A Link Between Diet and Myopia?

lxmeister writes: "This article from New Scientist suggests that the refined starches in western food such as white bread and cereals may be the cause of an increased level of short-sightedness. Myopia now affects 30 percent of people of European descent. So brown bread is better after all!"

Comments

wheat bread still bread

[coyote-san]

Get thee to a nutritionist!

Wheat bread is still bread. Brown rice is still rice. The whole-grain products are essentially identical to the "refined" products at the macronutrient level (protein, carbs and fat), where they differ is the micronutrients (vitamins, minerals, etc.)

Somewhat surprisingly, the same analysis applies to frosted vs. unfrosted cereal. Unfrosted "corn flakes" have a little less sugar than "frosted flakes," but the glycemic index of corn is so high that the frosting really doesn't make much of a difference.

When you take the time to look at what we actually eat, as opposed to what we think we're eating, it's scary.

Re:wheat bread still bread

[coyote-san]

But at what cost?

Nobody is arguing that the micronutrients aren't important, or that there's no need to go with whole-grain breads instead of the refined crap whenever possible.

Our concern (excluding everyone who still believes in the FDA food pyramid) is that this causes people to focus on the wrong thing. They eat the whole-grain bread and think that they're doing something healthy, while in fact the main effect is still the sugar and insulin spike from consuming a large quantity of high GI food. They would be better off eliminating most of the bread and getting their micronutrients from vegetables.

Re:wheat bread still bread

[raduga]

From the people who brought you epidemic levels of Cancer - Western Medicine!

I'll concede that our ignorance of nutrients and the broad web of interplay within the dynamics of our bodies is appalling but I understood the promotion of cancer to "epidemic proportions" to be more a function of our reducing infectious disease from endemic to much lower levels of threat. We're living longer; when our bodies get old, they break down and cancer is one of the major ways we break. With better nutrition (and elimination of the major sources of free radicals) we should be able to live longer and healthier for a longer time, but as things are, Western humans have better quality of life for longer periods than most historical societies have ever had. There are some communities who have managed to do better, but they tend to be very localised and at very low population densities.

Western Medicine works pretty well from birth to circa. age 40 or so, then gradually decreases in efficiency as we age. Medicine alone is not the problem here; most of us do not take as good care of our bodies as we can, most of us do not know how, or have any macro or micro understanding of how our bodies work, beyond the Sesame Street level. There's a widespread notion (the legacy of Pasteur no doubt) that cancer is a disease with a systematic cause and a systematic cure, if we can only discover them, but it seems to me more the case that cancer is what bodies do when faced with ultimate entropy. Galen/Vesalius/Pasteur et al didn't invent cancer. What they did was to eliminate most everything else. Whether their children will find way to postpone entropy and rebuild telomeres (and prevent cell metabolism from going wacko) isn't certain, but it seems evident that they will try. Westerners have a good track record for persistence, if nothing else.

It all might be missing the point. If quality and longevity are what we really want, lifestyle and environment changes may be more effective and more direct-

-but as long as there ARE Westerners living in Western cities, drinking Western poisons and eating Western abominations, they will continue to try Western medicine, and have some fair success. Its a cultural thang.

Re:Er, after all?

[cavedave]

The agricultural revolution took place between one hundred and one hundred and fifty thousand years ago.
Before that humans had evolved to digest a diet of nuts,fruit,vegtables,meat and fish not cereals. I've seen evidence from average cranial capacity that humans were on average better developed (i.e had better nutrition) then.

The health problems discussed in the article could be seen as evidence for this theory that humans had better diets before the agricultural revolution.

Another piece of evidence for this is that Irish people suffer high incidence of ceoliac disease (Irish times Thursday about a month back). This is presumed to be because we share a genetic heritage with hunter gatherers for longer then people fron other countries where agriculture took over first. Hence haven't adapted to processed cereals. Irish people having higher rates of Myopia would be evidence for the cereal hypothesis.

Most of us now recognise problems with uncontrolled salt and sugar intake that have occured in a huge degree since the Second World War. Could it be other health problems we suffer are due to consuming a diet we are not fully adapted to?

Re:Er, after all?

[spike hay]

I've always eaten whole wheat. Especialy after you get used to it, you won't go back to white bread. Whole Wheat is much more flavorful, as well as more nutrious. White bread just tastes bland to me.