of MrsKryton to make amends.
Obviously I wouldn't expose her identify but this'd be pretty close...
[img] 
[/img]
😀
Back OT, it appears to be the fibre/protien content that helps;
http://www.dietriffic.com/2010/04/27/are-nuts-fattening/
[img] 
?w=585[/img]
Ooh!
The mathematical theory of “energy consumed minus energy expended equals weight gain” predicted that women should gain 7.5 pounds
Instead, the participants’ weight did not change at all. In fact, their weights went on average from 155.9 lbs to 154.6 lbs.
But... but.....!
Does Nutella count?
Is it wrong that I fancy the ginger squirrel?
Calorific content is measured by burning and measuring the heat produced. By that measure you could get fat eating a chunk of coal.
What it doesn't take into account is that some parts of food are indigestible to us so we can't use the energy /turn them into fat. Also that some foods take more energy to digest.
So I reckon that when you eat processed foods you use a higher proportion of the calories that they contain compared to whole food where you have expend energy digesting them plus you won't get the full calorific value out of fibrous / part digested parts.
I'm with your wife, Kryton.
I'm with your wife, Kryton.
*dons boxing gloves, runs downstairs* 👿
We'd make a great couple 😉
[img][url= https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3851/14332357600_554a38a5d3.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3851/14332357600_554a38a5d3.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/nQv5zN ]pachacuti[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/people// ]BeateKubitz[/url], on Flickr[/img]
Kryton57 - Member*dons [s]boxing gloves[/s] video camera, runs downstairs*
*dons boxing gloves, runs downstairs*
[img] 
[/img]
Ooh!
The mathematical theory of “energy consumed minus energy expended equals weight gain” predicted that women should gain 7.5 pounds
Instead, the participants’ weight did not change at all. In fact, their weights went on average from 155.9 lbs to 154.6 lbs.
But... but.....!
Nothing like a bit of over simplification to get things wrong. Total energy in less Total energy out = Accumulation. Energy out isn't the same as energy expended.