4 ms·

>White bread in particular has no real nutritional value I've never understood this claim that a lot of people seem to make. There's plenty of starch and prote

>White bread in particular has no real nutritional value I've never understood this claim that a lot of people seem to make. There's plenty of starch and protein in it, two vital macronutrients. Same with the bizarre claim some people make about breakfast cereals, that you're better off eating the box it comes in. No, you're not, humans cannot digest cellulose.

forgotmypw 9y ago
If you consider that the cereals are made of wheat and corn that with traces of pesticides, sugar, synthetic ingredients, and so on, all of which cause health problems, the cardboard box starts to seem more appealing.
- autokad 9y ago
  considering i ate almost entirely cereal growing up and was much healthier than most of the people i grew up with, that claim is not worth its weight in font.
  - paulryanrogers 9y ago
    One data point? Are you sure most of the people you know were eating healthier than you?
    - LanceH 9y ago
      One is more than none.
      - bmurphy1976 9y ago
        One is a data point. You can draw any line you feel through it but that doesn't mean it's a trend. You need more data.
        pessimizer 9y ago
        It wasn't an argument about a trend. The question of whether you can drive a car by filling its gas tank with cola instead of gasoline is answered after you fill a car with cola instead of gasoline, then drive it. There's no need to establish a trend.
    - autokad 9y ago
      yes, having 0 nutrition would mean that i could not have possibly survived. and if you want to be in the group that thinks eating indigestible cardboard is a possibility because 'there wasnt enough data', have at it. you do realize, you dont need a ton of data in everything to draw conclusions.
- 0xfeba 9y ago
  Yeah... the cardboard not made for consumption is definitely safer.
- ctrl-j 9y ago
  > ...made of wheat and corn that with traces of pesticides, sugar, synthetic ingredients... Have you looked at what is in most of the things that are on grocery store shelves? > ...the cardboard box starts to seem more appealing. You go ahead and eat a cardboard box every morning for breakfast for a week and tell me how much better it was than a bowl of cereal. I'll wait.
- kahnpro 9y ago
  Aaaand have you considered all the shit that might be in that cardboard?
loudmax 9y ago
In the context of the article, I'm pretty sure this relates to nutritional value for ducks, not humans. Birds and people can eat a lot of the same food but our metabolisms are optimized very differently. I read one article that compared raising horses on a diet of corn to raising children on a diet of chocolate. After all, horses' metabolisms are optimized for extracting nutrition from grass. I would imagine ducks are on the opposite end of the spectrum.
- hycaria 9y ago
  It's more about having enough fiber, chewing and overall time spent eating (which is good both for their intestinal tract and their wellbeing) than about extracting nutrition from grass.
- M_Bakhtiari 9y ago
  Sure, I don't dispute the health risks of excessive starch and sugar consumption for either ducks, horses or children, but the nutritional value of starch and sugar is very real indeed. Animal cells rely on glucose as their primary source of energy, you can't get more real than that. I get what they intend to say, but when they use categorical language like that at least one word has to yield its actual meaning, whether it's 'nutrition', 'real' or 'value'. It's a bit like the Clintonian interpretation of 'is'.
  - ravenstine 9y ago
    You're making an assumption that because glucose is part of the process, it is essential to ingest it through sucrose, fructose, starches, etc. For humans at least, this isn't really the case as it's possible for the body to produce glucose from fat and protein when no polysaccharides are being ingested, and function normally and indefinitely doing so. Without water, vitamins, sodium, iron, etc., the body will experience problems it cannot compensate for. Starch(in general) is considered a nutrient, but not because it can be used to produce glucose.
    - M_Bakhtiari 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

forgotmypw 9y ago

If you consider that the cereals are made of wheat and corn that with traces of pesticides, sugar, synthetic ingredients, and so on, all of which cause health problems, the cardboard box starts to seem more appealing.

autokad 9y ago
considering i ate almost entirely cereal growing up and was much healthier than most of the people i grew up with, that claim is not worth its weight in font.
- paulryanrogers 9y ago
  One data point? Are you sure most of the people you know were eating healthier than you?
  - LanceH 9y ago
    One is more than none.
    - bmurphy1976 9y ago
      One is a data point. You can draw any line you feel through it but that doesn't mean it's a trend. You need more data.
      - pessimizer 9y ago
        It wasn't an argument about a trend. The question of whether you can drive a car by filling its gas tank with cola instead of gasoline is answered after you fill a car with cola instead of gasoline, then drive it. There's no need to establish a trend.
  - autokad 9y ago
    yes, having 0 nutrition would mean that i could not have possibly survived. and if you want to be in the group that thinks eating indigestible cardboard is a possibility because 'there wasnt enough data', have at it. you do realize, you dont need a ton of data in everything to draw conclusions.
0xfeba 9y ago
Yeah... the cardboard not made for consumption is definitely safer.
ctrl-j 9y ago
> ...made of wheat and corn that with traces of pesticides, sugar, synthetic ingredients... Have you looked at what is in most of the things that are on grocery store shelves? > ...the cardboard box starts to seem more appealing. You go ahead and eat a cardboard box every morning for breakfast for a week and tell me how much better it was than a bowl of cereal. I'll wait.
kahnpro 9y ago
Aaaand have you considered all the shit that might be in that cardboard?

loudmax 9y ago

In the context of the article, I'm pretty sure this relates to nutritional value for ducks, not humans. Birds and people can eat a lot of the same food but our metabolisms are optimized very differently. I read one article that compared raising horses on a diet of corn to raising children on a diet of chocolate. After all, horses' metabolisms are optimized for extracting nutrition from grass. I would imagine ducks are on the opposite end of the spectrum.

hycaria 9y ago
It's more about having enough fiber, chewing and overall time spent eating (which is good both for their intestinal tract and their wellbeing) than about extracting nutrition from grass.
M_Bakhtiari 9y ago
Sure, I don't dispute the health risks of excessive starch and sugar consumption for either ducks, horses or children, but the nutritional value of starch and sugar is very real indeed. Animal cells rely on glucose as their primary source of energy, you can't get more real than that. I get what they intend to say, but when they use categorical language like that at least one word has to yield its actual meaning, whether it's 'nutrition', 'real' or 'value'. It's a bit like the Clintonian interpretation of 'is'.
- ravenstine 9y ago
  You're making an assumption that because glucose is part of the process, it is essential to ingest it through sucrose, fructose, starches, etc. For humans at least, this isn't really the case as it's possible for the body to produce glucose from fat and protein when no polysaccharides are being ingested, and function normally and indefinitely doing so. Without water, vitamins, sodium, iron, etc., the body will experience problems it cannot compensate for. Starch(in general) is considered a nutrient, but not because it can be used to produce glucose.
  - M_Bakhtiari 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]