6 ms·
This kind of article seems to ignore the fact that almost everyone eats poorly. "Poorly" is relative. Most Westerners suffer no deficiencies, and are unhealthy
by corresation 13y ago
This kind of article seems to ignore the fact that almost everyone eats poorly.
"Poorly" is relative. Most Westerners suffer no deficiencies, and are unhealthy more from a lack of activity and excess intake. This turns people mystical about their food, as if finding the magic elixir will cure lifestyle issues (such as the current hysterics about carbs: The Japanese get 70%+ of their calories from very simple carbs -- white rice, which is of a nutrition profile closely related to table sugar -- and they have marginal obesity and excellent health profiles. They just eat less of it and maintain active lives).
There is the paradox that the US is one of the least healthy people's, yet one of the most absolutely obsessed about their food.
A Big Mac has an enormously complex nutritional profile, as hard as that may be to imagine. An egg and a slice of bread is a superfood. Both have been maligned because of excess or sedentary lifestyles, but either in moderation can be an ideal part of your diet.
Nonetheless, I dislike the linked article: It attacks Soylent mostly from a defensive, elitist attitude that tries to hold information freedom as some sort of anti-intellectualism. While there are legitimate complaints about Soylent (and I don't think "everyone is different!" is a good approach), it seems like the creator(s) are trying to find the relevant information, and trying to use the accumulated knowledge of nutritionist. Just because they didn't classically train as a nutritionist does not invalidate their work.
- magnusson 13y agoWhite rice is a starch, which is a complex carb, and does not have "a nutrition profile closely related to table sugar." Other than that, this is on-target. All of longest-lived populations eat primarily carb-based diets.
- corresation 13y agoWhite rice has a GI of 64 and is essentially a pure carbohydrate. Table sugar has a GI of 68 and is a pure carbohydrate. The two have very similar behavior in the body, so while they may be compositionally very different, as an energy source and insulin response source they are almost interchangeable, no?
- joemaller1 13y agoThere's no fructose in white rice and fructose has virtually no GI (GI being a measure of glucose). Table sugar may have the same glucose load as white rice, but by weight it contains an equal amount of fructose thats headed straight to the liver.
- magnusson 13y agohttp://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/cereal-grains-and-pasta/5712/2 http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/cereal-grains-and-pasta/... http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/sweets/5606/2 http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/sweets/5606/2
- corresation 13y agoI'm not sure what you think those links demonstrate: Do you suppose that someone makes a choice between a cup of sugar/syrup/etc, or a cup of prepared rice (ergo, 75% water)? White rice is 90%+ very simple carbohydrates. It has a glycemic impact on your body extremely similar to straight sugar, from a gram to gram (of carbs) perspective. Now as the other poster mentioned there's the matter of fructose, though that is an area that has a little too much pseudo-science right now (it has become the new boogyman).