16 ms·
Non-GMO and organic is mostly BS of course, but it's a fact that refined carbs are cheap and plentiful, so the poor consume proportionally more of them. They si
by 0xbear 9y ago
Non-GMO and organic is mostly BS of course, but it's a fact that refined carbs are cheap and plentiful, so the poor consume proportionally more of them. They simply can't afford fruit and meat. This is in part because of the infinite shelf life of processed carbs, and in part because they're heavily subsidized by the government. Also, government dietary guidelines still push people towards relatively high carb diets, and snacking is encouraged from kindergarten and up, causing insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. The point being, the nutritional situation in the US is a clusterfuck, and GMO and organic stuff are kind of orthogonal to rectifying it.
- usaphp 9y ago> snacking is encouraged from kindergarten and up, causing insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. It's not snacking that is causing insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. Snacking is good if you eat healthy snacks.
- fratlas 9y agosnacking is bad? I thought it was good for your metabolism.
- sgift 9y agoNot really: https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/perils-snacking-hormonal-obesity-xiii/ https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/perils-snacking-hormo...
- majkinetor 9y agoContext really matters. With acid reflux, snacking is good.
- sgift 9y agoContext always matters, but the question was about metabolism. Acid reflux is a completely different matter.
- azureel 9y agoIf you mean nut, walnut, or apricot as snack: it's good. But Snickers is definitely not.
- edejong 9y agoWhat makes the fructose in your (selected for top sweetness over hundreds of generations) apricot so different from the fructose in the sucrose of your Snickers bar?
- Noxchi 9y agoThe difference has more to do with fiber, fats, and vitamin s
- edejong 9y agoVitamin S? You mean steroids? It's very difficult for a person eating normally to not get enough of their daily vitamin intake, so please specify the type.
- brucephillips 9y agoNot really. Most Americans are Vitamin D deficient, and about half are Magnesium deficient.
- minwcnt5 9y agoThe fiber and polyphenols in the whole fruit modulate the uptake of fructose in the gut.
- edejong 9y agoExcept that it has been selected over centuries for minimal fiber content. Quick Google search: apricots and Snickers both have 2% fiber content.
- 9y ago
- ky738 9y agoLook up intermittent fasting
- skrebbel 9y ago> They simply can't afford fruit and meat. Maybe this differs per area, but in most places i know, fruit is significantly cheaper than processed snacks. I can eat 4 apples for the price of one Mars bar.
- TeMPOraL 9y agoI've been hearing similar things for a time now, like e.g. poor people eating at McD because it's cheaper to get a caloric and macronutrient-full meal there than to assemble it from fruits and stuffs. This disagrees with my daily experience in Europe, so I conclude it's a US-specific thing.
- Swizec 9y ago> This disagrees with my daily experience in Europe, so I conclude it's a US-specific thing. It is. Having lived in both places, it's astounding how expensive good food is in the US and how cheap crap food can be. $1 for a single apple or for a McD burger? Tough choice. Add to that the fact that most of the US poor are time poor as well. Working 3 jobs and/ot commuting 3hrs per day doesn't leave a lot of time to prepare meals.
- AjithAntony 9y agoAgreed. In my midwest small town, the $1 apple isn't even the good apples. Bananas are preposterously cheap though. I'd still rather east two double cheeseburgers or two breakfast burritos than 5-6 bananas.
- Swizec 9y ago> I'd still rather east two double cheeseburgers or two breakfast burritos than 5-6 bananas. Probably healthier to eat two double cheeseburgers than 5-6 bananas too. Bananas are really really really packed with sugar. 14 grams per 100 calories (banana) versus 7 grams per 440 calories (McDonalds double cheeseburger). Now whether it's healthy to eat 800 calories for breakfast ... eh, probably not. But that's a different problem. Also depends on what you intend to do all day. Physical labor? Eat away. Sit at desk? Maybe try a quarter of a double cheeseburger instead :D
- siquick 9y ago>Non-GMO and organic is mostly BS of course< Can you expand on this?
- deepGem 9y agoThey simply can't afford fruit and meat. I'm not sure about meat but fruit is definitely affordable. Especially bananas and apples. Bananas are far cheaper than any other food. Yet, people snack on chips/crisps and other refined carbs.
- ouid 9y agoare you considering caloric efficiency? I love this list, but I doubt it's accurate to more than an factor of 2. http://efficiencyiseverything.com/calorie-per-dollar-list/ http://efficiencyiseverything.com/calorie-per-dollar-list/ Bananas are not a cost effective source of calories, have very little protein, and boast a fairly high glycemic index. basically, bananas are trash at being fruit.
- deepGem 9y agoValid. Bananas are however very high in potassium, moderately high in Magnesium and dietary fiber.
- Johnny_Brahms 9y agoFirst of all, this is discussion about people eating too many calories from bad food. Bananas probably beat most of the snacks otherwise discussed. And protein deficiency? A 70kg male needs something like 55g of protein (WHO figures) unless they exercise. You are not going to go below that unless you fill a substantial chunk of your calorie intake by eating pure fat. I eat a plant based diet and weigh about 67kg. On 2500kcal I get about 95-110g of protein, and that is without trying. Had I been a meat/milk eater, this number would have been higher. Protein intake is generally a problems if you are either starving or very serious about building LOTS ofta muscle.
- Toine 9y ago"Non-GMO and organic is mostly BS of course" Sources ? I got hundreds of studies proving the exact opposite if you want