|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6033 days) Posts: 32 From: Minneapolis, MN, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Raw Food Diet | |||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Refined carbs alone make me sleepy, then hungry about an hour after I eat them. Insulin spiking and all that. Protein with vegetables keeps me going for many hours with no hungry feeling later. It is probably the caffeine and sugar in the Coke that temproarily makes you not feel hungry, not the carbonation. You will have the same insulin effects later.
How fast can you eat 3 pounds of brussels sprouts and five pounds of apples and three bags of salad mix? quote: Brussels sprouts and apples (and carrots, beets, cauliflower, cabbage, parsnips, winter squash, sweet potatoes, etc) easily can last in your refrigerator for a week, unless you have the shittiest grocery store in the world. And anyway, that pretty much makes my point for me. You can't eat them fast enough because you could afford to buy pounds and pounds, so you would buy a bit less of them, bringing your food bill down even further. Remember, you said:
quote: Oh, and about your saying that Coke is "refreshing" and water isn't. Water is, biologically, the most refreshing thing mammals can drink. You may not like the taste of the water available to you, but how something tastes has nothing to do with how it refreshes you, or quenches your thirst. The high fructose corn syrup in Coke actually leads to you feeling more thirsty, where water will not have that effect. I think I've shown that if one shops carefully, one can buy a LOT of highly nutritious food for around the same amount of money as processed junk, if not less. If utter convenience and having zero prep time is all-important to you, more important to you than good nutrition and disease prevention and all that, then I can certainly see how spending the extra money on boxed processed foods would be an attractive option. My point still stands, though, that those poor people who are buying calorie-dense food in order to maximize the calorie per dollar they spend are clearly eating far, far more calories than they need to, as evidenced by the connection between poverty and obesity in this country. My point also stands that people from all sorts of economic categories buy lesser quality food than they could. Your description of your own buying habits are evidence of that, as I assume someone who knows as much about wine as you do probably isn't having to choose between buying apples or paying the rent. You could buy beans, brown rice, and sturdy root cellar vegetables that keep for weeks, but you value convenience over nutrition, I guess. Yes, you may not think it is worth the expenditure in gas to "drive across town" to the Co-Op with the better quality fruit and vegetables, but perhaps you would make back the couple of bucks in gas by not having to throw away as much food, becasue it is fresher. Yes, people buy to feel full. Beans, whole grains, and fiber-rich vegetables and fruits make you feel full. They do much better at that than ice cream and Coke. Most people buy junk becasue they like junk and because they don't want to be bothered to cook, even for a half hour. There's no other reason. In a country where the people watch and average of four and a half hours of TV per day, there's really no excuse for saying "I don't have time to cook nutritious food". Edited by nator, : No reason given. Edited by nator, : No reason given. Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: That's misleading. Excercise and sex also cause the release ofdopamine and endorphins in the same way opiates do. Eating anything, including broccoli, does the same thing. Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Yes, I accept that sugar does all of these things.
Sex and exercise also increse opiates in the body. The same opiate-pleasure response is involved in learning a new skill, too. Your listing of the bad things about Coke is misleading, because it characterized the sugar as causing opiate like effects as though those are always bad. It was counting on the people reading it not knowing enough about such things to recognize it for what it is; a misleading scare tactic. Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I can't imagine how on earth plain water could produce mucus in anyone, so you've got me there.
quote: That's so funny, since the incredibly high amounts of corn syrup in Coke is a huge mucus-producer for me and most everyone I know. I've grown to be able to both taste the flavor of and detect the sticky, coating texture of corn syrup in the finish of any liquid made with it. Plain sugar tastes much cleaner and the texture is much better. You can try a comparison tasting around Passover time, because Coke makes a kosher version of Classic Coke, made with cane sugar. I can easily tell the difference. I wasn't raised on soda, so I never really had much of a taste for it. However, I used to enjoy a Coke now and then with something like pizza, or sometimes Zhimbo and I would buy some chips and Coke for a long night of gaming on the computer. I drink a lot of water, and in general have been reducing my sweet drink consumption over the last several years, so my taste has changed. I no longer like Coke, because it tastes so incredibly oversweet to me now. Like, it is so sweet, it's gross and thick-feeling; almost like I'm drinking only slightly diluted corn syrup.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: They certainly are, but it appears that you are still missing my point. Just because a substance or activity stimulates the opiate receptors in our brains doesn't make that substance or activity bad. Nor does it automatically lead to addiction. In fact, many things that we do and consume result in a release of natural opiates. Therefore, the item on the list your doctor gave you that implies that anything that increases opiate in the brain is misleading, and is counting on the fact that most people don't know enough about neurophysiology to spot the scare tactics being employed. I don't approve of misleading, half-truth medical statements used as scare tactice. I think they are unethical. Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
I understand that The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine is a less than reputable source quote: Why? Is it becasue you have evaluated the quality of the studies and found their methodology and statistical analysis to be of excellent quality? Or, do you just accept what they claim in the articles because you prefer to believe their results over contradictory ones from other journals?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: We know you believe this. And you are correct that those who let evidence, and only evidence, be their guide in trying to discover something about the natural world are biased against poor methodology and shoddy analysis. Such substandard work leads to much error, LindaLou, of that we are certain. You are correct that scientific studies can be flawed and biased. We are telling you that many of the studies in the journals you cite are flawed and biased. What you are essentially saying is that since any study can be biased and flawed, we might as well just pick the ones that have the results we like the best. The thing is, just because you aren't willing or able to be identify bias and flaws in studies doesn't mean nobody else isn't. We have explained in detail exactly how they are flawed and biased. It is your choice, of course, to remain closed to the possibility that the scientists here actually know what they are talking about, and also closed to the possibility that you could be wrongheaded in your approach to evidence. I also note that you haven't demonstrated that your belief that mainstream medicine is wrong to marginalize such journals is based in anything other than your preference to believe whatever study, report, or anecdote you wish regardless of the quality of the evidence or reporting. This means that you don't care about being correct if it means having to challenge what you prefer to believe. Tell me, do you think that such an attitude is biased in such a way to lead to less error, or more? Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024