 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / January 2007experts make me sick
Was watching the telly the other day. A British program came on. Showed a grossly overweight woman in her skivvies. Not a pretty sight. Then as they explained how desperate she was to lose weight along with her two chubby young daughters and her husband, they showed little scenes of the failiy eating potato chips, then twinkies, then soda, then an ice cream bar, then they showed her piling onto the entire half of a dinner plate a huge mound of mashed potatoes about 2 1/2 to 3 inches high alongside what looked like oven baked english style french fries on the same plate. Then they cut to an "expert", obviously a nutritionist or a dietitian. She looked around the kitchen and peered into a 150 lb bag of huge potatoes. She says, "why do you need so many potatoes?", then she says (I kid you not), "I don't see anything wrong with potatoes, but I am afraid that you may be fattening them up too much." That is when I changed the channel. I can't stand such stupidity from "experts" anymore. TC > Was watching the telly the other day. A British program came on. Showed > a grossly overweight woman in her skivvies. Not a pretty sight. Then as [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > TC I sometimes have a hard time following your logic, TC. I believe your approach to food is based on two paradigms - "natural food", plus anti-carb. And what gets defined as natural food is a bit up to your whim. For example, you are a proponent of drinking whole cow's milk, which some could easily argue is "unnatural" for human consumption. So that brings us to the lowly potato. A "tuber" if I"m not mistaken, which any of our paleolithic ancestors might have eaten as part of the "gathering" side of the "hunter/gather" equation. What could be more natural? On the other hand, it's a complex carb, and as I said, you appear to think carbs are evil. So are you saying anti-carb trumps "natural" in the case of the pomme de terre? Eric > > Was watching the telly the other day. A British program came on. Showed > > a grossly overweight woman in her skivvies. Not a pretty sight. Then as [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > cow's milk, which some could easily argue is "unnatural" for human > consumption. One could suggest that eating virtually anything could be unnatural in some way. Cyanide and LSD are naturally occurring, but I would not recommend either as a food. Where I'm coming from should be crystal clear by now. Eat real food that contains real nutrition. The real nutrients being the water soluble vitamins, the fat soluble vitamins, the minerals, clean water, fresh air and sunshine. These real nutrients come from real food like properly raised animals, seafood, and the freshest and best produce available. And, of course, the flip side is to avoid fake manufactured overly-processed things being masqueraded as food. > So that brings us to the lowly potato. A "tuber" if I"m not mistaken, > which any of our paleolithic ancestors might have eaten as part of the > "gathering" side of the "hunter/gather" equation. What could be more > natural? On the other hand, it's a complex carb, and as I said, you > appear to think carbs are evil. Read what I wrote. You missed one teensy little detail. The program showed the lady filling an entire half of a dinner plate with about three inches deep of mashed potatoes. The plate was full to the rim. Must've been at least a pound and a half of potatoes. On one plate. And alongside that was what appeared to be english style chips. Then they showed other little clips of the family eating 1) potato chips, 2) twinkies (or something like it), 3) ice cream, 4) pasta (which I did not mention in the original post), 5) and soda. > So are you saying anti-carb trumps "natural" in the case of the pomme > de terre? > > Eric So what I am saying is that no-one needs a 150 lb bag of potatoes unless they have a root cellar so that they will last six months. You cannot live on potatoes and not expect to gain weight. Regardless of how "whole food" starchy tubers are, you eat 5 lbs a day and you will be fat. And my point was that the "expert" seems to be worried about the fat being added to the 5 lbs of potatoes she was eating per day. TC >The real nutrients being the water >soluble vitamins, the fat soluble vitamins, the minerals, clean water, >fresh air and sunshine. Pardon my interuption, but have you not forgotten the most important nutrients, energy, and the amino acids from protein? jack > >The real nutrients being the water > >soluble vitamins, the fat soluble vitamins, the minerals, clean water, > >fresh air and sunshine. > > Pardon my interuption, but have you not forgotten the most important > nutrients, energy, and the amino acids from protein? jack Energy is not a nutrient. And yes, amino acids, fatty acids, etc are nutrients. TC >> >The real nutrients being the water >> >soluble vitamins, the fat soluble vitamins, the minerals, clean water, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Energy is not a nutrient. Well not strictly, but that is only a semantic oddity. The body needs energy, amino acids, and a bunch of micronutrients. It also needs water, and oxygen and food-fibre, the last three also not usually classified as nutrients. You mentioned "water soluble vitamins, the fat soluble vitamins, the minerals, clean water, fresh air and sunshine" as being "the real nutrients". Strictly speaking, the last three are not regarded as nutrients either, but I agree that they probably should be. My only quibble with you here was your omission of the energy-providing macronutrients and a source of nitrogen for protein. >And yes, amino acids, fatty acids, etc are nutrients. As are carbohydrates. Energy being arguably the most important of the body's daily needs. jack > >> >The real nutrients being the water > >> >soluble vitamins, the fat soluble vitamins, the minerals, clean water, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Well not strictly, but that is only a semantic oddity. The body needs No it is a physical reality. Energy is extracted from food. But it is not a nutrient. Just like fire is not animal, vegetable nor mineral. Energy is not a nutrient. > energy, amino acids, and a bunch of micronutrients. > It also needs water, and oxygen and food-fibre, the last three also > not usually classified as nutrients. Water and oxygen are nutrients, same as sunlight. Food fibre is part of the natural formation of plant based foods. The bosy does not use fibre to sustain itself, therfore it is not a nutrient. > You mentioned "water soluble vitamins, the fat soluble vitamins, the > minerals, clean water, fresh air and sunshine" as being "the real [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > As are carbohydrates. Energy being arguably the most important of the > body's daily needs. jack Bu here is the crux. The body can create needed glucose from non-carb foods such as meats. And it can and does extract all the energy it needs from these foods. Inuits used to survive for up to 8 or 9 months eating almost entirely raw fish without negative health effects. There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate. But there is such a thing as essential amino acids, as well as essential fatty acids. And in your topsy-turvy world, it appears that restricting all animal-sourced nutrition is just fine, thank you very much, but heaven forbid anyone suggest that we can do without one small nutritient-deficient sub-section of our food supply, grains. Then we are called lifestyle food cultists and radicals. The non-essential is essential in your world and the essential can be omitted. TC >> >> >The real nutrients being the water >> >> >soluble vitamins, the fat soluble vitamins, the minerals, clean water, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >No it is a physical reality. Energy is extracted from food. Just like amino acids, and water and vitamins are extracted from food? >But it is >not a nutrient. But can you not see, that that depends on what you mean by the word nutrient. If you define nutrient as being a, b and c, then by definition, d is not a nutrient. If you change your definition to include d, then d is a nutrient. I tend to like to be inclusive with things like energy, water and fibre, and even sunlight at a stretch. Instead of nutrient, you could use requirement, if you like. >Just like fire is not animal, vegetable nor mineral. Only because it can be composed of all three, but why confound a mixture with a single entity? >Energy is not a nutrient. OK, if you feel that strongly about it. It's a bodily requirement then. >> energy, amino acids, and a bunch of micronutrients. >> It also needs water, and oxygen and food-fibre, the last three also >> not usually classified as nutrients. >Water and oxygen are nutrients, same as sunlight. Food fibre is part of >the natural formation of plant based foods. The bosy does not use fibre >to sustain itself, therfore it is not a nutrient. How is sunlight a nutrient in your narrow definition? What is gained from water? Some animals don't need water. >> You mentioned "water soluble vitamins, the fat soluble vitamins, the >> minerals, clean water, fresh air and sunshine" as being "the real [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Bu here is the crux. The body can create needed glucose from non-carb >foods such as meats. Surely this shows how important glucose is to the proper functioning of the body. Yet some things cannot be sythesised from other nutrients and so MUST be ingested (vitamins and so on) >And it can and does extract all the energy it >needs from these foods. Inuits used to survive for up to 8 or 9 months >eating almost entirely raw fish without negative health effects. Shows how veratile the human body is. This is a bit like the being able to exist on milk and potatoes. I'm sure there would be many other unusually restrictive diets that could theoretically sustain life, but then what great achievements did these subsistence communities have? Many were on the verge of dying out, and often did with minor climate changes. I don't quite see your point. You appear to be saying that because human s can subsist on this or that restricted diet, then that is all everyone should eat. Did something nasty happen to you behind the grain silo when you were a child? :=) >There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate. Possibly, perhaqps there are a few that are very desirable in small amounts. >But there is such >a thing as essential amino acids, Only some amino acids are essential. Does that mean we shouldn't eat the others? But there is not an essential protein. And all these essential AAs occur in plant seeds. Go figure. >as well as essential fatty acids. Well, a few milligrams a day of a fat that is unavoidable in a largely whole grain diet >And >in your topsy-turvy world, it appears that restricting all >animal-sourced nutrition is just fine, thank you very much, but heaven >forbid anyone suggest that we can do without one small >nutritient-deficient sub-section of our food supply, grains. Who said you can't do without grains? What nutrient are they deficient in? Western humans arguably eat too much. If they eat too much of one sort of food, then arguably that would be a good place to start the reduction process, and then if they eat too much high energy density food (fats, oils) then that is also a very effective place to start, surely. Let me try a choative analogy: Say large trucks are being filled with demoligtion waste, and they are found to be being overfilled (weightwise) The place to reduce would surely be the heavy scoops, like rocks and bricks, rather than the lighter stuff like lumber and branches. Does this make sense? >Then we >are called lifestyle food cultists and radicals. The non-essential is >essential in your world and the essential can be omitted. What is this "my world"? I can see no reasons so far demonstrated to change from a diet including all the available fresh foods. If you personally restrict grain foods from your diet due to some health problem, then good luck to you. If you have some problem with normal folk eating some whole grains, then please let me know the reasons. I'm very willing to learn. jack > But can you not see, that that depends on what you mean by the word > nutrient. Well, dictionaries define words and remind us of their origin. nutrient 1650 (adj.), "providing nourishment," from L. nutrientem (nom. nutriens), prp. of nutrire "nourish." [Online Etymology Dictionary] Carbohydrate does provide nourishment to the body (even too much, sometimes! ;) Therefore it's a "nutrient". >> But can you not see, that that depends on what you mean by the word >> nutrient. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Carbohydrate does provide nourishment to the body (even too much, >sometimes! ;) Therefore it's a "nutrient". I agree, Enrico, but whoever it is I'm arguing with seems to want to be restrictive in his definition of nutrient on the one hand (energy is not a nutrient) yet liberal on the other hand (Sunlight is a nutrient). BTW, dictionaries merely reflect how the majority of educated speakers (in the group the dictionary serves), use the word. Yes, they are prescriptive with spelling, but that's a whole nother matter. jack >So what I am saying is that no-one needs a 150 lb bag of potatoes >unless they have a root cellar so that they will last six months. You [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >And my point was that the "expert" seems to be worried about the fat >being added to the 5 lbs of potatoes she was eating per day. Pardon another intrusion, but: Potatoes have ~ 80 calories per 100 grams That would make about 1600 cal in 2 kg, say 1800 cal in 5 lb. Add a splash of milk and a few ounces of say tinned salmon/tuna, and you have a pretty good days nutrition. And I read somewhere recently that mashed potato was pretty good at fixing hunger. I don't quite see where you are coming from here. Unless you do very little, you shouldn't get fat on this. Of course, it would be wise to vary this each day. And give up the other high calorie foods. jack http://www.healthypotato.com/downloads/04_Potato%20Nutrition%20Label.JPG > >So what I am saying is that no-one needs a 150 lb bag of potatoes > >unless they have a root cellar so that they will last six months. You [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Add a splash of milk and a few ounces of say tinned salmon/tuna, and > you have a pretty good days nutrition. Actually no. Calories does NOT equate to nutrition. Calories are a measure of potential energy. Potential energy is not a nutrient. Get this nonsense out of your head now. > And I read somewhere recently > that mashed potato was pretty good at fixing hunger. I don't quite see [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.healthypotato.com/downloads/04_Potato%20Nutrition%20Label.JPG Potatoes cooked and prepared properly, consumed in moderation, and in conjunction with other nutrient rich foods, are not a bad addition to ones diet. But potatoes, improperly prepared, consumed in huge amounts, and in the absence of other nutrient dense foods, is not a good thing for weight management or health or grenral nutrition. The Irish know how to prepare potatoes. First you STEAM them with the SKINS on. Then you mash them with copious amounts of fresh real butter and fresh real full-fat cream. The fat slows down the absorption of the starches and prevents massive blood glucose spikes as well as satiating you well before you can eat 1 1/2 lbs at one sitting. The full-fat cream and butter also brings some good nutrients to the meal. Potatoes consumed at every meal in huge amounts without added fats, and with the nutrients peeled off and boiled out of it, is just one big constant low-nutrient high-carb blood-sugar-spike kicking your endocrine system into a constant state of active fat storage. Even good food can be completely f.cked up by poor preparation and a poor understanding of basic time-honoured cooking methodology. That is why I don't take food or cooking advice from lab-coat wearing advanced degree pinheads with clipboards. Traditional cookbooks contain more wisdom in a single recipe than todays modern science contains in an entire scientific journal. TC Seems like the writer TC was originally saying the expert neglected all the junk food the family was consuming. At least that is what I read, but I do not read that well. I am just surfing...no response is necessary. I may never get back here again. > Seems like the writer TC was originally saying the expert neglected all > the junk food the family was consuming. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I am just surfing...no response is necessary. I may never get back > here again. You are right. But you missed the main point which is that all the junk food is carb heavy junk foods, and the "expert" ignores the carb heavy junk food and is ok with 150 lbs of potatoes, but heaven forbid a little fat on the potatoes. TC > --WebTV-Mail-2500-1956 > Content-Description: signature [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > --WebTV-Mail-2500-1956-- >> Seems like the writer TC was originally saying the expert neglected all >> the junk food the family was consuming. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >junk food and is ok with 150 lbs of potatoes, but heaven forbid a >little fat on the potatoes. A little fat is fine, but when one is consuming too many calories, one would surely look to the most concentrated source of that energy to cut down first. Many of those snackfoods mentioned (they could all well be cut) contain more fat calories than carb calories. and then there is a good case to cut excess fat from the potatoes when too many calories are being consumed. Mashed potato mashed with a little fat free milk is a fine and satisfying low calorie food containing many valuable micronutrients. Obviously, if still too many calories for the body's needs are being consumed, this could be reduced as well, but only after the empty calories are cut from the diet. jack > >> Seems like the writer TC was originally saying the expert neglected all > >> the junk food the family was consuming. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > cut down first. Many of those snackfoods mentioned (they could all > well be cut) contain more fat calories than carb calories. and then actually no. > there is a good case to cut excess fat from the potatoes when too many > calories are being consumed. Mashed potato mashed with a little fat > free milk is a fine and satisfying low calorie food containing many > valuable micronutrients. Obviously, if still too many calories for the actually no. low fat potatoes will give a greater blood glucose spike and you will eat way more with less satiation. And boiled skinless potatoes simply become a relatively nutrient deficient pile of high GI starch. Did you not read what I already wrote about the proper to prepare potatoes? Obviously not. Your just here to make noise. Troll. > body's needs are being consumed, this could be reduced as well, but > only after the empty calories are cut from the diet. jack Here are some simple question regarding your almighty calories: Why does countig calories fail in more than 95% of cases? How is it possible for low-carbers to maintain their weight or lose weight on 300 or more calories per day than low fat dieters, as was shown in at least one study a couple of years ago? Exactly how does the body monitor its caloric status? How does it detect a caloric deficit or a caloric excess? What physiological mechanism detects the caloric status? And when the body detects a calric imbalance, how specifically does it trigger cells to store or release fat? What are the biological processes and cascades involved from the detection of the caloric balance to the final storage or release of fat? Hormones? Enzymes? Processes? Is it done by osmosis or alchemy? I've read a number of bio-chemistry textbooks, and I've yet to see the exact mechanism of the caloric balance theory explained in detail. But I have read the chapters on the endocrine system and what a high carb diet does to the blood glucose levels and what that does to the insulin and glucagon leveles and how those hormones trigger fat storage and fat breakdown. And those chapters say nothing about calories. The caloric balance theory of obesity is a failed and outdated black-box relic of the mid 1800's being propped up by advanced degree pinheads on the food industry payroll. We've come a long way since the days of the flame calorimeter of the 1850's. TC >> >> Seems like the writer TC was originally saying the expert neglected all >> >> the junk food the family was consuming. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >actually no. Actually no, what? >> there is a good case to cut excess fat from the potatoes when too many >> calories are being consumed. Mashed potato mashed with a little fat [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >actually no. low fat potatoes will give a greater blood glucose spike >and you will eat way more with less satiation. But this is not shown in research and measurement. Of course, if you have a glucose handling problem, that might be a different matter, but normal folk find potatoes very satiating. >And boiled skinless >potatoes simply become a relatively nutrient deficient pile of high GI >starch. Well, not so when you measure them. But I agree, the skins are best left on. We get spuds here that are so well washed, that they could almiost be plonked in the microwave as is and cooked until just detectably crisp. Delicious, filling and very nutritous. >Did you not read what I already wrote about the proper to >prepare potatoes? Obviously not. Your just here to make noise. Troll. You really do appear to have problem, and you apparently can't bear any scrutiny of your assertions here. Do I detect a bit of authoritarianism here with "proper way"? Read my method of cooking potatoes, and note that I don't call this the "proper way" You would do yourself a favour to moderate your language, othewise I will have to regard you as a net kook and ignore you like so many here have already done. >> body's needs are being consumed, this could be reduced as well, but >> only after the empty calories are cut from the diet. jack > >Here are some simple question regarding your almighty calories: > >Why does countig calories fail in more than 95% of cases? Umm, because folks don't count them well and cheat and whatever? I don't know, but whenever they do a fully controlled experiment in a laboratory, calories ALWAYS add up. So whatever causes this figure you are claiming, it is not to do with food energy equations. >How is it possible for low-carbers to maintain their weight or lose >weight on 300 or more calories per day than low fat dieters, as was >shown in at least one study a couple of years ago? I don't understand this, sorry. Are you trying to say that carbohydrate calories are somehow different from other calories? Problem with this is that no scientific experiment has ever shown it to be so, as far as I know. >Exactly how does the body monitor its caloric status? How does it >detect a caloric deficit or a caloric excess? What physiological [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >release of fat? Hormones? Enzymes? Processes? Is it done by osmosis or >alchemy? Where to start??? Have you tried to study a first year biochemistry text? It's all in there. Just one little point I think you have not got your head around, and that is the concept of concentration gradient. Solutes tend to move down a gradient by themselves (down means from more concentrated to less concentrted) and need energy if they are required to go against the concentration gradient. So a very simplistic model for the reason for cells to store or release fat could be understood as when the cell contains a lower concentration of fat inside the cell membrane than outside, fat will come in through the membrane, and vice versa. If the concentration is higher inside than out, the fat wil move out. If fat is being used up furiously for energy needs, then fat will be constantly flowing down the concentration gradient out of the fat cells and intothe bloodstream to be used for its contained energy, with the residual carbon dioxide and water being excreted in the usual fashion. This is an incredibly simplistic explanation, but shows that the process is very well known and understood, and ALL calories must be accounted for and are either converted to mechanical energy, heat, or excreted or stored as chemical energy. >I've read a number of bio-chemistry textbooks, and I've yet to see the >exact mechanism of the caloric balance theory explained in detail. Well, they won't spell it out as such. It is really just a "bottom line" effect seen from all the myriad complex feedback mechanisms that go on in the human body. Try to apply each bit of the biochemical principles you come across to the energy balance that is observed in EVERY full examination of animal bodies. >But I have read the chapters on the endocrine system and what a high >carb diet does to the blood glucose levels and what that does to the >insulin and glucagon leveles and how those hormones trigger fat storage >and fat breakdown. And those chapters say nothing about calories. Huh? They probably don't mention New York, either. What is the point of that strange coment? Look, you have read about a tiny feedback mechanism that keeps blood glucose at very tight levels as required by the body.Can you not move out and apply similar principles to the whole body? Once you understand how one small part works, you tend to find that the principles are applicable to vitually every other aspect of the body. >The caloric balance theory of obesity is a failed and outdated >black-box relic of the mid 1800's being propped up by advanced degree >pinheads on the food industry payroll. We've come a long way since the >days of the flame calorimeter of the 1850's. Oh dear, you ARE a net kook. Sorry, but I will not benefit by furher discussion with you and will henceforth ignore you. I will however comment to the group when I see any misleading nonsense from you in future. Have you been trotting out tis stuff here for long? I went back a few months and you seem to be reasonable, perhaps I missed something. jack Little wonder you have problems with your biochemistry text with this bizzare concept. You should probaly benefit from a kindergarten chemistry text, but then, probably not. >>Why does countig calories fail in more than 95% of cases? > > Umm, because folks don't count them well and cheat and whatever? Not just that. Satiety is key. And a good chef. ;-)  SignatureEnrico C My new email address: http://www.x-privat.org/sigmail/sig-5ace6.png >>>Why does countig calories fail in more than 95% of cases? >> >> Umm, because folks don't count them well and cheat and whatever? > >Not just that. Satiety is key. And a good chef. ;-) I agree again, Enrico. I do get a little bewildered at folk who don't seem to have heard of Faraday. Calories can neither be created nor destroyed. What goes in must either come out or stay in. There is no alternative, and all observations so far have verified this 100%. jack >>And boiled skinless >>potatoes simply become a relatively nutrient deficient pile of high GI [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > almiost be plonked in the microwave as is and cooked until just > detectably crisp. Delicious, filling and very nutritous. And very healthy contrary to TC. >>Did you not read what I already wrote about the proper to >>prepare potatoes? Obviously not. Your just here to make noise. Troll. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > language, othewise I will have to regard you as a net kook and ignore > you like so many here have already done. I think you hit the tje kook on the head! >>Why does countig calories fail in more than 95% of cases? > > Umm, because folks don't count them well and cheat and whatever? I > don't know, but whenever they do a fully controlled experiment in a > laboratory, calories ALWAYS add up. Stick a person in a lab or a fat farm where ever calorie is measured the wait falls off like a rock. When you ask people to keep track, they simply do a piss poor job but TC will continue to lay out this dumb argument to anyone that will play with him. > Where to start??? Have you tried to study a first year biochemistry > text? The answer is no! He has his tea leaves that he reads and all else is wrong. Kook, yes! > Oh dear, you ARE a net kook. Bingo! I just laugh at him but I like to stick the pipe where the sun does not shine from time to time. -DF >> >So what I am saying is that no-one needs a 150 lb bag of potatoes >> >unless they have a root cellar so that they will last six months. You [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Actually no. Calories does NOT equate to nutrition. Calories are a >measure of potential energy. Potential energy is not a nutrient. But an essential daily need of the body. And it is obtained from the macronutrients. And is why we eat them in macro quantities. >Get this nonsense out of your head now. So why do you suggest we need to eat so much of the macronutrients, if not to supply the body's energy needs? >> And I read somewhere recently >> that mashed potato was pretty good at fixing hunger. I don't quite see [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >conjunction with other nutrient rich foods, are not a bad addition to >ones diet. Agreed. >But potatoes, improperly prepared, consumed in huge amounts, and in the >absence of other nutrient dense foods, is not a good thing for weight >management or health or grenral nutrition. Weight management depends only on energy balance, surely. Excess energy consumed is stored. No excess (over needs), and no storage and no weight gain. It is surely that simple. By the way, apparently milk and potatoes can be lived on more or less indefinitely. A balanced diet, in fact. Boring, but supplying all the body's needs. >The Irish know how to prepare potatoes. First you STEAM them with the >SKINS on. Then you mash them with copious amounts of fresh real butter >and fresh real full-fat cream. The fat slows down the absorption of the >starches and prevents massive blood glucose spikes as well as satiating >you well before you can eat 1 1/2 lbs at one sitting. The full-fat >cream and butter also brings some good nutrients to the meal. What nutrients would these be, other than the huge extra calories that is what is causing the problem in the first place? Butter contains about 10 times as many calories as potato, weight for weight. Of course, if you are an undernourished Irish labourer, you will need calories from wherever you can get them, but an overfed (calories) Westerner needs no such additions. >Potatoes consumed at every meal in huge amounts without added fats, and >with the nutrients peeled off and boiled out of it, is just one big >constant low-nutrient high-carb blood-sugar-spike kicking your >endocrine system into a constant state of active fat storage. I suspect (I'd like to know more) that you have a very simplistic view of the hugely complex human biochemistry. >Even good food can be completely f.cked up by poor preparation and a >poor understanding of basic time-honoured cooking methodology. I'm curious what "time honoured" brings to the table that can't be examined by science (that you seem to have a problem with) and either rejected or embraced for rational, evidential reasons. >That is >why I don't take food or cooking advice from lab-coat wearing advanced >degree pinheads with clipboards. Traditional cookbooks contain more >wisdom in a single recipe than todays modern science contains in an >entire scientific journal. Ah, I think I see your problem. Perhaps that is why the traditional morbidity and mortality figures were so poor. jack The message is in the subject line. I can see you are all much intelligent. but I really can not understand all the stuff in this line. It is too much information. --too much "expert" info. Water soluable...? Natural methodology...? amino acids...? I was so confused, I read the original post again. somehow I dont see how the other comments directly target what was written. So calm down in here. Experts! What can you do with them? (Dont be angry.) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.