M
Mirek Fidler
Guest
> >So eating the amount of cauliflower with the same energy
> >level as whole-grain bread, you will get 5x more fiber,
> >2.5x more calcium, 3x more magnesium, 1500x more vitamin
> >C, 7x more B6, etc...
>
> And cauliflower is "deficient" (according to you) when
> compared with a fibre-containing micronutrient capsule?
> What is your point?
My point is that I want to lower / maintaing my weight, and
I want to feel not hungry after eating a meal.
> available wholefoods. You shouldn't live on just
> cauliflower, or just bread. BTW, bread has ~10% protein.
> Cauliflower ?
Cauliflower 2g / 100g - so calorie for calorie, it is twice
as much. So you you will eat as much as to get at least the
same amount of micronutrition (e.g. 500g of cauliflower vs
100 g of bread for same calcium), you will get roughly the
same protein, but at worst half of calories.
OTOH, what is meat for ?
> >Please accept this fact: Only possible reason to eat
> >grains is to
stuff
> >yourself with energy.
>
> So how much cauliflower would you have to eat to get your
> daily energy needs?
~12kg ? Anyway, I need to eat less calories, not more.
> > If you have use for this energy, fine, perhaps you need
> > high-calorie diet.
>
> So why do these anti-grain folk tend to advocate the
> consumption of packaged fat? That is two-and-a-half-times
> as energy dense as grains.
"Packaged" ?! You mean like placing cold pressed olive oil
in bottles ? Or what ?!
Anyway. For many people, esp. for people with metabolic
syndrom, fat, esp. monounsaturated fat, is much safer source
of energy - it does not rises tryglicerides, lowers LDL,
rises HDL, does not causes insulin/BG swings, etc, etc...
all these things are in fact related.
Well, now I expect argument of not everybody having
metabolic syndrome. You are certainly right, OTOH I believe
that people without syndrome are rarely fat. I believe that
this could be your (and many other anti-LC advocates) case -
you can perhaps maintain your weight without problems, so
you tend not to believe that people affected by syndrome
actually ARE hungry soon after eating carbs, even relatively
low-GI ones.
> Energy is not a dirty word. It is arguably the most
> important nutrient. It is the nutrient that most of the
> world is deficient in.
Yes, but so far we are speaking about opposite problems,
aren't we ? Maybe the solution is to send all that pasta and
bread to starving countries
> >real whole food. Not to speak that 7 grain whole-grain
> >bread is
probably
> >a nutritional elite of breads.
>
> Well I eat a homemade bread with much more than that in
> it, so it would be a peasant bread for me
Actually, if I would ever plan to reintroduce bread to my
:WOE, I plan
to do homemade too (with a lot of flaxseed perhaps).
> >I am also somewhat concerned about baking process. Every
> >time food
goes
> >through high temperature while exposed to oxygen,
> >bad things
happen...
>
> And how does this cause a problem in the real world?
In real world, this is creating carcinogen acrylamids in the
bread (about 50mg / 100 g of average bread).
Also, althogh fat contenct of bread is low, most of it is
PUFA and it will go rancid (but at 0.39 g / 100 g total, it
is hardly a problem).
> >I really wonder, why you are so obsessive with
> >grains ?
>
> I'm not. It is a fine food and I'm just defending it from
> the obsessives who keep claiming it is the root of all our
> troubles.
Well, I think bread is not the main problem. Main problem is
corn sirup and corn starch. But when you are fat already,
most likely due to metabolic syndrome, controling high carb
food is really the easiest (and possibly healthiest) way how
to manage your weight.
> Most of the world has grains as a staple, with no
> problems. It is only the fat westerners who do. Does this
> not tell you something? Perhaps the fatties are looking
> for a scapegoat?
Also part of problem is that recently we were told that
eating carbs is so much healthy that we ate too much of
them. Now LC is maybe a public over-reaction to it, anyway
for people already damaged by high-carb/high-calorie diet,
it _could_ be a viable path to go.
If we have stayed on 33:33:33 diet, things might be much
better as of now. But after 70:20:10 for several years, one
has to compensate...
Mirek
> >level as whole-grain bread, you will get 5x more fiber,
> >2.5x more calcium, 3x more magnesium, 1500x more vitamin
> >C, 7x more B6, etc...
>
> And cauliflower is "deficient" (according to you) when
> compared with a fibre-containing micronutrient capsule?
> What is your point?
My point is that I want to lower / maintaing my weight, and
I want to feel not hungry after eating a meal.
> available wholefoods. You shouldn't live on just
> cauliflower, or just bread. BTW, bread has ~10% protein.
> Cauliflower ?
Cauliflower 2g / 100g - so calorie for calorie, it is twice
as much. So you you will eat as much as to get at least the
same amount of micronutrition (e.g. 500g of cauliflower vs
100 g of bread for same calcium), you will get roughly the
same protein, but at worst half of calories.
OTOH, what is meat for ?
> >Please accept this fact: Only possible reason to eat
> >grains is to
stuff
> >yourself with energy.
>
> So how much cauliflower would you have to eat to get your
> daily energy needs?
~12kg ? Anyway, I need to eat less calories, not more.
> > If you have use for this energy, fine, perhaps you need
> > high-calorie diet.
>
> So why do these anti-grain folk tend to advocate the
> consumption of packaged fat? That is two-and-a-half-times
> as energy dense as grains.
"Packaged" ?! You mean like placing cold pressed olive oil
in bottles ? Or what ?!
Anyway. For many people, esp. for people with metabolic
syndrom, fat, esp. monounsaturated fat, is much safer source
of energy - it does not rises tryglicerides, lowers LDL,
rises HDL, does not causes insulin/BG swings, etc, etc...
all these things are in fact related.
Well, now I expect argument of not everybody having
metabolic syndrome. You are certainly right, OTOH I believe
that people without syndrome are rarely fat. I believe that
this could be your (and many other anti-LC advocates) case -
you can perhaps maintain your weight without problems, so
you tend not to believe that people affected by syndrome
actually ARE hungry soon after eating carbs, even relatively
low-GI ones.
> Energy is not a dirty word. It is arguably the most
> important nutrient. It is the nutrient that most of the
> world is deficient in.
Yes, but so far we are speaking about opposite problems,
aren't we ? Maybe the solution is to send all that pasta and
bread to starving countries
> >real whole food. Not to speak that 7 grain whole-grain
> >bread is
probably
> >a nutritional elite of breads.
>
> Well I eat a homemade bread with much more than that in
> it, so it would be a peasant bread for me
Actually, if I would ever plan to reintroduce bread to my
:WOE, I plan
to do homemade too (with a lot of flaxseed perhaps).
> >I am also somewhat concerned about baking process. Every
> >time food
goes
> >through high temperature while exposed to oxygen,
> >bad things
happen...
>
> And how does this cause a problem in the real world?
In real world, this is creating carcinogen acrylamids in the
bread (about 50mg / 100 g of average bread).
Also, althogh fat contenct of bread is low, most of it is
PUFA and it will go rancid (but at 0.39 g / 100 g total, it
is hardly a problem).
> >I really wonder, why you are so obsessive with
> >grains ?
>
> I'm not. It is a fine food and I'm just defending it from
> the obsessives who keep claiming it is the root of all our
> troubles.
Well, I think bread is not the main problem. Main problem is
corn sirup and corn starch. But when you are fat already,
most likely due to metabolic syndrome, controling high carb
food is really the easiest (and possibly healthiest) way how
to manage your weight.
> Most of the world has grains as a staple, with no
> problems. It is only the fat westerners who do. Does this
> not tell you something? Perhaps the fatties are looking
> for a scapegoat?
Also part of problem is that recently we were told that
eating carbs is so much healthy that we ate too much of
them. Now LC is maybe a public over-reaction to it, anyway
for people already damaged by high-carb/high-calorie diet,
it _could_ be a viable path to go.
If we have stayed on 33:33:33 diet, things might be much
better as of now. But after 70:20:10 for several years, one
has to compensate...
Mirek