Slashdot Mirror
High-Fat, High-Sugar Diet Can Lead To Cognitive Decline
An anonymous reader writes: Researchers from Oregon State University have completed a study into how the sugar and fat content of a diet relates to cognitive flexibility. They found that diets with high amounts of either led to a decline in cognitive function. "This effect was most serious on the high-sugar diet, which also showed an impairment of early learning for both long-term and short-term memory." After four weeks on a high-fat or high-sugar diet, the performance of mice on various mental and physical tests started dropping. One of the scientists, Kathy Magnusson, said, "We've known for a while that too much fat and sugar are not good for you. This work suggests that fat and sugar are altering your healthy bacterial systems, and that's one of the reasons those foods aren't good for you. It's not just the food that could be influencing your brain, but an interaction between the food and microbial changes."
What’s often referred to as the “Western diet,” or foods that are high in fat, sugars and simple carbohydrates, has been linked to a range of chronic illnesses in the United States, including the obesity epidemic and an increased incidence of Alzheimer’s disease.
The part about fat has being disproved in the last several years.
This is just one study. We'll see if the results can be duplicated.
that funded this report.
...Kim Kardashian has published a book.
I'll be here all week. Tip your waiter.
All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
Healthy food is tasty as hell once your palette has had a chance to get used to it again. All I can ever taste anymore with so much food in the States is either salt or sugar/HFCS. It's so fucking gross.
Read More is gone. Site continues its decline
Wouldn't it be obnoxious if, rather than being 'unhealthy', that treasure-trove of historically scarce calories is simply a signal that whatever strategy we are using must be pretty much optimal, so wasteful expenditures on cognition can now be reallocated to building energy reserves. Thinking is, after all, the tool not the goal; because there isn't a goal.
I thought it was because I was watching Fox News...
Or can not.
The paper is here if anyone wants to cough up the cash to read it: http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
Why so much code out there is just crap.
But chips, Cheetos and chocolate must be good, look at how many gamers get really high scores.
When I used to eat like shit it was weird, there would be some unhealthy food that I thought tasted gross (such as certain kind of donuts, candy, etc) but if I ate it and didnt like it.. for some reason I was still compelled to continue eating it. Even though I knew it tasted gross, I was addicted to the high fat and/or high sugar.
Of course I would think vegetables tasted cross and wouldnt be compelled to finish eating them.
Luckily that has all changed now and eat a lot healthier.. Sure I still occasionally go for some of those snack foods, but if I dont like it I throw it away, and I have one serving of it and that's it. And when I do want to treat myself, I will usually go for something a bit more high quality, because why waste the empty calories on something that tastes like shit.
No, alcohol is basically just sugar too... They have protein, and starches to fall back on... So basically, this leads to the same advice as they've been giving for a good long while. A reasonable amount of meat and fish, preferably white meat, and lots of salads, leafy greens, and veg...
Although I can't read (without paying) the study to be exact, most chows for diet testing mice are pretty standard. Although the claim is that a high fat diet was used, we must be careful to consider the type of fat used and that it's still greater in carbohydrate than fat. The types of fat used in these diets all seem to contain industrial seed oil which is not something any of us should be eating, and all are what would still be considered a high carbohydrate diet, almost all from simple carbohydrate and sugar, again, not what we should be eating.
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
You seem to not understand. high fat PLUS high sugar, it's the combination of the two.
If you cut the sugar and starches from your diet the problem goes away, and you get healthier.
If you eat steak and eggs and dont eat breads and sugars you are far more healthy than everyone else.
Healthy food is tasty as hell once your palette has had a chance to get used to it again. All I can ever taste anymore with so much food in the States is either salt or sugar/HFCS. It's so fucking gross.
Pipe down, and eat your tofurky.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I can't, it's out of stock at the store!
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Herp derp much?
Alcohol is basically sugar?
Sugar = C12H22O11
Ethyl Alcahol = C2H6O
I think you need to go back to highschool.
Back to my mini donuts
-----
Sorry, I'm only a 1336 h4x0r.
This seems rather unfair. There has been a lot of research about some fats actually being good for you and trans fats are bad. Perhaps a new name needs to be given to fats since fats are ESSENTIAL to the diet for brain health, which would seem to contradict what this article is stating without further clarification.
Grain Brain is a good book on healthy fats and the impact of CARBS on brain health. Note that here Carbs is referenced as a whole, and not just sugars - seems backwards of this study which perhaps more accurately should be "High Trans Fat and Carbs can lead to cognitive decline" which is nothing new.
Now look up how the two are processed by your body, and alcohol's affect on your blood sugar levels, then reconsider your statement in the context of an article on how substances affect your body.
I mean, if it happens in mice, it probably happens in humans too, but who the fuck knows?
They should do this study with humans, not mice, is all I am saying.
...in a controversial and hopefully therefore profitable manner...
If the mice were kept at caloric satiety, of course they didn't engage as much mental effort, such mental effort being for the primary purpose of... reaching caloric satiety.
No, when your palette gets used to it again, it becomes bearable ("as hell" is quite an apt a metaphor, actually) — but not especially tasty. Ice-cream or chocolate will still trump "healthy" and an ongoing effort of will is required to stick to broccoli.
I'd say, the results of the study show, that we increase cognitive abilities, when experiencing shortages, rather than decline, when eating, what we want. Which makes sense from evolutionary stand-point — if you are starving, you better think harder about finding sustenance...
But, however one spins the same facts, we better adapt to the 21st century of plenty. All of our evolution to day was spent with starvation constantly looming and occasionally hitting whereas today — and only for the last few decades — "starving" became a synonym for "dieting". And that we view the thinness as beautiful today is not a result of some evil conspiracy, but simply a reflection of what is healthy today — for a never-starving Westerner. Our super-thin ideals of today would not have survived even in the 19th century... The still-hungry Africans, for a counter-example, still think "fat is beautiful" and Mauritania even has a concept of "wife-fattening".
It is not "cultural" — they just still remember famine, whereas the "golden billion" has blissfully forgotten it.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Well, if all you seek out and eat in the US is fast food, or the lower level chain restaurants, then sure, that's all you're gonna get.
If you shop for and buy processed foods (the goop in the center aisles of the grocery store), again, yes, this is all your gonna get.
But if you take a little time and look around, VERY good food choices can be had. And there is really NO excuse for only having bad foods at home. Ever heard of cooking? (and no, I don't mean popping something pre-made/frozen in the fucking microwave).
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
but not especially tasty. Ice-cream or chocolate will still trump "healthy"
I've seen a whole bunch of people who thought just like you did, they are drooling and moaning as I walk past them in the nursing home. You can throw around your hysterical rant about ice cream but at some point someone is going to be changing your diapers.
Lots of *whole* grains, veggies, lean meats (or none at all), and fruit. It calls for low fat and sugar, not *no* fat and sugar.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
yeah the fat old guy in the nursing home who needs someone to roll him over, that's what he used to think.
Would switching to a high veggie low fat diet reverse the trend and rebalence flora?
It has been stated weight gains happen with fecal transplants. So different flora over time could reverse
http://saveie6.com/
Sugar causes your brain to produce dopamine as soon as your tongue comes in contact with it. If you have trouble believing this, take a break from sugary food and drinks (artificial sweeteners as well) for a few weeks to a month, and then after, take a bite out of a sugary snack or drink. You will feel this very rewarding, even pleasurable feeling as soon as you taste the food. This is dopamine in action. Other mammals have very similar reactions to sugar - some even getting into a drunken state due to the sugar rush. Now why the most pleasurable foods are unhealthy, especially with the amounts that Americans consume, is definitely a topic for discussion.
Maybe the researchers were smoking pot thus making them stupid and then got the munchies but to cover their asses they blamed the food.
Yes. Even in their so-called high-fat diet, it's still higher in sugar than it is fat, and typical mice chow is sugar and simple carbohydrate. And mice are not humans with their diet.
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
And i quote:
As the 21st century began, human evolution was at a turning point. Natural selection, the process by which the strongest, the smartest, the fastest, reproduced in greater numbers than the rest, a process which had once favored the noblest traits of man, now began to favor different traits. Most science fiction of the day predicted a future that was more civilized and more intelligent. But as time went on, things seemed to be heading in the opposite direction. A dumbing down. How did this happen? Evolution does not necessarily reward intelligence. With no natural predators to thin the herd, it began to simply reward those who reproduced the most, and left the intelligent to become an endangered species.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
I did, and they're processed pretty differently. Alcohol consumption can actually cause your blood sugar level top drop.
You insensitive clod! I eat fofurky because I'm tofu intolerant!
Wow. So even merely thinking like me can cause people to drool and moan? Serious stuff...
Uhm, yes, one of us here is hysterical...
So, you expect the broccoli will let you live forever? Or just drop-dead some day without a need for anyone to change your diaper?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
As a committed member of the management team working to facilitate synergy in my group, it disturbed me to learn the delicious donuts and cookies id been bringing to work each friday morning for my team were in fact turning them into knuckle dragging dullards. The crisp crullers and warm cheese danishes that melt in the mouth were stymying their creativity. Action had to be taken and being an ITIL six sigma pirouette jolliette corvette and pork chop marionette certified manager I had to facilitate this actionable the only way I knew how.
Instead of sickening sweets and donuts, I've changed things up. Each friday morning I treat my team to delicious asparagus and baked beans. The beans I'm told provide powerful protein and nutrition, while the asparagus is good for the mind and helps regulate glucose and blood pressure. I only wish the facilities team could get on the bandwagon and start eating healthier. Maybe then they would be able to make some progress on their continuous restroom repair that seems to have lasted for nearly a month now.
Good people go to bed earlier.
AC needs to learn basic biology (and be less arrogant about things he doesn't know about).
To further add, there's also "sugar alcohols" like xylitol.
There's something to be said for laziness. It's easy to cook up a healthy, tasty, low-effort inexpensive meal, but convenience seems to trump all of that for a good chunk of the populace. Nobody knows or cares how to cook up a decent meal.
'ell I mus' ba dum az shit -- an' Ima keep gettin' stupider.
Really? Eat a BALANCED fucking diet and you will be just fucking fine. Food scare 2015... *sigh*
I love the morons that don't have Celiac disease, but OMG TH3 GLUTENS they are killing me!!!!
I have given up on not laughing my ass off if I am out and someone I am with asks for gluten free and I say: "Holy SHIT! You have Celiac disease?!? I didn't know" ... reply: "No, it just makes me feel bad". Whatever.....
-- http://anonet.org -- The internet the way it was meant to be. Check it out, you may be surprised.
Hey everybody, here's an example of that cognitive decline TFA was talking about.
I'd say, the results of the study show, that we increase cognitive abilities, when experiencing shortages, rather than decline, when eating, what we want. Which makes sense from evolutionary stand-point — if you are starving, you better think harder about finding sustenance
I call bullshit. Every try working or studying while hungry? (assuming your job requires your concentration). It doesn't go so well. Which makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint because
And I like broccoli, I dont know wtf the you're all complaining about :P
Most people that eat a high fat low sugar diet are thin. But dont let your lack of education get in the way of your comment.
I guess that headline would not have been popular.
Well back to the Beefeater diet. Thinking fast enough to protect the crown jewels or halberds or funny hats or whatever beefeaters protect? Gin?
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.
From my own personal experience where wild mice gathered totally huge stashes of food in my ceiling, their normal diet seems to be pretty simple: various types of small seeds (more or less like a grain of mustard seed).
As a human, if you really insist on using a mouse as a valid model to decide which diet you should adopt to avoid cognitive impairment (and other ailments from other studies performed on mice), you might want to adopt something a bit similar to the normal diet of a wild mouse, seeds or something equivalent.
What is the approximate average nutrient content of various types of small seeds? I would say:
~ 30 % fat (by weight)
~ 25 % protein (by weight)
~ 10 % carbohydrates other than indigestible fibers (by weight)
Small seeds are rich enough in all minerals and most vitamins except vitamin C, K and B12 to avoid any deficiency.
Eating sprouted seeds can deal with the lack of vitamin C and K.
Mice eat some insects in the summer and by doing so build their liver vitamin B12 store for the year.
If you shop for and buy processed foods (the goop in the center aisles of the grocery store), again, yes, this is all your gonna get. But if you take a little time and look around, VERY good food choices can be had.
It's not that easy. At QFC and Safeway, EVERY bread they sell is overly sweetened. The only bread I've found without too much sugar is Trader Joe's rye.
Recent studies have researchers concerned that pot use in the under-18 crowd causes cognitive decline. Since pot is a Schedule 1 (most restrictive) substance in the US, I argue sugar and fat must also be put on Schedule 1 since our Oregon friends at OSU have discovered similar effects in youngsters.
- The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
omce again human nutritional claims are being based on rodent model work, despite there being very little reason to expect the results to e replicable in humans. Stop giving PRELIMINARY and non-confirmed trials coverage as though they actually mean something. This trial only applies to mice at the moment. Maybe it can be extrapolated to all rodents in general, but the leap from rodents to humans directly is pure bull shit over reach.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
It's not that easy. At QFC and Safeway, EVERY bread they sell is overly sweetened. The only bread I've found without too much sugar is Trader Joe's rye.
So what??? Bread should be a TINY portion of your diet. At QFC and Safeway it is trivially easy to find whole-food products: fruits, vegetables, whole grains, meats, dairy...
Is this some kind of natural law?
Nope, not a law at all. Healthy food can be quite delicious. But you can't get it out of a bag or a can. Doritos taste good because they are chemically engineered to be that way, and then focus-grouped to refine the flavor. Fruits, vegetables and legumes are the way they are. It up to the person to combine them in a tasty way.
I don't think Americans eat the way they eat primarily because of the flavor of the food. It has more to do with ease, convenience and price.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
When I used to eat like shit it was weird, there would be some unhealthy food that I thought tasted gross (such as certain kind of donuts, candy, etc) but if I ate it and didnt like it.. for some reason I was still compelled to continue eating it. Even though I knew it tasted gross, I was addicted...
Mmmmmmm.
Green Apple Jolly Ranchers...
Green Apple Jolly Ranchers...
Green Apple Jolly Ranchers...
Green Apple Jolly Ranchers...
Green Apple Jolly Ranchers...
Green Apple Jolly Ranchers...
Green Apple Jolly Ranchers...
Green Apple Jolly Ranchers...
Green Apple Jolly Ranchers...
Green Apple Jolly Ranchers...
Green Apple Jolly Ranchers...
Green Apple Jolly Ranchers...
Yeah well, I'm sure I would learn to really appreciate the taste of dogshit if all I ate every day was dogshit. But that doesn't make it tasty to anyone else.
That's okay. If nobody else likes it, more dogshit for you.
Could this be that mice weren't hungry after high-fat and high-sugar diet and weren't as motivated to run the maze?
Then would you be so kind as to keep it to yourself?
Just a few years / months / days ago scientists were saying they for positive with 100 % certainty that sugar is 100% good for you 120 % of the time. How about taking a step back and asking the non scientists of the world if it makes sense to eat foods loaded with tons of sugar all of the time. Most non scientists might that this does not make any sense. However we will discount their opinion because they are not scientist and do not have a degree in universal applied sciency stuff. Just be prepared for scientist to completely reverse their decision on what foods you should be eating 2 months from now, and claim with 100% certainty that they have known it since time began.
Start thinking and stop believing in science.
My palette??? You shouldn't eat paint, brah.
It's PALATE you fucking illiterate clods!!!
Well...breads would indeed be one of the 'goop' type highly processed foods found in the center aisles I was talking about.
IMHO, it should be eliminated or at least made an extremely small portion of your diet. Try sticking to veggies, fruits and animal proteins. And yes, for some people I think a bit of dairy is ok. Just try to stick to foods that don't spike your blood insulin and for the most part, you should be ok.
If the label has ingredients you can't readily decipher, or pronounce, likely as not, it should not be something you want to consume.
Or, if the top ingredients include sugar or HFCS...you should likely pass that one by too.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
You need the full article -- the abstract at the very least -- to make any sense of a study. Press releases are written by PR flacks who dumb down the science to the point where it is meaningless, as in this case. What you need to make sense of an experiment are details and context, neither of which the PR release in question provide. This is the problem with PR -- it's not a discipline that's meant to help you grasp complexity; it's about coming away with a simple, carefully chosen message.
Even if you have a whole article you have to proceed with caution. Interesting science tends to be about open questions; cutting edge topics tend to produce a diversity of opinion and contradictory evidence. What you need to read if you want to go to the horse's mouth in science is to read some literature review papers, like this one, which summarize the current state of research and the open questions at the time of writing. In fact you should probably read a recent review paper before you try to make sense of any individual paper. Having skimmed the review paper, it looks like the experiment we're discussing is attempting to explain a long-known experimental effect in terms of gut biota, which is a hot research field right now.
If all you had to make dietary decisions was the press release, you'd probably think, "Well, I'd better cut down on fat and sugar in my diet." The problem I have with that is that "fat" is a vast category of chemicals with wildly different physiological effects. Avoiding all fat because of this study would be like avoiding all acids because of a study of aspirin poisoning -- acids including all proteins and most vitamins.
What makes more sense is to consider all the proposed mechanisms, namely: chronic oxidative stress, inflammation, insulin resistance, and now disturbed gut flora. It's feasible to devise a lifestyle and diet which reduces *all* these things, which in turn would also improve our chances against other things like diabetes, autoimmune diseases, and cardiovascular disease. But so far as I know nobody's really put all that together yet. Science deals mainly in diseases, leaving health to the quacks.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
So, you expect the broccoli will let you live forever? Or just drop-dead some day without a need for anyone to change your diaper?
Actually yes, that is the goal. Not to live forever, of course. But maintaining health into old age, and avoiding "lifestyle" diseases, is part of the reason I work out and try to eat healthily. Besides, being physically fit makes life easier (not that I'm some triathlete, but I think I'm in better shape than most people my age). I enjoy a little bit of ice cream here and there and still love chocolate. I just don't eat the entire pint or bar in one sitting. I hit the gym twice a week and pay attention to what I eat, that's all. It's not really a big deal, you just have to be mindful.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Buy the book Flour Water Salt Yeast and make your own.
It is easy and tastes better than anything you can get at a store. (but maybe not if you live near a real bakery)
Oh, and it is geeky fun... Stoichiometry, cooking by weight not volume, temps, growing yeast cultures in your spare time!
I spend about 2 to 2.5 hrs a week to make enough bread for a week, most of which I do while on conference/support calls.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
There's a well-known study on the effect of voluntary exercise on life expectancy. Just drop a running wheel in a rat cage, and see if they live longer. Turns out that young rats will run, literally, miles every day. They eventually get bored, or old, and stop running, but if you reduce their food intake by just 8%, they get back on the wheel and run.
To be a little hungry seems to stimulate activity and raise the mental state a bit. It may not be good for tasks that require sustained, focused attention, but that fidgety feeling you get before lunch can actually be directed.
This misconstrues so much. First, beyond the fact that it's not up to you what the study shows (without even reading it no less), lets [i]assume[/i] that we experience an increase in cognitive ability during a shortage. You're deciding to conflate sustenance with "eating what we want" when the dialogue here is healthy vs unhealthy - as if to depict healthy eating as a shortage when, in actuality, poor eating habits cause malnutrition along with obesity. Ironically that's the true shortage in this context. I promise you that eating shit food isn't increasing your cognitive ability. Second, I'd say Western society's conception of what healthy is is not necessarily in line with media's depiction, which wavers anyway (this seems to be "generation ass", as hips are back in favor and seemingly larger than those of 40's pinups.. not universally of course, but prominently). Third, It's amusing to think that super-thin idols "wouldn't have survived" in the 19th century when the vast majority (i.e. the peasant class) had to do just that, farming and supplying meats to the upper-class while surviving on soup and hard bread, laboring for long hours. The revolution in eating habits for proletariat didn't really occur until the 20th century for most of the world, mind you this happened quicker in the U.S. than, say, Italy.
It can cause your blood sugar to drop, temporarily. Then your liver gets involved, starts breaking it down to sugar and water, and it causes it to spike. Take this from a guy who has this very problem and has lost consciousness before because of this so has to be very mindful of it.
The joy of getting this from fruit is that the high insoluble fiber content means your body uses less insulin to break down sugars. Nature's candy, man. That being said, I can understand the distaste for fruit when the vast majority of commercial variety is just awful, awful quality. Apples are cold-storage waxy paperish shit now. Even cheap bananas taste weirder. Buy high grade or organic and you'll taste the difference and learn to enjoy fruit again.
The issue isn't the taste of Healthy vs Unhealthy.
Fat and Sugar, use to be hard to get nutrition. Fats from hunting down animals, and Sugar from rare to find fruits, or rather dangerous to get honey. So our body was designed to reward for finding such foods, as they were hard to find nutrition.
However now Fat and Sugar are plentiful, so we can eat this all the time, so our body gets more of this nutrition then it needs, and really more then it know how to handle. However the reward system for such foods is still there.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I think you meant you'd eat it like Doritos if they added flavoring they way they do to junk food.
Honestly, it makes evolutionary sense.
Cognition is a high-energy task; the brain takes a massive proportion of the body's energy - it's about 5% of our mass, but consumes about 25% of our resting caloric consumption, and this does go up as we "think harder".
The *sole* function of an organism is to live and to reproduce.
If - from a simple organism standpoint - the "living" bit is effortless, ie you're not being chased by sabertooths and you're getting piles of calories coming in, why waste energy on brainpower?
-Styopa
Super thin ideals? Wow. America is no where near that. Considering we are setting obesity records left and right, perhaps eating less and eating healthy would be a good idea. America is fast becoming the people in the Pixar movie Wall-E...
Could it be that high fat/sugar diets cause decline in cognitive function and gut bacteria by two separate and unrelated mechanisms? It is possible that gut bacteria decline and decline in cognitive function are not related at all. It is similar to drinking too much coffee. The coffee causes the alertness and irritability not the coffee causing the alertness and the alertness causing the irritability. Sometimes the results are not a chain.
Newest studies show cholesterol is influenced more by carbohydrate intake rather than saturated fat intake. Eggs have dietary cholesterol, which has been proven for a while not to influence cholesterol levels to any real degree at all.
Think about the oldest people that are still alive and what they probably ate.
Sounds like most workplaces, actually. Except for the exercise wheel.
If you're going to study high fat vs high carb, you'd at least control for protein and calories, right? NO!!!!!! THE HIGH FAT DIET HAS LESS PROTEIN AND MORE CALORIES!!!!! Previous studies in this field have also been misleading: "It’s well known that in mice, “high-fat diets” induce endotoxemia. But these diets aren’t necessarily high in fat – any pelleted rodent food in which fat provides more than 20% of calories may be called “high-fat.” The critical difference of “high-fat diets” from chow is that they are composed of purified nutrients – starch, sugar, oil, vitamins, and minerals – whereas chow is composed of natural whole foods such as wheat, corn, and seeds." (http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2015/06/disease-begins-in-the-mucus/) At least they didn't use a "high fat high cholesterol" diet with ridiculous amounts of purified cholesterol.
He once inserted random mutations into his code, just so he could have the experience of debugging.
As far as I can see, the study concluded that "too much" fat or sugar impairs cognitive function. Presumably the study itself explains what is considered "too much"; but obviously no diet can reduce both fat and sugar very far, or the majority of calories would have to come from protein. And that is very unhealthy. It is well known that deriving more than 40-50% of calories from protein leads to ill health and, in extreme cases, death. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So at least half of daily calories must come from carbohydrate and fat in some combination. And all carbohydrate is rapidly broken down to simple sugars in the gut. Sounds like Scylla and Charybdis.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
This is why we need a basic income. Not as if the world will fall apart because ppl prefer to work on their own projects rather than some new improved popunder technology - now with more intrusive sound!
So that explains American libertarians...
I wrote an essay in 7th grade about how if we're jailing people for heroine use to protect them, we must, certainly, jail fat people (i specifically opted out gland-problem people) - to protect them as well.
Of course, in reality, we should jail neither.
If you shop for and buy processed foods (the goop in the center aisles of the grocery store), again, yes, this is all your gonna get. But if you take a little time and look around, VERY good food choices can be had.
It's not that easy. At QFC and Safeway, EVERY bread they sell is overly sweetened. The only bread I've found without too much sugar is Trader Joe's rye.
I say this as someone who enjoys baking, but bread IS a processed food, almost by definition. I know that some people say "processed food" when they really mean "nasty stuff with chemical names I don't know." But a more consistent definition of "processed food" is something where the raw ingredients (even "natural" whole animals or plants) are significantly transformed and generally split up into multiple "processed ingredients" which are then further combined into a new food that has little semblance to the original "raw ingredients."
Bread is probably one of the oldest versions of "processed foods" in existence. Rather than having the fiber and other natural mixture of ingredients in a raw whole grain, those grains are ground up into small bits and usually separated (e.g., whole wheat kernels are turned into white flour + wheat germ + wheat bran) in a complex process. Then you recombine some of that flour with other processed ingredients like salt and oils and sugars (most all of which are significantly processed, no matter what they are called).
This processing changes the way we digest the food significantly. Lots and lots of studies show that complex carbs (e.g., intact whole grains) work differently metabolically from the kinds of carbs you find in processed flours, or even heavily processed "whole-grain" flours. For people who have problems with sugar (e.g., diabetics), bread is not a good solution -- because it only takes minimal digestive processes to turn it directly into sugar.
You want "good bread" that is minimally processed? You're pretty much going to have to bake it yourself, as GP implied. It's a basic cooking task, and all of the "no knead" recipes that have been revived in the past decade mean that you can make a great loaf of bread by probably investing about 10 minutes or less of your active prep time. (The rest is just waiting for it to rise and then bake.)
Plus, it's cheaper than even the cheapest store bread if you make it yourself.
But even then, it's generally still going to be a "processed food" which shouldn't be a huge part of your diet. You're not going to find "good bread for you" in Trader Joe's rye, no matter if it has a little less sugar.
You want bread that might actually be better to eat? Use the smallest amount of flour possible, and only get truly whole-grain, coarsely ground flour. (If you have a grain mill, grind it yourself.) Fill up the rest of the bread dough with actual whole (not ground) grains and other ingredients that are less heavy in simple carbs, like nuts, seeds, etc. The result is going to be somewhat heavy and dense, but that's as close as you can get to less "processed" bread.
Otherwise, bread is a carb bomb, no matter what. (A delicious one, I admit -- but even when I bake standard white or "light wheat" or "deli rye" bread or rolls at home without added sugar or whatever, I'd never pretend it's an "unprocessed food" or significantly different from the "goop in the center isles of the grocery store," even if it tastes a lot better.) Taking a little sugar out of it is nice and all, but it won't change the fact it mostly turns into sugar very soon after it hits your digestive system.
And I use a bread maker. It takes 2-3 minutes to load it up with ingredients before I go to bed, much quicker than walking to the local shop to pick up a loaf. I wake up in the morning to delicious, fresh, healthy, low GI wholemeal bread that tastes a million times better than anything sold in the supermarket.
I eat all of that stuff and never had a.
Um, crap, I was going to post something . . .
It would be interesting to see what we came up with if a significant number of people knew that working on things they're interested in was a viable choice. You could also no longer use the excuse "but I have to eat" for doing unethical things at the behest of your employer. Which is why it will probably never happen.
Beckmann & Markner will sell you Dimpflmeier bread from Toronto. They ship bi-weekly to the USA. They used to have a 7 lb minimum order, but I don't see that restriction now.
I think we need to be careful judging how others live / eat - I often forget that others don't have the luxury of working at home, doing laundry on a call, making food on a call, having expendable income to eat a diet entirely consisting of avocado's, etc.
It's easy to forget that having to go to an office / workplace for 8-10 hours, plus extra for commute, and then if you do recommended gym, and god forbid you have family responsibilities, there is no way you have time or especially an energy left to cook, generally anything.
Actually yes, that is the goal. Not to live forever, of course. But maintaining health into old age, and avoiding "lifestyle" diseases, is part of the reason I work out and try to eat healthily.
Exactly. Die quicker, not sooner.
No, when your palette gets used to it again, it becomes bearable ("as hell" is quite an apt a metaphor, actually) — but not especially tasty. Ice-cream or chocolate will still trump "healthy" and an ongoing effort of will is required to stick to broccoli.
Speak for yourself: tasty vs bearable is learned behaviour. I travel a fair bit, and the USA is a major outlier in what's regarded as tasty. To many (maybe most) Europeans, typical mainstream US food is pretty unpleasant - too much salt, too sweet, too over-seasoned, too thick, too bright, too colourful, too large, too in-your-face. That's why many products like soft drinks are formulated differently for European markets to match local tastes.
Personally, I'll take a light lunch in an Italian trattoria, a French bistro, a Greek Taverna or a Spanish tapas bar ahead of your ice-cream or chocolate any day, thank you very much. I could happily live the rest of my life without chocolate, but the thought of a tomato-free existence would destroy my soul.
But if you take a little time and look around, VERY good food choices can be had. And there is really NO excuse for only having bad foods at home. Ever heard of cooking? (and no, I don't mean popping something pre-made/frozen in the fucking microwave).
Not only that, but cooking your own food is way cheaper. I know somebody's going to chime in here about how they can get seven cheeseburgers at McDonald's or a large pizza at Pizza Hut for X dollars and that's a lot cheaper, but sorry -- you're wrong. Any fast-food restaurant even with a "dollar menu" is paying for the cost of preparing and serving that food, which is a cost you don't have if you buy raw ingredients from a grocery store.
Generally, for the same price to what I'd pay at a fast-food place, I can buy raw ingredients to make some sort of fancy, significantly higher quality version (even "organic" or "natural" if you'd like, though many times those terms are somewhat bogus). If I'm willing to buy the crappiest stuff in the grocery store (like that found in many fast-food places), I could usually make 2 to 5 times as much food for the same price by buying ingredients at a grocery store.
Cooking is cheaper, you have more choice, and after a couple years' of practice, it will taste better than 90+% of the food you'd get eating out, even in "normal" (non-fast-food) restaurants.
Yes, it takes time and practice at first. But there are also plenty of cookbooks out there for people who have little time or skills.
Your body literally is made up of what you eat. Obviously it can have significant impacts on your health and thus your entire life. Cooking may require some investment of time or effort, but it will take minimal effort to make it better than chowing down on crap from the microwave or a can or a box every night.
You lost consciousness from drinking alcohol ? No shit!
It's easy to get healthy food in the US. I don't know where you shop but from Maine to NY to SC to Texas to Oregon I've had no problem finding healthy food.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Very good. Now, can you identify, where in my post above have I said anything against this commendable practice?
That FranTaylor is part of the 70%, who can not read proficiently, is already clear. Are you a fellow victim of America's public school system, or you just didn't pay attention today?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Bang on. A week's worth of red beans and rice can be had for the cost of a single combo meal, and the most time-consuming part of its preparation is just soaking the beans, which is completely hands-off. They're nutritious eaten alone, and you can do a million things with them depending on your budget. It got me through college when time and money were tight, but I was healthy and well fed.
I guess it depends on what you consider to be healthy. A good peasant bread, cheese, tomatoes, olives and wine is what I consider to be healthy food. Eggs are healthy. The only food that is unhealthy are those pre-packaged with tons of salt, sugar and fat and have had all it's nutrients removed in the cooking and preserving stages.
Pasta and red sauce is healthy.
Roasted chicken is healthy.
Avocado is healthy.
Walnuts and almonds are healthy.
Sushi is healthy.
There's tons of delicious healthy stuff.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
That's what they tend to claim about America in general, not just our food. "Sour grapes", I say...
Well, thank Lord for America then — where tomatoes (and potatoes, and chocolate, and red peppers) originated.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
EOM
Mice are not little humans. Mice are not little humans.
They are mammals, and yes, there are a fair amount of genetic similarities that allow us to test a whole host of drugs on them to get an idea of how they might respond in us. However, when it comes to diet, they are next to completely useless as a model.
The Americas, yes, not the United States of America, which is what we're talking about. But I suspect you already knew that and we're trying to be dishonest by way of omission.
So many people in the US South, whose cooking and tastes are high on both, keep voting against their own self-interest....
mark, wondering what the average diet of a libertarian is
It certainly is up to the reader (myself include). The study offers the following finding: people with plenty of fats and sugars have lower cognitive ability than those, who do not. Whether
is a debate as sensible, as arguing about a half-empty/full glass.
That the study makes no distinction between the two vastly different classes of foods — sugars and fats — leads me to the conclusion, that the key here is the total caloric intake, not the particular foods.
Yes, they had to do that, and perished periodically from famines.
Of course — because the US is a vastly richer (and better governed) country, which maintained a far better standards of living than others throughout its history.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
All the cool kids are eating paste anyway.
Tell us more about these imaginary people that you've never actually seen.
That's a nice rant against pre-packaged foods, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the study. According to them, the still-quivering lard from a freshly-killed pig will, if you eat enough of it regularly, diminish your cognitive ability as well as "pre-packaged" margarine.
Oh, and there is no mention of "salt" in TFA either. Off-topic much?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I think you meant you'd eat it like Doritos if they added flavoring they way they do to junk food.
Or frozen, like Poopsicles
It is not "cultural" — they just still remember famine, whereas the "golden billion" [wikipedia.org] has blissfully forgotten it.
Correct!
And even more importantly, our bodies haven't forgotten famine; that's why so many people have the propensity to store fat.
...could not be reached for comment.
There's a difference between a high fat diet and avoiding fat at all costs. For me, the southbeach diet is a sustainable diet and for all that is written about low carbs, the real secret ingredient is accepting more fats in you diet as caloric replacements for carbs. While some fats seem to be better than others (e.g. Nuts) the simple evidence is fats 1) digest more slowly 2) satiate your appetite more that the equivalent calories in carb or protein and 3) metabolically don't produce more fat. The last factoid is intriguing. When processing carbs, metabolically, some pathways produce lots of triglycerides. Thus paradoxically switching fats for carbs leads to lower triglycerides. Your body is the culprit.
An amazing discovery I made is the wonder of adding a 1/4 teaspoon of virgin coconut oil to my morning coffee. At first it's a little weird since it changes the character of the coffee from being what your mouth feel for coffee is to something new. It's not worse it's just new and after a while it's a superior acquired taste. There's been an effort to commercialize this blend under the name "bulletproof" coffee. (which combines coconut oil, undalted butter, and extra caffiene in a blended mixture). I prefer it without the butter, and while I initially blended it that was too much hassle.
Anyhow the marvel of this is not the flavor but the effect i find. I can skip breakfast and have a later lunch. A lower dose of coffee last longer and I'm less spiked in energy level and there's no low blood sugar crash from the coffee (leading to binging in the lunch line). I'm not sure why. I think the oils play several roles. First caffiene is partially fat soluble so it acts like a time release. And second, the fats shut down your hunger faster. And third, the mixture with a little floating oil on it lends it self to sipping rather than swigging your coffee giving more time for the feeling of satiation to set in, and the urgency of breakfast to go away.
pro tip: virgin unsalted coconut oil ONLY! the expeller pressed (non-virgin) oils have no flavor or aroma. And salted coffee everyone knows is awful.
Anyhow if you try it, keep an open mind-- it's not bad, it's novel.
Bonus: Your lips will feel smooth all day.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
What’s often referred to as the “Western diet,” or foods that are high in fat, sugars and simple carbohydrates, has been linked to a range of chronic illnesses in the United States,
I seem to recall also that eating excessive amounts of protein is also bad for you.
I guess it's time to start avoiding foods that are high in food.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
I'm planning of dying of a heart attack before that happens.
Haters gonna hate...*waddles away*
Absolutely! All that is required of you is TIME AND MONEY.
/s
The majority of Americans' waistlines is tied innately to the fact they're being worked longer and longer for less and less buying power. This means they don't have the TIME to prep / cook relatively short-shelf life healthy food that also would cost them too much MONEY, therefore cheap, fast, preprocessed food IS THEIR ONLY CHOICE. Treble the impact in urban settings.
But, yes; sit along side Oprah and Gwenyth Paltrow, cluck your tongue, pat us on the head, and tell us again how simple the solution is, six-figure.
I've been on a high fat and protein diet for about 9 months now. Cut 99% carbs, also sugar, admittedly. Cholesterol is only slightly elevated.
Lost over 10% weight, feel great, lots of energy, sharp mind, so I'm not convinced about what these people are talking about with their mice study.
Oh! Was I supposed to read the article?
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
but not especially tasty. Ice-cream or chocolate will still trump "healthy"
I've seen a whole bunch of people who thought just like you did, they are drooling and moaning as I walk past them in the nursing home. You can throw around your hysterical rant about ice cream but at some point someone is going to be changing your diapers.
Don't worry; you will be drooling and moaning too, soon enough.
Masochist much?
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
overlords at it again,
While this may be relevant to perhaps Mens health, or Maxxium, or Womens health or cosmopolitan. I fail to see how it jives here..
more and more I see these things which further disuade me from this site day after day..
Are you really trying to push me or others like me out to whom attempt to echo the sentiment of what this site used to be for "us"
please guys dont push me or US away..
no sh1t
news at 11
I'm quite lazy, but this is no bar for me. It isn't all that much more work to make multiple portions of something when you're cooking, and quite a lot of meals freeze well. I tend to cook in big batches and then stick in them in the freezer so I have stuff when I'm not interested in cooking (most weekday nights).
Eating nuts reduces all-cause mortality.
Nuts are full of fats.
Eating fats reduces all-cause mortality.
QED
Speak for yourself: tasty vs bearable is learned behaviour. I travel a fair bit, and the USA is a major outlier in what's regarded as tasty. To many (maybe most) Europeans, typical mainstream US food is pretty unpleasant - too much salt, too sweet, too over-seasoned, too thick, too bright, too colourful, too large, too in-your-face. That's why many products like soft drinks are formulated differently for European markets to match local tastes.
I tried an "around the world" sample tray at the Coca-Cola store in Vegas recently. Most of the flavors were pretty good and honestly not that much different from what is common in the USA. A few though were downright nasty.
Not only that, but cooking your own food is way cheaper. I know somebody's going to chime in here about how they can get seven cheeseburgers at McDonald's or a large pizza at Pizza Hut for X dollars and that's a lot cheaper, but sorry -- you're wrong. Any fast-food restaurant even with a "dollar menu" is paying for the cost of preparing and serving that food, which is a cost you don't have if you buy raw ingredients from a grocery store.
Delivery pizza, yes, but I cannot make a pizza at home for less than the $2.50 each I can get a frozen pizza that tastes pretty much the same. Maybe if I bought all ingredients in massive bulk amounts, had enough room to store it all, and ate it often enough to use all of those ingredients before any of them start to go bad. That economy of scale doesn't work for most people.
I can tell you how to kill your sweet tooth quick. at least it works for me. first thing in the morning eat about 1/2 or less of a pickle. You can even run it under the water a bit to get rid of some of the taste if its too strong. eat it slowly and suck the vinegar out. It seems like first thing in the morning your taste buds need to be calibrated and this makes your palate more sour than sweet. I've noticed quite a bit Asian and eastern European diets are rather sour and seems to keep them slim. I've also noticed when I used to drink beer, I had little interest in sweets. now I don't drink beer anymore, not much alcohol either. I can make and excellent milk shake out of some whole milk, frozen banana, and some vanilla flavoring. a regular milkshake would be so sweet it wouldn't be enjoyable. I'm avoiding all processed foods that have added sugar. I make my own bbq sauce - ketchup from tomato paste and pineapple. I make my own salad dressing, starting with blended chickpeas (hummus), then adding horseradish, or mustard, or buffalo wing sauce (the one I like has no sugar in it, thank goodness). I've been watching a lot of BBC history shows and I can tell from portraits that people started to gain weight around the tudor times, basically HenryVIII. Apparently that's when sugar got popular. Some people blackened their teeth on purpose to make it look like they could afford to eat sugar regularly. it was a status symbol.
Fructose is horribly addictive, and the way it is metabolized it is essentially a toxin. (Glucose is metabolized by every cell in the body, but fructose must pass through the liver since it is the only organ that is able to deal with it, and what it does with it isn't healthy at all.) There are just two reasons that sucrose isn't illegal:
1. Tradition. Anything that was in use before the FDA came into existance is "GRAS," which means "generally regarded as safe." This label comes from essentially nowhere other than that people were consuming it before without any obvious-enough-to-be-noticed issues, and so the assumption is that it is harmless.
2. Fruit. Every natural foods person enjoys fruit as their one and only source of addictive fructose, and so they vigerously defend it, much like a toddler vigerously defending the harmless nature of candy. These people also are generally of the opinion that nature would never create anything that is harmful to humans. Thus, the idea that plants may have evolved to exploit our addiction to fructose for their own survival is inconceivable, as obviously the only reason that plants put fructose into fruit is because it's an essential nutrient for humans.
Allowing the food industry to add sugar to foods isn't all that different from allowing them to add nicotene. There's nothing more profitable than a product which your customers consume not because they genuinely want it, but instead because they are addicted to it and they lack the willpower to overcome that addiction and refuse to consume it. It shouldn't be allowed to continue to happen.
I have mod points but the "Depressing reality reminder" option seems to be missing from my dropdown.
I see someone just found an explanation for why the flyover states vote republican.
Why don't they try just eating the fat? (What kind of fat? Saturated? Unsaturated?)
Because if you mix fat with sugar, you're essentially eating food mixed with poison.
But then, as others have pointed out, when you test human diets on tiny herbivores, you're not really contributing anything to the brain trust.
Why not run your tests on cows? They have more stomachs per animal, so you don't need as many! Science can be done faster!
Also.., side note: Protein converts to sugar when you eat more than you need. You don't need much.
While always causing a heated debate, Asians generally score higher on average than Americans on IQ tests (Among white Americans, the average IQ, as of a decade or so ago, was 103. Among Asian-Americans, it was 106). I would argue that Asians aren't by in large more intelligent, but that they eat better and get more exercise.
See the recent study: The new five-year study of more than 2,200 adults claims to have found a link between obesity and the decline in a person's cognitive function.
Since 3 out of 4 Americans are overweight, what we are probably seeing in these IQ tests are diet and lifestyle in action on the national level.
And yes, I too agree that IQ tests aren't all they are cracked up to be. However, go to a Chinese buffet and look at the thin people in the restaurant. They usually work there. All the Americans are large, with plates piled up to the ceiling full of food.
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
It certainly is up to the reader (myself include). The study offers the following finding: people with plenty of fats and sugars have lower cognitive ability than those, who do not. Whether
is a debate as sensible, as arguing about a half-empty/full glass
Quite sure that high sugar and fat content as stated by researchers, were it explicitly defined, is not anywhere close to "normal" (i.e. optimal) intake. This was conducted on young mice - I'm sure they know what they eat. The relativism game doesn't apply here.
That the study makes no distinction between the two vastly different classes of foods — sugars and fats — leads me to the conclusion, that the key here is the total caloric intake, not the particular foods.
Last I checked, sugar and fat is measurable and quantifiable. According to this - http://www.labdiet.com/cs/grou... ... calories from mouse feed pellets are 30% protein, 13.4% fat and 56.7% carbs, and less than 5% of the chemical composition is sugar (sucrose, glucose, fructose).
Merely increasing feed intake and calling it an increase in fat and sugar would not be a case of "all things held equal" and it's frankly laughable to believe that's what was conducted here. It would be outright un-scientific and render this a false study.
(I'm the original AC)
You illustrate exactly what I actually was referring to in the original post. I was a bit unclear and people probably assume I'm some kind of proponent of super processed food full of sugar, but I'm more interested in the whole carbs thing, really.
Bread is one of the best things ever. It's possible to make bread healthier, but the healthier you make it the less tasty it becomes.
Are we? I thought, we are talking about eating vs. not eating fats and sugars.
But, fine, let's talk about Mexico — the actual source of tomatoes (actually, that may have been in modern-day Ohio), chili peppers, and chocolate. Their obesity levels are even higher than the US'... You were saying?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
(I'm the original AC)
I should've been a bit clearer in the original post. Mainly it seems in all these eat healthy discussions someone will start on carbs. Carbs are bad. Less carbs. No bread, rice, potatoes, whatever. Same with sugar. Don't eat it. Prefer whole grain stuff. (whole grain non-whole grain)
There's a comment above where someone goes on about bread and how one should minimise the amount of flour and instead introduce filler such as whole grains and nuts, for example. The more filler you add the less it becomes like white bread. And white bread is the tastiest bread.
Which would not surprise me either, actually.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
"Those poor rats. Why don't we put humans in cages and restrict their calories,..."
You have millions of people in cages and the food is so disgusting that it amounts to calorie restriction.
"It's not that easy. At QFC and Safeway, EVERY bread they sell is overly sweetened. The only bread I've found without too much sugar is Trader Joe's rye."
But that one has more than a day's amount of salt in each slice.
But that one has more than a day's amount of salt in each slice.
But the currently-recommended day's amount of salt was literally pulled out of someone's ass, it has no basis in evidence. (You should still avoid hugely excessive amounts, but the commonly-recommended, almost impossible to achieve, amount is just bullshit.)
But the currently-recommended day's amount of salt was literally pulled out of someone's ass,
Surely you mean figuratively? I'm not sure faeces are the best possible material for recording and storing health metrics, but I'm open to debate.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Surely you mean figuratively?
I mean literally, in the figurative sense ;-)
I worked in a spice factory for 3 days, long ago. They made hot dog spice. I walked in the first day and smelled hot dogs. I was instantly hungry for, guess what, a hot dog!
This was a powerful spice that filled the air, and my eyes and the pores of my skin. So powerful that anything it was applied to would smell like hot dog. Anything. Whatever smell it might have had before, like rotten meat, etc, would be covered by the spice. Anything. Pull a lump from the toilet and spice it up--delicious!
Manufacturers know our weakness. Salt, sugar, chocolate, vanilla, cooking oil, smoke flavoring and more spices/colorants/flavorings than you can imagine. They know the 'mouth feel' that we prefer- crunchy, chewy etc depending on the food. They understand our response to packaging, naming, labeling, product placement... And manufacturers will apply these items to the most unhealthy food knowing that we will buy it. Yum, garlic flavored genetically engineered corn chips! (cost pennies to manufacture, dollars to buy) These addictions lead us to a slow motion form of suicide.
...omphaloskepsis often...
QFC and Safeway?
Are these American variants of KFC and Subway?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
You insensitive clod! I eat fofurky because I'm tofu intolerant!
I wouldn't doubt it. Tofu, as un-natural as the vegans who love it, is made by grinding soybeans, then cooking with a coagulant of either Magnesium Chloride, or Calcium Sulfate - aka Gypsum - the stuff the drywall sheets in your house is made of, or Magnesium Sulfate, AKA Epsom Salts, the chemical used to soak sore joints and a rapid and rather violent laxative .Either way, a veritable organic feast.
Yumm yum eat it all up!
Thanks, but I'll just have a pack of crackers.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Sorry, but you're wrong.
The fast-food place can buy their ingredients in bulk for much less per serving than you can, and can keep them fresh (or at least, edible) at lot longer and more easily than you can.
The labor cost of that fast-food meal is close to negligible, partly because the worker who made it is so poorly paid but mostly because he's working on a factory-style line that's optimized to make that meal in the shortest time possible. The cost of your McWhatever includes maybe five minutes of a minimum-wager's time, if that. Compare that to the time you spend shopping for, transporting, storing, and finally cooking ingredients yourself, multiply that by what your time is worth, and you'll see why fast food is an attractive alternative despite its obvious downsides.
People buy fast food because it's often the best choice in the short term, and they can't always afford the short-term sacrifices necessary to make the best long-term choices. They don't buy it because they're ignorant savages who need you to enlighten them.
Ok, so the study was done on mice who are herbivores, and they draw conclusions for human beings who are omnivores.
Also, if both fat and carbohydrates are bad, we should live entirely from protein shakes, is that what they're saying?
BS. The #1 reason pot was scheduled was racism. If we cared about 'cognitive decline' in teenagers, we'd be really scrupulous about keeping teens away from binging on alcohol and encouraging regular sleep patterns.
In this case it is just an example of how high sugur sodas have instigated the decline in the qualitty of slashdot discussions.
Yes, yes it is an example.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
When most people say "processed food" they really mean "engineered food". Bread is processed, yes, but so is cooked meat, and there's A reasonable theory that the Invention of cooking made food more easily digestible, freeing up energy to evolve our big brains in the first place.
There's also evidence that prepared food that is literally engineered to be as cheap as possible, taste good and make you want more, may not be so good for you.
Are these American variants of KFC and Subway?
No, they're supermarkets. The person to whom I responded was literally claiming that because many of the mass-produced breads in the supermarkets contain (too much) sugar, he was unable to find healthy food there. As though the scent of over-sugared bread drew him uncontrollably, causing him to shuffle blindly past the fruits, vegetables, meats and so on, and fill his cart with nothing but bad bread.
"Your hosts file comments are not trustworthy" - by omnichad (1198475) on Friday August 09, 2013 @11:22AM (#44520759)
Oh, really? Ok: MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who has seen & verified its sourcecode too no less as safe) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
&
MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus (per this VERY recent testing of them all) -> http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's GUARANTEED safe & clean (per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently) in BOTH its 64-bit model -> https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
---
Tells us, omniweasel:
* HOW'S IT TASTE "EATING YOUR WORDS" flavored with your FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH ramming them down spiced with the BITTER TASTE of SELF-DEFEAT"?
LMAO...
APK
P.S.=> Lastly: In the past, You also conceded MANY points on hosts to me & made huge mistakes vs. me here http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
&
Here too http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
LMAO @ U, "omniloser"... apk
Rats aren't sapient. It's a shame we need to use animals for testing, but there is no way to safely translate biomedical research from cells (or organs on a chip) into people without going through animals first. Organs on a chip don't work as replacements for animals because the interplay between organs is important, it doesn't recapitulate the circulatory system at all, and you can't effectively screen for off-target effects.
I do agree, however, that the research community needs to work on reproducibility more; I don't know how to make that change, but it's a good goal.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Is "goop" an acronym? Or is it merely a pejorative term for food that you'd rather not eat?
I'll stick with my (processed) Snackwell's cookies, (processed) lentil crisps, and (extremely processed) instant ramen.
Suck a cabbage, hippie!
I think that maybe you don't understand how bread is made, and are looking at the sugar in ingredients. Sugar is actually there to be digested by the yeast to produce CO2 when the dough is made, to fluff and grow it. It is added in an amount proportional to the amount of yeast and it's not going to show up in the final product.
All breads need this CO2 infusion because otherwise they'd be hard. Sometimes baking soda is used instead of yeast/sugar.
small, fluffy creatures that are pretty dumb
The only food that is unhealthy are those pre-packaged with tons of salt, sugar and fat and have had all it's nutrients removed in the cooking and preserving stages.
If it is full of sugar and fat then it's full of nutrients, not void of them.
You have a point there. Strawberries have a lot of sugar (and in moderation) is healthy, But soda, twinkees and ice cream are not healthy. Both are fine as a compliment to one's diet, every once-in-a-while, but healthy is not the word I would use for them.
Why aren't they healthy because it doesn't seem as if it's adding anything to one's diet outside of calories.
Now if we were in the middle of the zombie apocalypse - bottles of concentrated calories (soda) would be very valuable indeed.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond