From: Damien Sullivan (phoenix@ugcs.caltech.edu)
Date: Mon Apr 14 2003 - 12:50:28 MDT
On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 12:37:24PM -0400, gts wrote:
> > But that doesn't mean the grains are bad, vs. how we treat them.
>
> I think the question is not whether grains are "good" or "bad" in any
> absolute sense. It is rather "What are the best sources of calories?"
Sure. But there's nutrients and nutrients. Is taking lots of protein good?
I've seen signs it isn't -- gout, calcium competition, kidney stones. And
where do free radicals come from, metabolically? Are the "empty calories" of
carbs a cleaner burning fuel than protein, without by-products gumming up the
works?
I'm just throwing out questions here, not asserting anything.
Maybe the Okinawan success come from pure calories + lots of antioxidants and
stuff + plus some (not much) good protein and fat from fish, with a touch of
calorie restriction.
Seems like Americans were getting fat on steak and potatoes, then tried to go
low-fat and got even fatter and more diabetic. People conclude carbs are bad,
but the Americans were also eating *more*, which might be the real problem.
> > Grape juice or whole wheat bread: which would you rather live on?
> One cannot live on either of these foods alone.
I did always say grains weren't complete, didn't I? But fruits tend not to be
either, and I suspect you'd last longer on the bread.
-xx- Damien X-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 14 2003 - 12:58:16 MDT