3 ms·
I'd go so far as to say that any claims of cereus types of foods being "healthier" are specious as well. As long as you're getting the required sustanence and n
by redwall_hp 13y ago
I'd go so far as to say that any claims of cereus types of foods being "healthier" are specious as well. As long as you're getting the required sustanence and not dying of anaphylaxis or whatever, you're good.
Everyone, even doctors, find a new food to demonize every few years, then flip and say it's the bet thing ever a decade later. Anyone remember when eggs were killing you? Or when the fad diet was low carbohydrate? Now eggs cure cancer and gluten is "literally Hitler."
Health nuts, as a rule, have no clue what they're talking about. They're just desperately looking for something to blame for their (or others') problems and using pseudoscience to justify it. (As for weight loss/gain, it's just simple thermodynamics. Caloric intake minus expenditure equals "duh.")
- yaketysax 13y ago"Everyone, even doctors, find a new food to demonize every few years, then flip and say it's the bet thing ever a decade later." Uh ya. New evidence comes to light, people change their minds. That's not necessarily a fault of the methodology.
- nl 13y agoI'd go so far as to say that any claims of cereus types of foods being "healthier" are specious as well. As long as you're getting the required sustanence and not dying of anaphylaxis or whatever, you're good. This is true, so far as it goes. But obesity is unhealthy, and some food types are much more likely to make people obese than others. Specifically, "foods" (in quotes because often the worst offenders are drinks) with high caloric density and low satiability mean people take on huge amounts of calories without feeling full.