You shouldn’t need to guesstimate, as the total grams of dietry fiber will be written on the nutrition facts label. It will almost cerainly read
Dietary Fiber 0g 0%
The other grams of weight being made up of non-sugar carbohydrates.
Yeast spores just love orange juice.
From the USDA Nutrient Data Laboratory:
Two cups of raw OJ (496g):
223 calories
41.7 g sugar
1.0 g fiber
By contrast, 496g of raw navel oranges (sections without membrane) have:
243 calories
42.1 g sugar
10.9 g fiber
The USDA estimates a cup of orange sections to be 165 grams. 496g is almost exactly three cups. That’s an awful lot of orange sections…
And while I’ve got it up there, here are some other significant mineral and vitamin differences between OJ and oranges:
OJ:
Calcium: 55 mg
Phosphorus: 84 mg
Zinc: 0.25 mg
Maganese: 0.069 mg
Vitamin C: 248.0 mg
Vitamin A: 992 mg
Vitamin E: 0.20 mg
Vitamin K: 0.0 mg
Oranges:
Calcium: 213 mg
Phosphorus: 114 mg
Zinc: 0.40 mg
Maganese: 0.144 mg
Vitamin C: 292.5 mg
Vitamin A: 1223 IU
Vitamin E: 0.74 mg
Vitamin K: 0.5 mg
Interesting to see exactly how much better an orange is for you as compared to orange juice. Still, we are all going to consume liquids during the day, and water gets terribly boring. Certainly the juice is a whole lot better than, say, soda. Some have claimed that the OJ is of no greater benefit than a Coke. These figures certainly show *that’s * not true.
But the figures only show that OJ is better if you are somehow otherwise lacking in Calcium, Phosphorus:, Zinc, Maganese, Vitamin C, Vitamin A, Vitamin E, or Vitamin K.
If you are getting a propperly ballanced diet, then the advantage of OJ over Coke is nullified by the fact you don’t need the extra small amounts of vitamins and minerals found in the OJ.
Furthermore if you have more OJ because “it’s good for you” than you would have had of Coke “because it’s artificial and bad for you” you are making a mistake, which is I think the mistake that Qadgop and others have been trying to point out to our departed OP.
p.s. Qadgop please don’t turn me into a newt or something unnatural if I have mistakenly missrepresented your position 
Many people ARE otherwise lacking in one or more of those vitamins; things like OJ are supposed to be a part of a properly balanced diet. I don’t think I said you should drink more OJ than Coke. Look at it this way – I’m thirsty. Or I need a beverage with my breakfast. Which am I better off drinking, a can of soda or a glass of OJ? The OJ, of course. Would I be nutritionally better off eating an orange? Maybe, but I might also still be thirsty!
Artificial or “natural” makes little difference to me, personally. Horse manure, botulin, and ricin are all “natural.” For that matter, a can of Coke is mostly natural, too. Nice natural corn or cane derivatives, plus some sort of secret herbs and spices.
MLS I’m in total agreement with you, just not with our departed OP writer.
Oops, Bippy, I missed that part. Didn’t mean to be (unnecessarily) argumentative.
Sorry, the OJ still ain’t much better than the soda. Most people are not lacking in vitamins or trace minerals. 8 oz. of coca cola has 26 gms of carbs and 97 calories. 8 oz. of fresh OJ has 26 grams of carbs and 112 calories (it has more calories thanks to a bit of fat and protein in it). Both have a large sugar load.
People, OJ is not a healthy substitute for soda made with sugars! Is it less unhealthy than soda? Yes. Does it have many trace vitamins and minerals? Yes! Does that compensate for its large sugar load? No! Does that make it healthy, especially in large amounts? No!
Check out this site for detailed analysis of the nutritional value of lotsa foods.
http://www.nutritiondata.com/index.html
Go to fresh OJ at that site. . It’ll tell you all about it, and give you 95 healthier options among fruits.
If you’re thirsty, drink water. If that’s boring, get flavored water, or non-sugared beverages. Or just drink a small amount of juice. But using any high sugar beverage to slake a thirst on a regular basis is asking for trouble.
Or go ahead and drink a quart of OJ, I don’t care! Just don’t claim you’re being “healthy” because you drink fruit juices.
OK, I don’t have any cola in the house, but I have root beer. Stewart’s.
It says it’s got: 160 calories, no far, 51 mg sodium. 41 g carb, 41 g sugars. No protien, no vitamins or minerals.
My OJ (100% OJ, not from concentrate) says:
110 calories, no fat, no sodium, 450 g potassium (13% dv), 26 g carbs (9% dv) of which 22g is sugars, 2g protein. 120% dv of Vitamin C, 10% of thiamin, 4% of niacin, 15% of folate. No significant amount of vitamin A, calcium and iron. DV is based on a 2000 calorie diet.
I agree that it’s not something I’d drink a gallon per day of, but to say the soda is not much better just doesn’t compute.
Fuel = better half of the recently dissoluted hauss duo…
Could someone clue me in on why nobody is including phytochemicals in this discussion on fruit and vegetable juices, them being a prominent ingredient in these juices and all.
Eh I think you’re better off with a cup of coffee and a multivitamin pill or some beer rather than water, OJ, soda, milk or what have you.
Probably because you’re comparing different amounts. Stewarts comes in 12-ounce bottles, while orange juice no doubt has an 8-ounce serving size. We’ve been attempting to compare equal amounts.
Eat a couple oranges, have a glass of water, and you’re good. Or have a small glass of orange juice, but be aware that it’s not all that great for you, and you’re unlikely to be deficient in those vitamins - especially since it’s not an amazingly good source for them. If the choice is “sugar water” versus “sugar water with small quantities of nutrients that you might possibly need” then I guess the orange juice is better. It’s just that said betterness is pretty marginal.
The reason we’re not discussing them hasn’t changed since hauss asked.
“Phytochemical” is a very broad term; there are plenty of “phytochemicals” in orange juice in the sense that it is full of plant-derived chemicals. However, asking about the “phytochemicals” in orange juice is meaningless because you’re discussing hundreds of different chemicals, all of whom could have some heretofore unknown effect on the body when taken in concentration. The fact that a single trendy name has been attached to “chemicals from plant sources” doesn’t mean that it’s meaningful to discuss them without being specific.
Which chemicals in orange juice are you discussing? What effects do they have on the body? How clear is the research, and what journals are you getting your information from? How can you demonstrate that the effects of “phytochemicals” - which, according to present science at least, are very close to zero - are enough to outweigh the aforementioned immense quantity of sugar present in orange juice?
If you don’t like arguing based on evidence, then the SDMB is not for you. If you would like to put forth an argument from evidence, we’d love to hear it.
Here’s the deal with me. I don’t make points or arguments, I ask questions, that’s how I learn. I am a learning machine, and the only thing that can stop me is people not answering the plain English of my questions. I don’t enjoy making statements because I honestly don’t have the philisophical or logical right to, being a layperson here (I have no medical education besides the fact that I am halfway through paramedic school and am an EMT). I am fully aware of this. However, I have a knack for seeking out, knowing and identifying truth and also for using fact and speculation to arrive as close to truth as possible given my resources, education, attitude and intellectual aptitude. The key here is that I ask all these questions for benefit for myself, not merely for the sake of learning like most on this board (that explains all the health questions). That is why I seem to have a higher threshold for accepting you-alls knowledge as truth. If you all would oblige me, my questioning can produce some great info on this board. Don’t ge me wrong, I am willing to accept your statements as building blocks for truth. It’s not like I have to look into a microscope and actually see the phytochemical attaching to the receptor and blocking a neurotransmitter in order to accept it.
Depending on how you all answer the following several questions and posts, I may create a post that you will all appreciate, one that will deal with the totality of consuming food for health. All I need to know about at this point is phytochemicals. Then I can deal with the issues of source (food), methods of creation (what to feed the chicken or what to spray on the fruit for pestilence), freshness (condition of the food after physical forces have acted on it), preservation (from microbes, bacteria, air), preparation and consumption (when to eat, what combinations) of the best possible NATURAL sustenance for our bodies (all the while considering the slight variations of people with different physiologies/metabolisms).
The funny thing is is that I am 100% not obsessed about this stuff, believe me.
Business: Isn’t it true that phytochemicals have an effect on our bodies? Isn’t it true that phytochemicals are contained in fruit/veggie juice but not in soda? So, again, why are phytochemicals not a part of this juice/soda comparison?
Simple answers to these and other future simple questions will enable me to bring the best out of this nosediving thread.
Because it is impossible to evaluate every chemical difference between juice and soda (considering every type of juice and every type of soda), so you have to isolate specific phytochemicals by name and present cites that they are beneficial if you want them considered.
Soda and orange juice are mostly sugar and water. They are chemically very similar. Soda also tends to have artificial colorings, flavorings, caffeine and carbonation in small amounts. Orange juice has some orange-specific phytochemicals in small amounts. On the macronutrient scale they are about the same. (Simple carbs and water) On the potentially beneficial micronutrient scale, the OJ gets vitamins and certain enzymes, and soda gets caffeine and carbonation. The beneficial effects of all those are generally debatable, and have to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
OJ: We know Vitamin C in certain amounts prevents scurvy. OJ has plenty of it. It has miniscule amounts of other vitamins (unless artificially added), minerals, amino acids, etc.
Soda: Usually has caffeine. Numerous studies have been done that small amounts of caffeine can prevent certain cancers, and generally improve your life.
Which one is better for you? Tough choice. Both are PRETTY BAD. Picking apart phytochemicals seems silly when no matter how good they are for you, drinking them with Orange Juice is pretty bad for your health. No amount of phytochemicals will change that on the macronutrient scale, OJ is sugar water.
As i’ve said you’re probably better off with a cup of filtered coffee and a multivitamin. Or some vegetable juice.
In fact, the effect of many “phytochemicals” (going by the definition of “chemicals found in plants”) is known. Many of them are believed to be carcinogenic. Plants, even ones which are edible to humans, contain natural defenses such as pesticides. Many of these are shown to be carcinogenic in rodent models and are suspected carcinogens in humans.
Cite: PubMed.
We consume roughly ten times more natural pesticides than man made ones. Attempts to breed more insect resistant strains (which attempt to reduce the need for manmade pesticides) usually result in plants with higher levels of these carcinogenic and sometimes toxic chemicals. Ironically, the plants altered to reduce the use of manmade chemicals and marketed as “organic” may actually be more dangerous than the regular chemically treated variety.
Cite.
I ran across this information while reading a book for a research paper I did on cancer about a year ago. As I recall from my reading, doctors (at least the cancer experts who wrote the book) don’t seem to be too worried about the rates of cancer from manmade pesticides and other agricultural chemicals for the reasons above. Namely, that the natural chemicals present, even in edible plants, account for far more potential carcinogen exposure than manmade chemicals ever could.
Furthermore, evidence exists that suggests that consuming more fruits and vegetables in proportion to other foods reduces one’s risk of cancer by up to half IN SPITE of any potential carcinogens present, whether manmade or natural. So worries of both natural AND synthetic carcinogens in produce may prove to be overblown.
Cite: PubMed.
For more info, search PubMed or your local library. If somebody is really interested, I can look up the name of the book where I first read this.
And that’s the point. You, Fuel, can decide to ignore the effect of the macronutrients present in the orange juice, but claiming that these phytonutrients - which mostly have no evidence of any significant beneficial effect somehow ameliorates this is equivalent to arguing the subtle health benefits of dropping an anvil on your foot versus a hot iron. Do they have health benefits? Maybe. No one knows for sure. Do they have enough to make up for the huge amount of sugar in a glass or two of orange juice? No.
I don’t understand why you find this concept difficult to grasp. You’re asking whether these chemicals are destroyed in processing when there’s no reason to believe they do anything anyway. You can forge some “truth” (scare quotes because it isn’t actually the truth) out of this kind of magical thinking if you want, but I believe in objective reality. The reality is that the effects of these phytonutrients is small in the few cases it’s been demonstrated. Drinking twenty-five grams of sugar is bad for you.
And no, if you’re not willing to contribute to our knowledge, then your “questions” don’t help anyone else on the board. They just frustrate us because we wish to provide you with some reality to fight the pseudoscience you’re pushing but you are not interested to hear the truth. You’re only interested in having bizarre beliefs with no basis in evidence confirmed for you.
I’m very interested to hear. This puts some interesting information into this kneejerk “natural is good and artificial is bad” sort of non-reasoning. Plants exist for their own benefit - they don’t grow in order to cure diseases in the things that eat them. Why shouldn’t their natural defenses against infestation affect humans as well?
I’d be fascinated to read the book if you can find it without too much trouble.