# Baked Potato "Fries"



## soxmuscle (Feb 18, 2008)

Tonight I used a tablespoon of Canola Oil, Mrs. Dash, and two chopped up potatoes to go along with my 6 egg white/2 yolk w. green peppers/mushrooms/tomato omelette.

The oil obviously has a lot of fat, but how bad of an option is this?  

I used a tablespoon of canola oil but there isn't a chance I consumed even a third of the oil, it moreso just helped out with the cooking.

Am I justifying a cheat meal or is this something I could legitimately add to my repertoire?


----------



## danzik17 (Feb 18, 2008)

Replace the canola oil with olive oil and you're good to go.  Just make sure it fits into your calories, otherwise I don't see a problem with it.


----------



## soxmuscle (Feb 18, 2008)

I saw a couple of recipes from Prince in the recipe forum and he used canola oil...


----------



## Namo (Feb 19, 2008)

A little canola oil is fine, you should also try making these with sweet potatoes too


----------



## tucker01 (Feb 19, 2008)

Looks good to me.

You can try parboiling the fries first, so the potato is soft, then dry and throw in the oven to crisp up.


----------



## soxmuscle (Feb 19, 2008)

Namo said:


> A little canola oil is fine, you should also try making these with sweet potatoes too



The canola oil I have is full of omega 3's, when I run out of regular potatoes, I'll definitely be back for the sweet potatoes.  those will be tasty.


----------



## soxmuscle (Feb 19, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> Looks good to me.
> 
> You can try parboiling the fries first, so the potato is soft, then dry and throw in the oven to crisp up.



I'm not an avid parboiler, so you're going to have to explain what that means.


----------



## tucker01 (Feb 19, 2008)

Basically boil them till the potato becomes fork tender.


----------



## soxmuscle (Feb 19, 2008)

Interesting.

I'll try that out tonight.


----------



## Biggly (Feb 19, 2008)

If using olive oil uses the cheapest, ie the type simply called "olive oil", don't use "virgin" or "extra virgin", as they're not really suitable for frying (unless you want a smoky kitchen and increased cancer risk).

Be aware that baked spuds whack insulin levels very high, actually higher than table sugar. The 8 egg whites in there suggests you're going for that on purpose as a post-workout snack? If not then yes, that's gonna be quite fattening. Not terrible but then you don't say when you're eating it or why?

Actually I just noticed you said "tonight" - no I wouldn't recommend that late at night. Dump the egg yolks perhaps or for much earlier in the day and it's fine, late at night I'd say no.


B.


----------



## tucker01 (Feb 19, 2008)

I don't think he is frying... baking in the oven.  EVOO should be fine.


----------



## danzik17 (Feb 19, 2008)

I only said Olive Oil because I've done this, and I think it tastes better with Olive Oil


----------



## soxmuscle (Feb 19, 2008)

Biggly said:


> If using olive oil uses the cheapest, ie the type simply called "olive oil", don't use "virgin" or "extra virgin", as they're not really suitable for frying (unless you want a smoky kitchen and increased cancer risk).
> 
> Be aware that baked spuds whack insulin levels very high, actually higher than table sugar. The 8 egg whites in there suggests you're going for that on purpose as a post-workout snack? If not then yes, that's gonna be quite fattening. Not terrible but then you don't say when you're eating it or why?
> 
> ...



A tablespoon of Canola Oil has 120 calories and 14 grams of fat, none that are saturated, no trans fat, etc.

Like I said, there was a lot of oil on the bottom of the pan.  I don't think I even consumed half of what I put in.

I'm really not concerned about 60+ calories and 7 grams of fat, regardless of when I eat it.

Not to mention, it doesn't matter when you eat.


----------



## soxmuscle (Feb 19, 2008)

danzik17 said:


> I only said Olive Oil because I've done this, and I think it tastes better with Olive Oil



I'm sure they have it at my health food store, when I finish up this bottle of Canola Oil, I'll take your word for it.


----------



## P-funk (Feb 19, 2008)

Oh fuck....yuo are going to like get so fatz from the white potatoes....those things have a glycemic index of like 5 million....oh fuck....your are going to be huge.


----------



## Mista (Feb 19, 2008)

So throw away all my white potatoes?

I don't want to be fat..


----------



## soxmuscle (Feb 19, 2008)

6666


----------



## sensamilia (Feb 19, 2008)

Yes baked white potatoes are the devil of starches might aswell eat a packet of chips . If u realy wanna eat em boil em that makes em like moderate GI and then low if u eat with protein or fat.


----------



## Biggly (Feb 19, 2008)

> I'm really not concerned about 60+ calories and 7 grams of fat, regardless of when I eat it.



Sure, but add in the rest of the ingredients and we're talking about 700 calories - not including the veggies.

I stuck your snack in Biggly for fun - 

Baked potatos - 220 cals each, 440
Eggs whites x4 = 67
2 whole eggs = 155

That's 662, plus your half a spoon of oil at 60, 722 calories.

Late at night your metabolism is low and about to go rock bottom as you sleep. The average size guy burns around 300 calories overnight, giving you a surplus of 422 - but baked spuds are about as high as you get on the GI index meaning 80% of those calories are going to say hello to Mr Insulin, meet Mr Fat Cells, before you take off your slippers. Oh hang on, you mixed protein with carbs, that's an 800% increase in insulin, make it 90%.

So around 650 cals straight as fat on your belly, do that 6 nights in a row and you'll put on over 1lb of flubber even _without_ breaking your daily calorie needs.

But hey, a calories just a calorie and it don't matter when you eat, right?

Next time you ask for advice, ask about something _you do care about _and save us the trouble.



B.


----------



## P-funk (Feb 20, 2008)

*crickets*


----------



## DaMayor (Feb 20, 2008)

Its really simple. Just replace the canola oil with a NON-STICK pan, and replace the white potatoes with about 1/4 cup of granulated sugar.


----------



## soxmuscle (Feb 20, 2008)

Biggly said:


> Sure, but add in the rest of the ingredients and we're talking about 700 calories - not including the veggies.
> 
> I stuck your snack in Biggly for fun -
> 
> ...



I eat more calories, later in the night most nights.

Barilla Plus pasta, a pound of ground beef, a bottle of marinara sauce, mushrooms, and two pieces of whole grain toast.

Obviously I wouldn't eat the whole pound of beef and the whole thing of pasta, but that would make about 2 meals.

Not to mention, I'd eat that and then a couple hours later I'll eat a couple bowls of Kashi Go Lean crunch or a natural PB/SF jelly on whole grain toast sandwich with a couple glasses of milk.

Easily exceeding 1000 calories.



> Late at night your metabolism is low and about to go rock bottom as you sleep. The average size guy burns around 300 calories overnight, giving you a surplus of 422 - but baked spuds are about as high as you get on the GI index meaning 80% of those calories are going to say hello to Mr Insulin, meet Mr Fat Cells, before you take off your slippers. Oh hang on, you mixed protein with carbs, that's an 800% increase in insulin, make it 90%.
> 
> So around 650 cals straight as fat on your belly, do that 6 nights in a row and you'll put on over 1lb of flubber even _without_ breaking your daily calorie needs.
> 
> But hey, a calories just a calorie and it don't matter when you eat, right?



My schedule is all mixed up.  Some nights I'll go to bed at 5 in the morning, other nights 2-3.  The reason I say eating late at night doesn't matter for me is because my body has no idea what late at night is.  I may be eating that 7-8, but I'm still going to be awake for fucking 10 hours.

I try to get calories in my body as best as I can.  Having a couple of 200 calorie "snacks" throughout the day and then one big meal at night and then a snack before I go to bed... its been working for me, so...



> Next time you ask for advice, ask about something _you do care about _and save us the trouble.



No, you answered my question beautifully..  Not Jodi beautifully, but you atleast used big words and made it appear like you know your ass from your elbow.  Thanks.


----------



## soxmuscle (Feb 20, 2008)

Mista said:


> So throw away all my white potatoes?
> 
> I don't want to be fat..



I just find it so hard to believe that white potatoes are these fat inducing things on the same level as potato chips.  I'll be using the rest of my bag, perhaps pawning it off on one of the roommates and then buying sweet potatoes.


----------



## tucker01 (Feb 20, 2008)

People are making too big of a thing out of nothing.  Dieting isn't a complex issue.  I don't know why all of the sudden we have to make it one.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 20, 2008)

soxmuscle said:


> I just find it so hard to believe that white potatoes are these fat inducing things on the same level as potato chips.  I'll be using the rest of my bag, perhaps pawning it off on one of the roommates and then buying sweet potatoes.



Pfunk was being sarcastic, but honest at the same time. White potatoes are all starch and have a high glycemic index value.

You might can eat them and get away with it, but I can't...or not at least at this time of year I can't since I am on a cut.


----------



## sensamilia (Feb 20, 2008)

Biggly said:


> Sure, but add in the rest of the ingredients and we're talking about 700 calories - not including the veggies.
> 
> I stuck your snack in Biggly for fun -
> 
> ...



Buddy it doesnt make you more fat if u eat most of ur cals before bed..
When cutting i eat my biggest meal  right before i go sleep cause mid night is when i get hungriest..and guess what?.. I get cut.


----------



## soxmuscle (Feb 20, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> People are making too big of a thing out of nothing.  Dieting isn't a complex issue.  I don't know why all of the sudden we have to make it one.


It's one thing to pass on cookies because they're "unhealthy," I can't even imagine how gay my friends would think I was if I busted out the "well my GI is going to spike way toooo high and my insulin levels will be up 90% and well guys... you know what that means.. its stored as fat and then that one 100 calorie cookie becomes the death of me."

I mean.. thats just so ridiculous and unrealistic.


----------



## tucker01 (Feb 20, 2008)

Fuck GI..... GI is fucking retarded.  And means absolutely shit when thrown into a meal.


----------



## soxmuscle (Feb 20, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Pfunk was being sarcastic, but honest at the same time. White potatoes are all starch and have a high glycemic index value.
> 
> You might can eat them and get away with it, but I can't...or not at least at this time of year I can't since I am on a cut.



I knew they were full of starch and have an extremely high GI value.  I guess I just figured my meal was full of decent carbs, good protein, a lot of veggies, which is all I'm really shooting for.

While I do go through cutting/bulking phases, I feel as if I'm in my best shape when I'm eating "whatever, whenever."  It's weird.


----------



## soxmuscle (Feb 20, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> Fuck GI..... GI is fucking retarded.  And means absolutely shit when thrown into a meal.



I don't look at GI as intensely as I do other things, but it's definitely in the back of my mind when I make decisions of what to eat.

You simply don't care?


----------



## soxmuscle (Feb 20, 2008)

sensamilia said:


> Buddy it doesnt make you more fat if u eat most of ur cals before bed..
> When cutting i eat my biggest meal  right before i go sleep cause mid night is when i get hungriest..and guess what?.. I get cut.



I always hear about how eating before bed is the worst thing you can do, but nobody says why.


----------



## Biggly (Feb 20, 2008)

No he's right, the GI index is shite but it's like lactic acid burn, not technically correct but it's what everyone refers to it as. Spuds are a huge great lump of sugar. Period.

As for staying up another 10 hours, well you didn't exactly mention that bit!



> No, you answered my question beautifully.. Not Jodi beautifully, but you atleast used big words and made it appear like you know your ass from your elbow. Thanks.



No problem 


B.


----------



## Biggly (Feb 20, 2008)

> I always hear about how eating before bed is the worst thing you can do, but nobody says why.



It's the best thing to do for storing bodyfat, though any large meal before vegging out will do, actually sleeping is not required. Basically your metabolic rate drops like a stone, there's a brief period of anabolism but most of the night is slightly catabolic so yes, you need food, you just don't need 2 baked potatos in oil.

You can also get indigestion, disturbed sleep patterns, and other nasties if the meal is too large. 

Tapering calories, especially carbs, down in the evenings is just too well established and proven to ignore. Same as eating lots of small meals during the day, is a calorie just a calorie? No, timing does matter.

I'm not moaning or having a dig, just trying to help. You asked, is it a good thing? In my opinion, no, it's gonna lead to fat gain - but obviously if you're on an overall calorie deficit, training like a hamster and staying up another 10 hours after, no, you'll get skinny 


B.


----------



## sensamilia (Feb 20, 2008)

soxmuscle said:


> I always hear about how eating before bed is the worst thing you can do, but nobody says why.



Cuase they say ur metabolism is slow at night and u dont need energy from the carbs and fat since ur going to bed and so that will only lead to fat gain, which is bs, cause its 24 hour metabolism which counts.
So eat your steak and potatos before bed or watever and be happy.


----------



## tucker01 (Feb 20, 2008)

soxmuscle said:


> I don't look at GI as intensely as I do other things, but it's definitely in the back of my mind when I make decisions of what to eat.
> 
> You simply don't care?



Nope.  I couldn't give a crap to be honest.

What do you think happens to that GI rating when you combine it with some Protein and Fat?  

It means a big stink of nothing.

All I concern myself with is healthy food choices.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 20, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> Fuck GI..... GI is fucking retarded.  And means absolutely shit when thrown into a meal.



Post some data. I have read convincing research to suggest GI is relevant, especially to someone that is sensitive to carbs, which I am. The only way for me to successfully cut is with foods that have a very low GI value and far below maintenance calorie consumption.


----------



## Biggly (Feb 20, 2008)

> Cuase they say ur metabolism is slow at night and u dont need energy from the carbs and fat since ur going to bed and so that will only lead to fat gain, which is bs, cause its 24 hour metabolism which counts



So if he ate all 2600 or whatever calories he's on in one sitting that would be peachy? I kept my answer simple but you also have to allow for growth hormone, which peaks twice during the night but _not_ with high blood sugar.

Sleep is something we still don't fully understand but we do know it's vital and a very basic part of our metabolism. The body most certainly does know the difference between awake and asleep and as such the rules somewhat fly out the window. For normal sedentary people there's probably little difference but when aiming for muscle growth and fat loss we're doing the very opposite of what our bodies like doing, which is losing expensive muscle and storing fat.

What do you like doing after a heavy meal? Going to sleep, right? Right there that gives you a clue, your body isn't thinking "Kewl! Now I can dump the fat and get _ripped!" _it's thinking something entirely different.

Exactly what no-one really knows but ripped isn't it.


B.


----------



## tucker01 (Feb 20, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Post some data. I have read convincing research to suggest GI is relevant, especially to someone that is sensitive to carbs, which I am. The only way for me to successfully cut is with foods that have a very low GI value and far below maintenance calorie consumption.



I don't have any data, just reading of my own.  Obviously you are going to have to cater your diet to how you react to certain foods.  But to paint a broad spectrum that GI is the culprit seems silly.  

Glycemic Index, Glycemic Load, Satiety, and the Fullness Factor – NutritionData.com



> *Limitations of the Glycemic Index and the Glycemic Load*
> 
> Some proponents of the Glycemic Index (including many diet books authors) would like you to believe that GI and GL are all that matters when selecting which foods to eat. In reality, diet is a more complex issue than that. ND agrees that the Glycemic Index is a marvelous tool for ranking carbohydrates (and much better than the old "simple" and "complex carbohydrate" designations). However, there are also many limitations to GI and GL, which are explained in this section. Consider this the warning that those diet book authors don't want you to hear...
> 
> ...


----------



## Biggly (Feb 20, 2008)

Kelju, a couple of points - first you're right, carbs are a major source of fat gain, but are you sure you're really on low GI carbs? It's a serious question, the GI index doesn't make much sense. There's a whole bunch of things wrong with it, as the measuring is totally unrealistic.

For a start it presumes 50 grams per serving but not every food comes like that in real life, secondly it presumes an empty stomach, which is unrealistic, thirdly it uses food eaten alone without anything else, totally unrealistic and we already know different combinations affect insulin spikes. Now add to all that the fact that some foods are "low" simply because blood sugar levels are low after eating them - which ignore the fact that some foods cause a very rapid spike of insulin, hence the low blood sugar! Others produce insulin but at a much slower pace, so blood sugar is high (I think they test after 20 or 30 minutes) so they get called "High GI" which is BS.

Basically it's a scale designed specifically for carb-sensitive people like you, notably diabetics - it's a scale of response, not the food per se and it's just too screwy to take it seriously. They've already moved to "insulin loading" to try and get around the GI problems, plus "Insulin Index" to get around the insulin loading problems!

Basically the concept is good, the actual implementation is crap and as such the actual GI index is not much use - more useful is to just look at the TYPE of carb: processed (crap) simple (same thing usually, crap) fibrous (better) complex as in natural (good) etc. Even then a "fast" carb is good -when you WANT an insulin spike.

Also, rather than proving the above, how's about you prove the GI index is useful? I've seen as many studies show no difference or worse than those that say it helps. I'd say the biggest advantage of low GI food is they tend to be better at controlling hunger pangs - but even that's uncertain as bread and potatos score highly at that...

Basically we don't fucking know but we do know GI index crap "aint all that".


B.


----------



## Biggly (Feb 20, 2008)

and what IanDaniel said too 


B.


----------



## DaMayor (Feb 20, 2008)

Yeah, even though IanD came off as a GI~hater, he made a valid point. The Glycemic Index is just another _tool_, as is nutritional labeling, etc. None of these are the Bible of diet, and no information offered anywhere is completely accurate or otherwise absolute. it should all be based on common sense in food selection and your individual needs and responses to food(s).

I would still ditch the white potatoes, though.


----------



## P-funk (Feb 20, 2008)

calories are a major source of fat gain not carbs.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 20, 2008)

P-funk said:


> calories are a major source of fat gain not carbs.



I'm under the impression that the only real difference in macros, at least in terms of fat storage, is that ingested fats convert faster (more efficiently?) to body fat than carbs or protein.  Is that correct, or just myth?


----------



## danzik17 (Feb 20, 2008)

P-funk said:


> calories are a major source of fat gain not carbs.



True enough but it's way harder to eat too much protein or fat than it is to eat too much carbs.


----------



## Biggly (Feb 20, 2008)

> calories are a major source of fat gain not carbs.



OK I'll re-phrase it - carbs are a major source of calories, which just happen to trigger high insulin production, which just happens to cause fat storage, which just happens to affect around 65% of the American population which just happens to believe the dumfuk idea that fat is fattening but carbs are just peachy. How's that?

Protein cycling will lose a bit of fat but slow muscle growth, even regress it if done too often. Fat cycling is counterproductive as the body will cling to fat and quit making as much testosterone - but _carb_ cycling is a well-proven fat-buster.

A calorie is not just a calorie - and this is from a guy who sells calorie-counting software. The macro-ratio plays a pretty major part, as does timing. Sure, too high in calories and you'll get fat, too low and you'll get skinny. If we were a bunch of schoolgirls worrying about flabby thighs then sure, just cut calories and avoid fat, as that's an easy way of cutting calories. However if you want to build muscle eat some damn fat, especially EFAs and if you want a 6 pack cut back on the carbs. Want more muscle? More calories, especially protein and carbs, you don't need extra fat as you'll get that with the protein anyway.

It aint just calories, not least because it aint just "bodybuilding", are you cutting, bulking or what? 




B.


----------



## P-funk (Feb 21, 2008)

If you maintain your body weight on 3000 calories.  You then lower your caloric intake to 2600 calories.  That equals a 400 calorie deficit.  Whether you eat more carbs or not, the fact is you have a 400 calorie deficit.  Add in exercise and you will loose weight.


----------



## juggernaut (Feb 21, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> Looks good to me.
> 
> You can try parboiling the fries first, so the potato is soft, then dry and throw in the oven to crisp up.


 tried this last night-excellent option.


----------



## Biggly (Feb 21, 2008)

> If you maintain your body weight on 3000 calories. You then lower your caloric intake to 2600 calories. That equals a 400 calorie deficit. Whether you eat more carbs or not, the fact is you have a 400 calorie deficit. Add in exercise and you will loose weight.



Sure. I just said that but let's take your example, 3000 calories minus 400. If I eat 2600 calories of fat and carbs will I lose fat or gain it, stay the same?

Lose it, right? No as I'll be losing muscle and long term would gain fat.

Let's take 2 different "3000 calories". 

Diet 1: 50% protein, 40 carbs, 10% fat - Mr Bodybuilder

Diet 2: 20% protein, 50% carbs, 30% fat. Mr Average

Which is most fattening?

I'll give you a clue, look up the word thermogenesis. In terms of calories USED as nutrition we get this:

Diet 1: Protein at 50% of 3000 - 1500. Now take away the 25% or so used just to digest it and we get 1125. The carbs are 40%, so 1200, carbs use up to 10% of the calorific value in digestion, so that's 1080. Fat is only about 4%, so 300 cals minus 4%, 288.

1125+
1080+
288
......
2493


Diet 2, Mr Average, still 3000 calories. 

Protein at 20%, 600, minus thermo, 450
Carbs at 50%, 1500 - 10%, 1350
Fat at 30%, 900, minus 4% thermo, 864

450+
1350+
864
......
2664


Yeah I'm splitting hairs, that's only a difference of 171 calories.

Tell me, if you have a calorie deficit of 170 every day for a month, what happens?

170 x 28 = 4760 calories, or in 6 pack terms, 1.36lb of flab.

But a calorie is a calorie and who cares about nearly one and half pound of flab every month?

Don't get me wrong, if you noticed you were gaining flab you'd just do 25 instead of 20 mins cardio or something, my point is simply that nutrition is worth looking at a bit closer than just saying a calorie is a calorie.

Not all calories are equal all the time. As for "add exercise", that would reduce the available calories anyway, even if you stayed at 3,000

Anyway, whatever, 2 bakes spuds in oil late at night is not so good, that's all I wanted to say really.




B.


----------



## DaMayor (Feb 21, 2008)

I just burned 250 calories reading this thread.


----------

