5 ms·

>What's wrong with corn? it sucks as a cereal, nutritionally speaking, iirc, based on what I've read earlier. i could be wrong, but don't have time to check it

>What's wrong with corn? it sucks as a cereal, nutritionally speaking, iirc, based on what I've read earlier. i could be wrong, but don't have time to check it now. may check out millets and other alternative cereals instead of, or in addition to corn, wheat and rice. some of them are nutritionally or agriculturally superior.

adrian_b 2y ago
Nutritionally speaking, corn is an excellent source of energy. In many parts of the Earth, e.g. in Europe, maize a.k.a. corn and wheat are much cheaper energy sources than anything else and wheat and corn are about as cheap. Wheat may be preferable to corn only because it has a double amount of proteins, so it can also be used to provide a big part of the daily intake in proteins, if it is supplemented with at least another source of proteins that is rich in lysine. However, wheat is more suspicious from the point of view of its health effects, so when the absolute minimum cost for the daily food is not the target, corn might be the best energy source in food. The bulk of the food that is needed daily is required for providing energy and corn can do that at a minimal cost and it can be cooked into tasty food. The rest of the food must provide proteins, essential fatty acids, vitamins and minerals, but much less amounts are needed for that. So corn is perfect nutritionally for its right purpose. Obviously it cannot be the only kind of food that is eaten. Except for energy (i.e. starch), most cereals do not contain anything in sufficient amounts to be an adequate source of it. Wheat is an exception by having a useful amount of protein, which is however harder to digest than most other proteins and the undigested fragments may have undesirable effects. Only oats has a higher protein content than wheat, but oats is much more expensive, so it is not really competitive from this point of view. Therefore it makes no sense to claim that corn is worse nutritionally than other cereals, because it is better than most (except possibly rice, which cannot be cultivated in the places where corn is grown) at the only thing for which cereals are really good: providing energy.
- fuzztester 2y ago
  dang (pun intended), this sounds like the tone of an llm, including hallucinations, which are just an euphemism for factual errors, so I'll send it to another llm to verify, before I reply. :) did you see what I did there? :)
  - adrian_b 2y ago
    If you dispute anything that I have said, present your arguments and point to the hallucinations. Vague ad hominem accusations are useless. The only factual error is what you have written "it sucks as a cereal, nutritionally speaking".
    - fuzztester 2y ago
      Why should I, when you talk utter crap? Anyway, I did that (replied) already, once. See my other reply to you, here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41967220 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41967220
- fuzztester 2y ago
  Wow. Whether you pasted LLM content or your own, so much is wrong about what you said (in such a confident tone), including logical, English usage, and scientific / factual errors, that I do not want to argue more, except to leave you with this link to peruse, and another sentence or two below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41957679 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41957679 That link was of a reply by me to another comment(er) in this same overall thread. Make sure to see my own reply to my own comment, at the link below the link given, and in particular, the Wikipedia links given there, about the nutritional value of various food items discussed here. Now, that sentence or two that I mentioned above: Factual error: near the top of your comment, you say that wheat has about twice the protein of corn (maize). Wheat actually has more than three times the protein of maize - as a ratio. It also has a lot of other nutritional value. See the relevant Wikipedia articles that I linked. And in an absolute sense, it makes even more of a difference, because maize is below 3.5 grams, and wheat is above 12.5 grams in protein. So wheat has 9 grams more protein per 100 grams, than corn / maize. That makes a hell of a lot of difference to poor people, or others, who cannot afford or do not want to eat meat, for religious, cultural, ethical or other reasons. And there are an increasing number of people in the west or in "developed" countries who are becoming vegetarian for ethical or climate reasons. The founder of Y Combinator, and of this site, Hacker News, Paul Graham, also became vegetarian some time ago. When asked why, by someone, he replied, "I was grossed out by factory farming". See his reply here, 17 years ago, via this search: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=pg%20grossed%20out%20factory%20farming&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=58051 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=58051 "It wasn't a deliberate choice. I just got grossed out by factory farming." Factual error, or almost: in your last paragraph, you say that corn is an excellent source of energy. Much less than wheat: Corn / maize: less than 17 grams carbs per 100 grams. Wheat: more than 71 grams carbs per 100 grams. Again, see the same relevant, linked, Wikipedia articles about maize and wheat for proof. My calculator tells me that 71/17 is over 4x. Fat content in both is so low as to not matter. And carbohydrates have 4 calories per gram, while fats have 9 calories per gram. So should we all just eat fats only, for energy? Of course not. There is much more to nutrition than just energy or protein or fat or whatever.
  - 2y ago
biorach 2y ago
> iirc, based on what I've read earlier. i could be wrong, but don't have time to check it now. Please, if all you've got is a vague recollection of stuff you read ages ago just don't comment at all. You're just adding noise
- fuzztester 2y ago
  Please don't add misinformation. >if all you've got is a vague recollection of stuff you read ages ago I didnt say "vague", you added that. Kindly don't. And I said "earlier", not "ages ago". That "earlier" could span a wide range of times ago. How did you manage to make the jump from my "earlier" to your wrong interpretation, "ages ago? That is sloppy / inaccurate thinking / writing. In fact, it sounds more like misrepresentation than misinformation, which is even worse. Don't do it.
  - biorach 2y ago
    "vague" is an accurate description of your comment. You can get as defensive as you want but you're just adding more noise
    - fuzztester 2y ago
      Ha ha. Clearly (not vaguely, ha ha, pun intended), you can't think clearly, and you are inaccurate in saying that 'vague" is an accurate description of your comment'. (Howdja like my wordplay up there? ;) Dude (as in dude on a dude ranch, meaning a rank newbie), take a piece of advice: don't try to punch above your level, or, in other words, don't bring a knife to a gun fight. Your arguments are pathetic and fake. And, as a knockout blow: I noticed that you avoided replying to my above point about my use of "earlier" vs. your absurdly wrong (or intentionally fake) interpretation of it as "ages ago". That was either stupid or cowardly of you. End of this subthread for me. I don't waste my time arguing with fakes and cowards. Rant on, if you like, into /dev/null.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
crazygringo 2y ago
> it sucks as a cereal, nutritionally speaking, iirc, based on what I've read earlier. i could be wrong You are wrong. Sorry. I can't even imagine where you could have read that. I would rebut you with actual facts, but since you haven't given any information to rebut, there's nothing for me to say except that you've been misinformed.
- fuzztester 2y ago
  I like your style of reply. It is at least somewhat more sensible than that of another one in this subthread (from the guy who misinterpreted my words, and talked about my "noise", ha ha). But it is not quite sensible enough, in this case. Do you really need information from me to rebut, when you can so easily look up relevant words like corn (maize), wheat, rice, millets, and balanced diet, to name just a few of the words / terms I talked about, in Google or other search engines, and particularly in Wikipedia? The Wikipedia articles for many such common human food items often includes a table of nutrient names and corresponding percentages for that food item, such as for the percentage of carbohydrates, proteins, fats, vitamins and minerals, by needed daily value (DV), with a citation to the USDA article on the same subject. Those are hard facts, not my opinions. Check them out, then come back and talk.
  - fuzztester 2y ago
    Okay, I didn't talk about balanced diet earlier, but I did, now. That is the one of the most important points in my argument above, about why corn sucks nutritionally. Of course, I did not mean that it is totally useless. Obviously it has some nutrients, just like any other food item has. Maybe I should have mentioned that earlier, in my first comment in this subthread. I did not mention balanced diet, because I kind of thought that all educated people would know what that means and what it's constituents are - such as carbohydrates, proteins, fats, vitamins, minerals, Just compare the nutrition from corn (maize) with the nutrition from some of the other food items I mentioned, in said Wikipedia articles. Here you go, I'm pasting some relevant links below: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorghum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorghum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_millet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_millet And there are some more millets. Google them. Also, for vegetarians (who don't eat meat in any form, land or sea based), which is hundreds of millions of people in the world, due to culture or religion or lower income), legumes are equally important, along with cereals, to give the proper balance of essential amino acids needed to make the needed protein for our bodies. Google "essential amino acids" and "complete protein" topics. And I have only scratched the surface of the subject of nutrition. I am by no means an expert. I am just a beginner, who has an interest in the subject, for my own personal use, and to share any info I pick up, with friends. You're welcome :) ;).

adrian_b 2y ago

Nutritionally speaking, corn is an excellent source of energy. In many parts of the Earth, e.g. in Europe, maize a.k.a. corn and wheat are much cheaper energy sources than anything else and wheat and corn are about as cheap. Wheat may be preferable to corn only because it has a double amount of proteins, so it can also be used to provide a big part of the daily intake in proteins, if it is supplemented with at least another source of proteins that is rich in lysine. However, wheat is more suspicious from the point of view of its health effects, so when the absolute minimum cost for the daily food is not the target, corn might be the best energy source in food. The bulk of the food that is needed daily is required for providing energy and corn can do that at a minimal cost and it can be cooked into tasty food. The rest of the food must provide proteins, essential fatty acids, vitamins and minerals, but much less amounts are needed for that. So corn is perfect nutritionally for its right purpose. Obviously it cannot be the only kind of food that is eaten. Except for energy (i.e. starch), most cereals do not contain anything in sufficient amounts to be an adequate source of it. Wheat is an exception by having a useful amount of protein, which is however harder to digest than most other proteins and the undigested fragments may have undesirable effects. Only oats has a higher protein content than wheat, but oats is much more expensive, so it is not really competitive from this point of view. Therefore it makes no sense to claim that corn is worse nutritionally than other cereals, because it is better than most (except possibly rice, which cannot be cultivated in the places where corn is grown) at the only thing for which cereals are really good: providing energy.

fuzztester 2y ago
dang (pun intended), this sounds like the tone of an llm, including hallucinations, which are just an euphemism for factual errors, so I'll send it to another llm to verify, before I reply. :) did you see what I did there? :)
- adrian_b 2y ago
  If you dispute anything that I have said, present your arguments and point to the hallucinations. Vague ad hominem accusations are useless. The only factual error is what you have written "it sucks as a cereal, nutritionally speaking".
  - fuzztester 2y ago
    Why should I, when you talk utter crap? Anyway, I did that (replied) already, once. See my other reply to you, here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41967220 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41967220
fuzztester 2y ago
Wow. Whether you pasted LLM content or your own, so much is wrong about what you said (in such a confident tone), including logical, English usage, and scientific / factual errors, that I do not want to argue more, except to leave you with this link to peruse, and another sentence or two below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41957679 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41957679 That link was of a reply by me to another comment(er) in this same overall thread. Make sure to see my own reply to my own comment, at the link below the link given, and in particular, the Wikipedia links given there, about the nutritional value of various food items discussed here. Now, that sentence or two that I mentioned above: Factual error: near the top of your comment, you say that wheat has about twice the protein of corn (maize). Wheat actually has more than three times the protein of maize - as a ratio. It also has a lot of other nutritional value. See the relevant Wikipedia articles that I linked. And in an absolute sense, it makes even more of a difference, because maize is below 3.5 grams, and wheat is above 12.5 grams in protein. So wheat has 9 grams more protein per 100 grams, than corn / maize. That makes a hell of a lot of difference to poor people, or others, who cannot afford or do not want to eat meat, for religious, cultural, ethical or other reasons. And there are an increasing number of people in the west or in "developed" countries who are becoming vegetarian for ethical or climate reasons. The founder of Y Combinator, and of this site, Hacker News, Paul Graham, also became vegetarian some time ago. When asked why, by someone, he replied, "I was grossed out by factory farming". See his reply here, 17 years ago, via this search: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=pg%20grossed%20out%20factory%20farming&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=58051 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=58051 "It wasn't a deliberate choice. I just got grossed out by factory farming." Factual error, or almost: in your last paragraph, you say that corn is an excellent source of energy. Much less than wheat: Corn / maize: less than 17 grams carbs per 100 grams. Wheat: more than 71 grams carbs per 100 grams. Again, see the same relevant, linked, Wikipedia articles about maize and wheat for proof. My calculator tells me that 71/17 is over 4x. Fat content in both is so low as to not matter. And carbohydrates have 4 calories per gram, while fats have 9 calories per gram. So should we all just eat fats only, for energy? Of course not. There is much more to nutrition than just energy or protein or fat or whatever.
- 2y ago

biorach 2y ago

> iirc, based on what I've read earlier. i could be wrong, but don't have time to check it now. Please, if all you've got is a vague recollection of stuff you read ages ago just don't comment at all. You're just adding noise

fuzztester 2y ago
Please don't add misinformation. >if all you've got is a vague recollection of stuff you read ages ago I didnt say "vague", you added that. Kindly don't. And I said "earlier", not "ages ago". That "earlier" could span a wide range of times ago. How did you manage to make the jump from my "earlier" to your wrong interpretation, "ages ago? That is sloppy / inaccurate thinking / writing. In fact, it sounds more like misrepresentation than misinformation, which is even worse. Don't do it.
- biorach 2y ago
  "vague" is an accurate description of your comment. You can get as defensive as you want but you're just adding more noise
  - fuzztester 2y ago
    Ha ha. Clearly (not vaguely, ha ha, pun intended), you can't think clearly, and you are inaccurate in saying that 'vague" is an accurate description of your comment'. (Howdja like my wordplay up there? ;) Dude (as in dude on a dude ranch, meaning a rank newbie), take a piece of advice: don't try to punch above your level, or, in other words, don't bring a knife to a gun fight. Your arguments are pathetic and fake. And, as a knockout blow: I noticed that you avoided replying to my above point about my use of "earlier" vs. your absurdly wrong (or intentionally fake) interpretation of it as "ages ago". That was either stupid or cowardly of you. End of this subthread for me. I don't waste my time arguing with fakes and cowards. Rant on, if you like, into /dev/null.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

crazygringo 2y ago

> it sucks as a cereal, nutritionally speaking, iirc, based on what I've read earlier. i could be wrong You are wrong. Sorry. I can't even imagine where you could have read that. I would rebut you with actual facts, but since you haven't given any information to rebut, there's nothing for me to say except that you've been misinformed.

fuzztester 2y ago
I like your style of reply. It is at least somewhat more sensible than that of another one in this subthread (from the guy who misinterpreted my words, and talked about my "noise", ha ha). But it is not quite sensible enough, in this case. Do you really need information from me to rebut, when you can so easily look up relevant words like corn (maize), wheat, rice, millets, and balanced diet, to name just a few of the words / terms I talked about, in Google or other search engines, and particularly in Wikipedia? The Wikipedia articles for many such common human food items often includes a table of nutrient names and corresponding percentages for that food item, such as for the percentage of carbohydrates, proteins, fats, vitamins and minerals, by needed daily value (DV), with a citation to the USDA article on the same subject. Those are hard facts, not my opinions. Check them out, then come back and talk.
- fuzztester 2y ago
  Okay, I didn't talk about balanced diet earlier, but I did, now. That is the one of the most important points in my argument above, about why corn sucks nutritionally. Of course, I did not mean that it is totally useless. Obviously it has some nutrients, just like any other food item has. Maybe I should have mentioned that earlier, in my first comment in this subthread. I did not mention balanced diet, because I kind of thought that all educated people would know what that means and what it's constituents are - such as carbohydrates, proteins, fats, vitamins, minerals, Just compare the nutrition from corn (maize) with the nutrition from some of the other food items I mentioned, in said Wikipedia articles. Here you go, I'm pasting some relevant links below: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorghum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorghum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_millet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_millet And there are some more millets. Google them. Also, for vegetarians (who don't eat meat in any form, land or sea based), which is hundreds of millions of people in the world, due to culture or religion or lower income), legumes are equally important, along with cereals, to give the proper balance of essential amino acids needed to make the needed protein for our bodies. Google "essential amino acids" and "complete protein" topics. And I have only scratched the surface of the subject of nutrition. I am by no means an expert. I am just a beginner, who has an interest in the subject, for my own personal use, and to share any info I pick up, with friends. You're welcome :) ;).