4 ms·

Thank you. So the study is mostly referring to deep fried foods, white flour and soda / processed sugar?

weego 16y ago
Yes, for example unrefined pure granulated sugar has about half the glycemic index of white pure granulated sugar. Lots of places around the world use it (often called jaggeree or jaggery) in all kinds of cooking and they often use it so unrefined you have to boil it and skim off the impurities before adding it to the food. It might be possible to suggest that it is not in the interest of large corporations to have it known that doing nothing with food is better for you than having them do things to it and then sell it on for a decent markup. If you were to believe that we live in societies where Governments treat corporate interest ahead of that of their general population of course.
tptacek 16y ago
No. It's referring to foods that have a relatively high glycemic index; those do include sugar (of all sorts) but also white rice, potatoes, juice, and most things made from any kind of flour.
jerf 16y ago
There are two possible things in the deep-frying that can be bad for you: Frying in transfats, and the batter. If you don't fry in transfats and are really gentle with the batter, instead of slathering it on, I actually don't see much reason to be concerned about deep-fat frying, under this theory of nutrition. That said, I tend to just saute or steam. Deep-fat frying is a lot of work for dubious reward. The rest, yes, assuming you mean full-sugar/full-HFCS soda. (Diet sodas may be bad, but I find the theories behind that to be a bit more theoretical than the I-think-proved danger of the full-sugar sodas.) You'd think in some sense that "easier to digest" would be a good thing, but it really turns out not to be. And you'd be surprised what all has sugar and HFCS in it. (I'm ambivalent about whether HFCS is worse for you than sugar or not; to be honest, the evidence for both is such that you really ought to almost entirely cut them out of your diet. As both meet that threshold, I consider arguing about which is worse to be mostly academic.)

weego 16y ago

Yes, for example unrefined pure granulated sugar has about half the glycemic index of white pure granulated sugar. Lots of places around the world use it (often called jaggeree or jaggery) in all kinds of cooking and they often use it so unrefined you have to boil it and skim off the impurities before adding it to the food. It might be possible to suggest that it is not in the interest of large corporations to have it known that doing nothing with food is better for you than having them do things to it and then sell it on for a decent markup. If you were to believe that we live in societies where Governments treat corporate interest ahead of that of their general population of course.

tptacek 16y ago

No. It's referring to foods that have a relatively high glycemic index; those do include sugar (of all sorts) but also white rice, potatoes, juice, and most things made from any kind of flour.

jerf 16y ago

There are two possible things in the deep-frying that can be bad for you: Frying in transfats, and the batter. If you don't fry in transfats and are really gentle with the batter, instead of slathering it on, I actually don't see much reason to be concerned about deep-fat frying, under this theory of nutrition. That said, I tend to just saute or steam. Deep-fat frying is a lot of work for dubious reward. The rest, yes, assuming you mean full-sugar/full-HFCS soda. (Diet sodas may be bad, but I find the theories behind that to be a bit more theoretical than the I-think-proved danger of the full-sugar sodas.) You'd think in some sense that "easier to digest" would be a good thing, but it really turns out not to be. And you'd be surprised what all has sugar and HFCS in it. (I'm ambivalent about whether HFCS is worse for you than sugar or not; to be honest, the evidence for both is such that you really ought to almost entirely cut them out of your diet. As both meet that threshold, I consider arguing about which is worse to be mostly academic.)