Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wrong. I maintained ~1200 calorie life style for several extended periods after losing my initial weight in an effort to get rid of the last 10sh lbs of fat with no success. If its simply calories in vs out then I would have succeeded several times over. It's not simply in vs out in some cases which is what I'm trying to point out and what Goronmon has failed to understand.
It's not simply in vs out in some cases which is what I'm trying to point out and what Goronmon has failed to understand. You'll never find a diet/exercise/plan that allows one to achieve indefinite weight lose.
The Sugar Conspiracy
341–350 of 362 posts
Re: The Sugar Conspiracy
#342Earlier quoted context omitted.
Saccharomyces yeast turns sugars into ethanol. Acetobacter bacteria turns ethanol into acetic acid. It's all about controlling the cultures you use for the fermentation. That's why home-brewers have to be so careful about sterilizing their fermentation vessels and boiling their liquids. You absolutely, positively do not want the wrong microbe getting into your booze. If it's a wild one, it could end up synthesizing a…
That's not how it works. Acetic acid fermentation needs oxygen, alcohol fermentation doesn't. You need to prevent fresh air from getting into the vessel, but that's it. You don't boil anything.
The boiling happens with beer, mostly. With wine, you're usually relying on the yeast that naturally occurs on the surface of the grapes, so if you boiled (or pasteurized) it, there would be no fermentation unless you added additional yeast. That sometimes happens, because some people prefer consistency to authenticity.
Home brewers use fermentation vessels that allow gases to escape through a liquid trap and the whole process is done at positive pressure. You can bet your ass that those vessels are thoroughly sterilized before each use.
We may be talking past each other here.
Re: The Sugar Conspiracy
#343Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? I find it in the UK (Tesco) quite readily. Tastes extremely bland though (like eating uncooked porridge oats) which might explain its unpopularity.
Curious: how do you eat your muesli? I eat my unsweetened muesli with yoghurt (like the Swiss do), and find it quite tasty.
Don't overdo the dried fruit though since you'll end up defeating the point of unsweetened muesli!
Re: The Sugar Conspiracy
#344Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet, as the article doesn't quite point out, eating all the protein you like won't make you more muscular (unless you also do regular strenuous exercise).
Obviously you can't just eat your way to a six pack. If you're trying to make a point worthy of an "and yet" prefix, it's lost on me. You can get fat by eating too much protein. Or too much fat. Intense overeating of any macro-nutrient is a bad idea. The thing is, it's harder (though by no means difficult) to overeat fat or protein. The dangerous thing about carbohydrates is they are by far the easiest to overeat, an…
This appears unlikely/citation needed. You may die from it, but not by getting fat.
For example, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_starvation
" If there are enough rabbits, the people eat till their stomachs are distended; but no matter how much they eat they feel unsatisfied. Some think a man will die sooner if he eats continually of fat-free meat than if he eats nothing, but this is a belief on which sufficient evidence for a decision has not been gathered in the North. Deaths from rabbit-starvation, or from the eating of other skinny meat, are rare; for everyone understands the principle, and any possible preventive steps are naturally taken."
Re: The Sugar Conspiracy
#345Earlier quoted context omitted.
> costs for increased health care Smokers are net over-contributors in most countries, cigarette taxes vastly exceed health care costs, in no small part to shorter lifespans of smokers and often quick deaths. > health impacts on non-smokers Maybe if you work in a smoking bar/restaurant (which is your choice) or live with someone who smokes inside. > the simple impact it has on the happiness of those subjected to your…
I don't think that's unreasonable. Honestly, there's nothing you can say to bring me 100% on-board. I'll never believe that someone's right to smoke is greater than my right not to be subject to smoke and that the burden should be on the one who acts/smokes. I can agree that someone should be free to smoke in their house, provided they have no dependents. Again, I don't have a strong opinion, probably because [in par…
Re: The Sugar Conspiracy
#346"But instead of becoming healthier, [America] grew fatter and sicker." Complex topic, but this sentence to me was the most interesting from the story; in part, because of how much focus is put on solving problems that do not harm nearly as many Americans being over weight & unhealthy. It be curious to know if this topic has even come up once in America's election.
There is never been a scientific study that showed being overweight (not obese) causes health problems. And the opposite causality (weight gain resulting from unrelated health problems) is incredibly common.
Julie Guthman's book "Weighing In" goes into detail.
Re: The Sugar Conspiracy
#34730 years ago people had to be proactive and smart enough to gain information. Now people have to be proactive and smart enough to distinguish between sound and unfounded (aka bullshit) information. From that point of view not that much changed really.
No real difference between a "Dark Age" where info is cloistered for the few and a blindingly "Light Age" where the signal is buried in noise of conflicting interests. The beauty of this puzzle for most people can be solved with a modicum of info, simple maths and listening to their body. Treating indigestion, constipation and other irritants with magic pills only masks the symptoms of bigger problems, most of which…
As a species we're becoming more knowledgable at a staggering pace right now. If you think the non-academic world is not benefitting from having access to the Internet you are crazy.
Re: The Sugar Conspiracy
#348Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think some folk here are misinterpreting my original post (perhaps I wasn't clear enough). Neither I, nor I imagine Jack Lalanne were advocating we return to hunter gatherer foraging. Whilst Jack Lalanne's quote 'if man made it don't eat it' is simplistic it's basically saying go for the steak or the bag of salad leaves rather than the corn dog and powdered mash potato. This isn't about 'weird' foods like raw milk,…
I'm of the exact same dietary philosophy as yourself. I derived it through reading and experimentation before paleo was even a thing, as it appears Jack Lalanne did as well. Most people who attack a simple sensible diet like this are really just exposing their own insecurities and desire to not give up the crap they injest themselves.
I get that to many, science is a boogeyman - but come on, we're meant to be better than that on HN, since you know, so many of do actually have science backgrounds?
My parents owned a sheep property growing up, and I went to an agricultural school - the whole point of modern agriculture, and husbandy pratcises is that we do intentional thinks to manipulate animals/plants, to be safer for us.
Oh, and my wife is a veterinarian - and occasionally she gets crazies in, who think they can roadkill or dead wildlife - she's like, yeah, genius, great way to give yourself worms.
And preserved foods is...well, just that - to preserve food.
You know, like pasteurised milk?
Humans have been preserving food for millennia - it's just that our techniques have evolved a bit more than "add salt, let it dry in the sun".
I think many people might be equating junk food (i.e. sweets, chips etc.) with all modern foods - that's a logical fallacy. Food companies optimised for things consumers want - whether that's long shelf-life, for taste, for convenience etc.
We are so incredibly lucky these days - that we have massive range of foodstuff - just make sure you read the food labels, and pick the foods you want.
If convenience, or high-sweetness isn't what you want - then don't buy those products. Buy other products!
Ultimately, corporates aren't some evil faceless entity - nor do I believe there's some mysterious conspiracy going on.
They simply create what they think people will buy - and hence, make them money.
But I agree with parent - the whole "eat stuff that humans haven't touched" is a bit of a stupid argument - it's like romanticising pre-historic men.
In reality - they probably had hard, short lives, and were subject to parasites and infection constantly - a lot of it via the food they ate.
Re: The Sugar Conspiracy
#349Jack Lalanne (American fitness guru) stated "If man made it, don't eat it". I recall reading that and scratching my head at the sheer number of food products that encompassed. I thought it a rather presumptuous statement. Five years later and after many books and articles on nutrition I now fully agree with him. When I hit the grocery store I skip the middle aisles and head straight for the fish and meat counter or t…
I find there is cognitive dissonance here for a lot of folks - I personally agree that fresh, natural ingredients are good, but at the same time I'll drink soylent. I don't know where I stand on all this because I am afraid that in future years, I'll find out that I have small intestine cancer because of all the soylent I drink, but at the same time - we SHOULD be able to understand how the body works and that all th…
Whilst I can imagine soylent is nutritionally dense and quite possibly very sound from that point of view the work of Weston Price would strongly suggest a major problem with lack of good mastication.
The skull isn't as static a structure as we might believe it turns out and lack of effective nutrition AND chewing caused many problems in people (weakening of the jaw and facial muscles and subsequent narrowing of the palate and skull) according to his studies.
Basically we can try and stray from the path our ancestors took but not too far too quick! Our bodies only evolve so fast so yep, even soylent probably has its downsides.
Re: The Sugar Conspiracy
#350Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not how it works. Acetic acid fermentation needs oxygen, alcohol fermentation doesn't. You need to prevent fresh air from getting into the vessel, but that's it. You don't boil anything.
Kefir culture, which contains both types of microbe, is perfectly happy turning sugar into alcohol into vinegar inside a sealed vessel. If you wanted to stop it, you would need to evacuate the vessel or fill it with an inert gas. If you also had a microbe in there that split water into H2 and O2, you'd have no chance at all at more than about 0.5% alcohol by volume in there. I'm not aware of any existing kefir cultur…
Fermentation produces so much CO2 that it quickly fills up the vessel and pushes any remaining oxygen out. People didn't know where yeast comes from until recently. You're making it far more complicated than it is.