5 ms·

It's complicated because people don't want to cook. If you eat freshly cooked vegetables and WHOLE grains, what problem will you have? Another silly attempt a

by amalag 14y ago

It's complicated because people don't want to cook. If you eat freshly cooked vegetables and WHOLE grains, what problem will you have? Another silly attempt at "hacking" our bodies. Spare me.

mef 14y ago
It's assumptions like these that drive the need for rigorous nutritional science initiatives.
- amalag 14y ago
  So Michele Obama's attempt to counter obesity with exercise for children and healthy fresh cooked food needs to be examined rigorously through the lens of a nutritional science initiative? We might discover that exercise makes you more fat or fresh vegetables contain an unknown chemical which makes kids fat? Again people don't want to cook simple healthy food and are more interested in the next four hour body guru telling them that they can eat lots of meat and no grains or some other crazy thing.
  - frankus 14y ago
    I agree with your comments on the benefits of cooking as many meals as possible from scratch, and on the idea that it clearly was possible for people decades and centuries ago to avoid getting fat. So absent some pervasive non-dietary effect, we should be able to stay thin by eating like our grandparents. On the other hand, we don't want to be spending limited resources on things that don't solve the problem at hand. For instance, as the American Heart Association and American College of Sports Medicine stated: “It is reasonable to assume that persons with relatively high daily energy expenditures would be less likely to gain weight over time, compared with those who have low energy expenditures. So far, data to support this hypothesis are not particularly compelling.” If we tell people to go running during their lunch hour, and then they go eat at MacDonald's because they don't have time to cook, it's probably not helping the situation.
seiji 14y ago
WHOLE grains still aren't good for you. It's like the new soft drinks proudly advertising "Now with REAL Cane Sugar!" -- it's still horrible for you.
- amalag 14y ago
  Again spare me, someone has just 'discovered' grains are bad for you? What will they 'discover' next in the laboratory of nutrition? I'll take traditional ayurvedic knowledge over this 'rigorous nutritional science initiative' chaired by the four hour body guru. And i would rather eat a tablespoon of raw cane sugar than a tablespoon of bleached white sugar or laboratory grade high fructose corn syrup anyday. (we replaced white sugar with raw cane sugar in our house in spite of scientifically minded opinions that "it's till sugar") In my worldview we were not dumped blindly into this world to use our senses and scientific knowledge to discover a better world. There is much traditional knowledge that is not discovered, but rather given to us that i am happy to follow instead of trying to discover the next best thing to hack my body. I am not trying to be close minded, but I am doubting the efficacy of starting from scratch.
  - seiji 14y ago
    Ooops, sorry. I didn't realize I was engaging with someone kinda high on the Internet Crackpot Scale.
    - amalag 14y ago
      Yes because from my comments it is obvious I am delusional. I'll be sure to make sure my views coincide with your accepted world view before commenting next time.
      - will_work4tears 14y ago
        You don't believe in "evolution" Yep, delusional.
  - alecdibble 14y ago
bennesvig 14y ago
Whole grains aren't good for you, no matter how many companies promote it on their packaging. Grains cause insulin resistance, damage your gut, sap energy, and provoke your immune system. Yet, they are still in the USDA food pyramid, which is why research like this is so needed.
- nandemo 14y ago
  Can you provide some citations (studies) for that? I suppose there's some threshold below which it's healthy to eat whole grains.
skittles 14y ago
Maybe you can now tell from the responses: diet is complicated and there are open issues to resolve. Diet experimentation tends to attract money with an agenda. Some organization needs to try reproducing results from influential studies at the very least. I'd like to know if eating cholesterol is bad or if inflammatory foods is the actual culprit in plaque buildup in the arteries. I'd like to know if low carb diets are better or whole-grain diets. Both of these topics are debatable in the scientific community. Why do you think what you "know" is actually correct, and more importantly, why do you care if real science is done to prove you right (or wrong)?

by amalag 14y ago

It's complicated because people don't want to cook. If you eat freshly cooked vegetables and WHOLE grains, what problem will you have? Another silly attempt at "hacking" our bodies. Spare me.

mef 14y ago

It's assumptions like these that drive the need for rigorous nutritional science initiatives.

amalag 14y ago
So Michele Obama's attempt to counter obesity with exercise for children and healthy fresh cooked food needs to be examined rigorously through the lens of a nutritional science initiative? We might discover that exercise makes you more fat or fresh vegetables contain an unknown chemical which makes kids fat? Again people don't want to cook simple healthy food and are more interested in the next four hour body guru telling them that they can eat lots of meat and no grains or some other crazy thing.
- frankus 14y ago
  I agree with your comments on the benefits of cooking as many meals as possible from scratch, and on the idea that it clearly was possible for people decades and centuries ago to avoid getting fat. So absent some pervasive non-dietary effect, we should be able to stay thin by eating like our grandparents. On the other hand, we don't want to be spending limited resources on things that don't solve the problem at hand. For instance, as the American Heart Association and American College of Sports Medicine stated: “It is reasonable to assume that persons with relatively high daily energy expenditures would be less likely to gain weight over time, compared with those who have low energy expenditures. So far, data to support this hypothesis are not particularly compelling.” If we tell people to go running during their lunch hour, and then they go eat at MacDonald's because they don't have time to cook, it's probably not helping the situation.

seiji 14y ago

WHOLE grains still aren't good for you. It's like the new soft drinks proudly advertising "Now with REAL Cane Sugar!" -- it's still horrible for you.

amalag 14y ago
Again spare me, someone has just 'discovered' grains are bad for you? What will they 'discover' next in the laboratory of nutrition? I'll take traditional ayurvedic knowledge over this 'rigorous nutritional science initiative' chaired by the four hour body guru. And i would rather eat a tablespoon of raw cane sugar than a tablespoon of bleached white sugar or laboratory grade high fructose corn syrup anyday. (we replaced white sugar with raw cane sugar in our house in spite of scientifically minded opinions that "it's till sugar") In my worldview we were not dumped blindly into this world to use our senses and scientific knowledge to discover a better world. There is much traditional knowledge that is not discovered, but rather given to us that i am happy to follow instead of trying to discover the next best thing to hack my body. I am not trying to be close minded, but I am doubting the efficacy of starting from scratch.
- seiji 14y ago
  Ooops, sorry. I didn't realize I was engaging with someone kinda high on the Internet Crackpot Scale.
  - amalag 14y ago
    Yes because from my comments it is obvious I am delusional. I'll be sure to make sure my views coincide with your accepted world view before commenting next time.
    - will_work4tears 14y ago
      You don't believe in "evolution" Yep, delusional.
- alecdibble 14y ago

bennesvig 14y ago

Whole grains aren't good for you, no matter how many companies promote it on their packaging. Grains cause insulin resistance, damage your gut, sap energy, and provoke your immune system. Yet, they are still in the USDA food pyramid, which is why research like this is so needed.

nandemo 14y ago
Can you provide some citations (studies) for that? I suppose there's some threshold below which it's healthy to eat whole grains.

skittles 14y ago

Maybe you can now tell from the responses: diet is complicated and there are open issues to resolve. Diet experimentation tends to attract money with an agenda. Some organization needs to try reproducing results from influential studies at the very least. I'd like to know if eating cholesterol is bad or if inflammatory foods is the actual culprit in plaque buildup in the arteries. I'd like to know if low carb diets are better or whole-grain diets. Both of these topics are debatable in the scientific community. Why do you think what you "know" is actually correct, and more importantly, why do you care if real science is done to prove you right (or wrong)?