how nutritious is all-bran?

bonj2

Guest
I went for a ride today having had a bowl of all-bran with sultanas for breakfast.
I was pretty much powering up the first 9 or 10 miles which is almost all uphill, and the worst of the hills on the ride at that. But then the next 6 or 7 miles, which is fairly undulating, but i would say the ups aren't quite as bad as the beasts of the first bit, i was hitting a wall at about 13mph even on the flat at the top of the hill. I'm sure it wasn't the bonk because the only tiredness I felt was you know when your quad muscles feel like concrete, like that. I was impressed with myself on the first bit out of town, but then through the villages while I didn't embarrass myself i thought I could have gone quicker if i'd managed my energy intake/usage better.
So I was just wondering, how much energy does all bran actually give you? I know it's mainly fibre, but does that actually contain any energy? Would I have been better to have eaten something involving some pasta, say?
And what about bread? How much energy does, say, 2 slices of thick-sliced wholemeal loaf contain, compared to say, an average dinner-time helping of a pasta-rich meal?
 

andygates

New Member
See the small print on the side of the packet? That's your puppy.
 
OP
B

bonj2

Guest
andygates said:
See the small print on the side of the packet? That's your puppy.
yeah, that tells me that it's got 24.2 milligrammes of carbohydrates per 40g of it with 100ml of skimmed milk. It then, helpfully, goes on to tell me that it will have 45.2mg per 100g, which is less than double, but presumably that's without milk. But is that a lot, or not very much? It doesn't tell me how it compares with other foods. It doesn't even tell me how much I'm eating as I don't weigh my all bran before I eat it.
 
OP
B

bonj2

Guest
by comparison, pasta has got 70-odd mg of carbohydrate per 100g. But much less "of which sugars". Again, I'm not really sure what that tells me in real terms.

What does "of which sugars" mean and is it good for it to be high or low.
 

Fab Foodie

hanging-on in quiet desperation ...
bonj said:
by comparison, pasta has got 70-odd mg of carbohydrate per 100g. But much less "of which sugars". Again, I'm not really sure what that tells me in real terms.

What does "of which sugars" mean and is it good for it to be high or low.
All carbohydrates are derived from Sugar molecules (of which there are many different types).
The common "Sugars" or simple Sugars usually consist of a single sugar molecule of often 2 joined together. Dextrins are several more sugar molecules (10's to 100's) joined together, Starches/complex carbs/fibres/celluloses/gums/agars and others are composed of very large numbers (1000's to bizillions) joined together in all manner of ways.


Examples:

Glucose = single sugar
Galactose = single sugar
Fructose = single sugar
Glucose + Glucose = Maltose...malt/beer sugar
Glucose + Galactose = Lactose...milk sugar
Glucose + Fructose = Sucrose...common sugar

Starch and Glycogen (plant and animal storage molecules) are polymers of Glucose.
Cellulose, the structural molecule in plants is also a polymer of glucose, but the molecules are joined together in a different way, mostly indigestible by humans
Fibres/brans contain, celluloses, hemi-celluloses, resistant starches, Pectins, Algins Phytates, Pentosans, polymers of all kinds of sugars joined in myriad ways..all indigestible by humans.

So...
Products usually labeled with "The total Carbohydrate" and the proportion of which are simple free sugars ie glucose/lactose/maltose/fructose etc.

Your pasta contains a high proportion of starch and a low amount of free sugars. As starch takes a little time to break down into sugars it gives a slower energy release rate than something that is high in free sugars. This partly explains why Pasta has a low GI. However, the way starch is held and complexed with protein in Pasta makes this release even slower. This is why Pasta is a lower GI food than rice even though both are basically starch.

Hope that helped.
 

ash68

New Member
Location
northumberland
i'm not really a fan of all bran, nothing to do with the nutritional qualities of it, just don,t like eating the stuff.Porridge is my fave before a bike ride, fills me up and keeps me going for a few hours before i have to dip into the cereal bars, raisens etc.Might be worth a go, see if it works for you
 
OP
B

bonj2

Guest
Fab Foodie said:
All carbohydrates are derived from Sugar molecules (of which there are many different types).
The common "Sugars" or simple Sugars usually consist of a single sugar molecule of often 2 joined together. Dextrins are several more sugar molecules (10's to 100's) joined together, Starches/complex carbs/fibres/celluloses/gums/agars and others are composed of very large numbers (1000's to bizillions) joined together in all manner of ways.


Examples:

Glucose = single sugar
Galactose = single sugar
Fructose = single sugar
Glucose + Glucose = Maltose...malt/beer sugar
Glucose + Galactose = Lactose...milk sugar
Glucose + Fructose = Sucrose...common sugar

Starch and Glycogen (plant and animal storage molecules) are polymers of Glucose.
Cellulose, the structural molecule in plants is also a polymer of glucose, but the molecules are joined together in a different way, mostly indigestible by humans
Fibres/brans contain, celluloses, hemi-celluloses, resistant starches, Pectins, Algins Phytates, Pentosans, polymers of all kinds of sugars joined in myriad ways..all indigestible by humans.

So...
Products usually labeled with "The total Carbohydrate" and the proportion of which are simple free sugars ie glucose/lactose/maltose/fructose etc.

Your pasta contains a high proportion of starch and a low amount of free sugars. As starch takes a little time to break down into sugars it gives a slower energy release rate than something that is high in free sugars. This partly explains why Pasta has a low GI. However, the way starch is held and complexed with protein in Pasta makes this release even slower. This is why Pasta is a lower GI food than rice even though both are basically starch.

Hope that helped.
yes, that is helpful FF... I think that therefore means that I had too much free sugars and not enough slow-releasing starch, and it all released itself too early (to put a simplistic slant on it).
So basically am I right in thinking starch is a complex molecule, and the body has to break it down into smaller free sugar molecules in order to use the energy, and that process takes time which is why it's slow releasing?

(are you a nutritionist by the way? just thinking by your name and all... or a chef? or just like food? ;))

I think I'll pay more attention to how much of different things foods contain in future...
 
OP
B

bonj2

Guest
Fab Foodie said:
Examples:

Glucose = single sugar
Galactose = single sugar
Fructose = single sugar
Glucose + Glucose = Maltose...malt/beer sugar
Glucose + Galactose = Lactose...milk sugar
Glucose + Fructose = Sucrose...common sugar
So the caster sugar et al that you put in tea etc., that's sucrose then is it? I thought it was glucose?
 
OP
B

bonj2

Guest
ash68 said:
i'm not really a fan of all bran, nothing to do with the nutritional qualities of it, just don,t like eating the stuff.Porridge is my fave before a bike ride, fills me up and keeps me going for a few hours before i have to dip into the cereal bars, raisens etc.Might be worth a go, see if it works for you
yeah, i already do eat porridge. Like it, it's filling. What's really nice that I like is porridge, with greek yoghurt on top (NOT low fat greek yoghurt -it's not half as nice and thick) and then luxury muesli on top of that. delicious!
or maybe you could have it with the yoghurt on top of the muesli, never tried it like that but it might work better?

I must admit I was half hoping the answer to this question would have been "no bonj all-bran isn't nutritious at all - no wonder you got tired!"
 

Fab Foodie

hanging-on in quiet desperation ...
bonj said:
yes, that is helpful FF... I think that therefore means that I had too much free sugars and not enough slow-releasing starch, and it all released itself too early (to put a simplistic slant on it).
So basically am I right in thinking starch is a complex molecule, and the body has to break it down into smaller free sugar molecules in order to use the energy, and that process takes time which is why it's slow releasing?

(are you a nutritionist by the way? just thinking by your name and all... or a chef? or just like food? :smile:)

I think I'll pay more attention to how much of different things foods contain in future...
Correct about starch taking time to break down to release glucose.

Yes Common sugar - Sucrose whether caster, regular, brown, etc, all sucrose. Somebody will tell you that brown sugar is healthier than refined white sugar but in reality that's baloney.

My background is Food Technology and Biochemistry. Have worked as a Food Scientist for nearly 25 years now:blush:;)
Topical and never a dull moment!
 

Blue

Legendary Member
Location
N Ireland
I wondered how you had such a high post count bonj - now I see. Up to now this thread contained 12 posts, 7 of them from you!! Essentially, you just talk to yourself a lot!!!
 

Bigtallfatbloke

New Member
I just have a bowl of porridge laced with lot's of honey before any rides over 20 miles these days...my thinking there is that i have both instant and slow release carbs in one easy package...I'm probably wrong.
 
Top Bottom