3 ms·

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 s

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
  >You're making an assumption that because glucose is part of the process, it is essential to ingest it through sucrose, fructose, starches, etc. No, that's not what I'm assuming or implying. I'm saying because starch is a highly efficient source of glucose, it has nutritional value. Nobody who are saying citrus fruits have nutritional value because they are high in vitamin C are implying it's essential to ingest vitamin C through citrus fruits. You can't blame a lemon for not being the exclusive source of vitamin C, neither can you blame white bread for not being the only way to increase your blood sugar. >Starch(in general) is considered a nutrient, but not because it can be used to produce glucose. What else is it good for but to be converted into glucose?
xkcd-sucks 9y ago
"nutritional value" is shorthand for "practical nutritional value in this context"

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
>You're making an assumption that because glucose is part of the process, it is essential to ingest it through sucrose, fructose, starches, etc. No, that's not what I'm assuming or implying. I'm saying because starch is a highly efficient source of glucose, it has nutritional value. Nobody who are saying citrus fruits have nutritional value because they are high in vitamin C are implying it's essential to ingest vitamin C through citrus fruits. You can't blame a lemon for not being the exclusive source of vitamin C, neither can you blame white bread for not being the only way to increase your blood sugar. >Starch(in general) is considered a nutrient, but not because it can be used to produce glucose. What else is it good for but to be converted into glucose?

xkcd-sucks 9y ago

"nutritional value" is shorthand for "practical nutritional value in this context"