Non-cooked, simple food is healthiest



On 12 Mar 2006 08:39:26 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>There is no political agenda
>or point I'm trying to make other than I don't eat meat and don't want
>to.

Fine, so why are you here?

serene
 
On 12 Mar 2006 07:48:48 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>OK, let me explain it this way. If a rolled oat is "processed", your
>body would have to somehow find it different. Same with the green bean.
>Unless you eat green beans raw, a canned green bean (without added salt
>was the example I used) is not processed either. Your stomach, health,
>metabolism, is not able to tell the difference between a rolled oat and
>a whole oat, assuming you also boil the oats before you eat them. There
>is nothing ADDED to oats and green beans.

Nothing-added is not the same as unprocessed. Go read a book.

serene
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> No, a chemical change does not take place when you roll oats any more
> than a chemical change takes place when you eat an apple vs. when you
> place it in a juicer, then drink the entire result of juice plus apple
> pulp. Oats are dried to begin with so they do not mold, so any oats you
> buy whole or rolled are going to be dry. Visually, rolled oats are a
> little different and I suppose you could make some esoteric, obscure
> point that that difference could translate into some internal chemical
> changes in how you perceive the food, but that nonsense aside, rolled
> oats and whole oats are equivalent nutritionally. Corn Flakes are
> processed. Rolled oats are not.
>

The application of certain words makes some foods magical and/or hip. "Stone
ground", for instance. :)
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> OK, let me explain it this way. If a rolled oat is "processed", your
> body would have to somehow find it different. Same with the green bean.
> Unless you eat green beans raw, a canned green bean (without added salt
> was the example I used) is not processed either. Your stomach, health,
> metabolism, is not able to tell the difference between a rolled oat and
> a whole oat, assuming you also boil the oats before you eat them. There
> is nothing ADDED to oats and green beans. Rolling and drying does not
> change the food in this case. You couldn't make the same argument for
> grapes vs. raisins however because a chemical change takes place there.
> It seems to me you think packaging or packing is the same as
> processing.

And it seems to me that you are terribly confused. Raisins are simply
dried grapes. What chemical change has occurred other than the dreaded
dihydrogen monoxide has been removed:

http://www.dhmo.org/

--
Dan Abel
[email protected]
Petaluma, California, USA
 
Oh no. Grapes that are dried into raisins have much more sugar than
grapes. This is a chemical change that has occured. They are not the
same nutritionally. 1 raisin has more sugar than the same single grape
before it is dried. BUT one oat has exactly the same nutrition if it is
whole or if it is rolled.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> Oh no. Grapes that are dried into raisins have much more sugar than
> grapes. This is a chemical change that has occured. They are not the
> same nutritionally. 1 raisin has more sugar than the same single grape
> before it is dried. BUT one oat has exactly the same nutrition if it is
> whole or if it is rolled.

Were you born stupid or did you have to practice? Can you describe this
"chemical change"? Just where did this sugar come from?

--
Dan Abel
[email protected]
Petaluma, California, USA
 
"Dan Abel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Oh no. Grapes that are dried into raisins have much more sugar than
>> grapes. This is a chemical change that has occured. They are not the
>> same nutritionally. 1 raisin has more sugar than the same single grape
>> before it is dried. BUT one oat has exactly the same nutrition if it is
>> whole or if it is rolled.
>
> Were you born stupid or did you have to practice? Can you describe this
> "chemical change"? Just where did this sugar come from?

If you're not careful, Dan, you're going to end up having to explain
dehydration, evaporation, distillation, and mineral crust on faucets. :)
 
Dan Abel wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>>Oh no. Grapes that are dried into raisins have much more sugar than
>>grapes. This is a chemical change that has occured. They are not the
>>same nutritionally. 1 raisin has more sugar than the same single grape
>>before it is dried. BUT one oat has exactly the same nutrition if it is
>>whole or if it is rolled.
>
>
> Were you born stupid or did you have to practice? Can you describe this
> "chemical change"? Just where did this sugar come from?
>

I can't wait to see his explaination of the chemical change!
 
[email protected] wrote:

> Oh no. Grapes that are dried into raisins have much more sugar than
> grapes. This is a chemical change that has occured. They are not the
> same nutritionally. 1 raisin has more sugar than the same single grape
> before it is dried. BUT one oat has exactly the same nutrition if it is
> whole or if it is rolled.
>

Wrong. From Book of Food Counts 10 grapes contain 4.1 g carbs (sugar).
From http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-B00001-01c20X4.html 50 raisins
contain 21 g carbs. If you multiply the 10 grape count by 5 to get 50
grapes so you are comparing the same amounts it comes out to 20.5 g or
rounded to next decimal 21 g carbs - the same! That means 50 grapes
with 21 g carbs when dried to 50 raisins will still contain 21 g carbs.
No magic, no chemical change, the same 21 g carbs. Dehydration
removes water not carbs and it doesn't cause a chemical change.
 
Doug Kanter wrote:
> "Bob Myers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Groups like this have great intentions. Sharing recipes, etc. That
>>> is part of the live to eat mentality however. I'll say it anyway. A
>>> simple, vegetarian, low-salt, low-fat, low calorie diet high in
>>> whole grains, fruit, vegetables and fiber is the healthiest way to
>>> eat. This involves almost no cooking at all.
>>
>> OK, so you don't wanna cook. That's fine for you, but
>> what on Earth are you doing HERE? Just trying to become
>> an evangelical non-cook, or what?
>>
>> Bob M.
>>
>>
>
> Just a guess, but do you remember The Whiners, from early Saturday
> Night Live episodes? They'd go into restaurants and immediately begin
> whining about their diverticulitis. The routine was enough to cause
> the illness. :)

Doug and Wendy Whiner! (hilarious skit) From the current SNL cast you have
Debbie Downer. There's one in every crowd :)
 
"jmcquown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug Kanter wrote:
>> "Bob Myers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>> Groups like this have great intentions. Sharing recipes, etc. That
>>>> is part of the live to eat mentality however. I'll say it anyway. A
>>>> simple, vegetarian, low-salt, low-fat, low calorie diet high in
>>>> whole grains, fruit, vegetables and fiber is the healthiest way to
>>>> eat. This involves almost no cooking at all.
>>>
>>> OK, so you don't wanna cook. That's fine for you, but
>>> what on Earth are you doing HERE? Just trying to become
>>> an evangelical non-cook, or what?
>>>
>>> Bob M.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Just a guess, but do you remember The Whiners, from early Saturday
>> Night Live episodes? They'd go into restaurants and immediately begin
>> whining about their diverticulitis. The routine was enough to cause
>> the illness. :)
>
> Doug and Wendy Whiner! (hilarious skit) From the current SNL cast you
> have
> Debbie Downer. There's one in every crowd :)
>

di-ver-tic-u LIIIIIIII-tus.
Dee Dee
 
zxcvbob <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

>
>
>
> That's why I peel the potatoes and wrap them with chicken skin before
> baking.
>
> Bob
>
> P.S. That was meant as a joke, but it actually sounds *really good*.
> Now I'll have to try it.


See, this is how great food starts - with a "what if". Before I scrolled
down to read your p.s., I was actually thinking, "I think he's joking, but
that sounds kinda good..." ;)

K
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back