The burden of proof is on you, since you claim that 30 years of metabolic science is open to debate. If you expect us to follow a crack scientific process, we can expect you to respect the burden of proof.
The burden of proof is on you, since you claim that 30 years of metabolic science is open to debate. If you expect us to follow a crack scientific process, we can expect you to respect the burden of proof.
Prove that it is wrong.
1) all science is open for debate. That's what makes science great and how we advance. The world was flat, and flying was imposable at one time.
2) I'm not debating the metabolic process. I'm debating that most manufactured bread are a like.
I used crap bread in my study. It's crap because it proved a point? As I said before I'm sure there are uber health breads that are jammed packed with Vitamins and and other good things for you, but how do make the comparison.
Here this is real simple. Post a bread that you consider to be healthy and compare it to the "crap breads" I have. The label should be different and then we just look at the ingredients.
Ok everyone Bread choices to compare. who's got one
That's not how the burden of proof works, Jeff. You are attempting to discredit the establishment; please provide incontrovertible proof that your assertions are correct.
Jeff is right a calorie is a calorie in chemical terms, so where does this break down when we get into nutrition? Your body doesn't combust its fuel for energy.
If our bodies were steam engines then it wouldn't matter where the calories come from, calorie is calorie, heat is heat.
Everything that can be lit on fire has chemical calories. Those calories are not a good way to measure nutrition, but we use it anyway because it's the only thing that we have to measure with. Here's the best example I can think of:
A sheet of paper has how many chemical calories in it? 5? 10? okay, whatever that is... When you eat a sheet of paper, what happens to it in your body? nothing, it goes in one end, and out the other because our chemical systems can't process wood-pulp. dietary caloric intake is nul, despite what the label may say.
So: different things give more dietary calories than others, but that's not all:
As far as things that can be processed by the body, the way the body uses it is often determined by where it is processed. Something that can only be processed by the liver (like fructose), for example can cause different things to happen than something that is processed in the brain (like ethanol) or in the intestines (like lactose).
It's cool that you want to see the science behind it. There is a great video that I posted in this board called Sugar: the Bitter Truth which talks about all of this stuff from a scientific, chemical interaction viewpoint. Watch it, and get back to us.
You want some references for the points that the Brothers Hallock are making, that video should suffice.
CB: WOW This is exactly what what I was looking for. The detail was awesome and I have a new understanding if sugars. I have to sincerely thank you for bringing this to my attention.
A few things in that video that did proof my point. about 45 mins in he mentioned white bread and how it is adsorbed with out any problems. But he also said maid with glucose. This was the key I was looking for. All the breads I compared all contain fructose/sucrose. Which still makes all bad for you.
However, I will tip my hat to Thrax (with the help of CB) to say if your bread is made with the correct ingredients, sugars being very important, that the bread will be healthy for you, because of the way your body uses it. the way the sugars are used was absolutely fascinating.
I would still say I'm correct that white and wheat are the same, especially if they contain fructose but if I compared a white bread with fructose and a wheat bread with glucose I would not be able to see that on the nutritional label. So I will say the nutritional label does not reflect the whole story of the ingredients, I was wrong on this part.
Koreish: you just helped me proof that not everything on the internet is true. The 1st paragraph states that wheat is much higher in fiber and other B vit.. My data proves the opposite.
I will definitely pay more attention to my diet. Look like I'm headed for a heart attack and that really scares me. But I have to look at more that just weather its whole grain or white enriched, organic, or preprocessed. I'm kinda at a loss to determine what is good and bad. Knowing what fructose is a good start.
Koreish: you just helped me proof that not everything on the internet is true. The 1st paragraph states that wheat is much higher in fiber and other B vit.. My data proves the opposite.
No, he helped you prove that you used shitty bread.
I would still say I'm correct that white and wheat are the same, especially if they contain fructose but if I compared a white bread with fructose and a wheat bread with glucose I would not be able to see that on the nutritional label.
You're not, because wheat is not a sugar and the wheat is more important than any additive. The structural complexities of coarse-ground wholegrain wheat not only retards the insulinemic response(1) to promote lipolysis (2) when compared to refined wheat, but its higher fiber content and digestive difficult also reduces caloric uptake(3).
(2) Insulin and Glucagon:
"At the same time, insulin restrains processes that release stored energy; lipolysis and ketogenesis, glycogenolysis, proteolysis and gluconeogenesis. Insulin is necessary for uptake of amino acids to tissues and for protein synthesis. Insulin is THE central actor in homeostasis; the stabilization of the internal milieu."
(3) The calorie delusion: Why food labels are wrong
"Yet according to a small band of researchers, using the information on food labels to estimate calorie intake could be a very bad idea. They argue that calorie estimates on food labels are based on flawed and outdated science, and provide misleading information on how much energy your body will actually get from a food. Some food labels may over or underestimate this figure by as much as 25 per cent, enough to foil any diet, and over time even lead to obesity. As the western world's waistlines expand at an alarming rate, they argue, it is time consumers were told the true value of their food."
But again, I'd like to point out that you have not yet provided any evidence to suggest or otherwise confirm that your viewpoint on the matter is correct.
Should we argue with made up facts? Or unaccepted science?
Time travel to the future and get some of that science and argue with it.
I dunno.
But yeah. He ALSO says several times during the lecture "even though a food may not have fructose, does not mean there aren't OTHER things in it that aren't good for you." Particularly when referring to McDonald's foodstuffs. Oh look, white bread in the hamburger patties.
Time travel to the future and get some of that science and argue with it.
I dunno.
But yeah. He ALSO says several times during the lecture "even though a food may not have fructose, does not mean there aren't OTHER things in it that aren't good for you." Particularly when referring to McDonald's foodstuffs. Oh look, white bread in the hamburger patties.
The buns have fructose. He states that quite clearly.
True, but the point is, ingredients are not black and white. I fully agree with the "a calorie is not a calorie" assessment, especially in this case. White bread contains traces of things (such as bleach) that really have no place voluntarily entering your body. Whole wheat bread (when properly prepared) does not.
Thrax:
"No, he helped you prove that you used shitty bread."
I think this statement ends the debate. All I can really say about the data is that the wheat and white used in the study were similar. I can't say all white vs all wheat are a like. I have to be careful of other ingredients make bread shitty. Some of the breads I used said whole wheat and whole grain, but still is shitty? How can I tell the difference? Should I look at the sugar to fiber ratio. I will agree non-shitty wheats will have a higher ratio. Who makes "good" breads?
It's too late to read all the articles you produced, I'll get to that later. I'm sure there informative. That's the information I'm looking for. Just saying i'm wrong isn't enough for me, especially when I have reason to question.
I'm a big pain in the ass sometimes, stubborn, hard headed, but I do admit when I'm wrong. I'm wrong. I made a false assumption based on bad data. That's how I learn sometimes. I don't like taking something at face value. Maybe that's a flaw I have, maybe not. I'll say at the end of this one I did learn quite a bit and I can say that's at all bad.
I didn't look at the nutritional information in your spreadsheet (because I haven't downloaded the Office 2007 compatibility pack yet), but here is the info from the bread I like to buy at the store:
Serving Size: 1 slice
Calories: 100
Calories from fat: 10
Total Fat 1g (saturated 0g trans 0g)
Cholesterol 0mg
Sodium 200mg
Total Carbohydrates: 19g
Dietary Fiber 3g
Sugars 3g
Protein 5g
Ingredients: Whole wheat flour, water, vital wheat gluten, molasses and <2% of a bunch of stuff I can't pronounce and would rather not eat.
It's not the healthiest bread (not as good for you as Nomad's unleavened flour & water only recipe), but it's one of the healthier ones on the shelves, especially compared to white breads. Healthy(ish) breads are out there on the shelves, they just usually cost about a dollar more per loaf than the others. I think it's worth it for my health, though.
You're correct in saying that most "wheat" sandwich breads on the shelf are no better for you than the typical white bread. The only difference between them, generally, is unbleached vs. bleached flour, but it's still refined flour. The good breads (usually) are larger slices than sandwich size (for some reason I don't understand), often say "100% whole wheat", and usually feel like a bowling ball in comparison to the sandwich loaves. I usually look at the label of these and try to find those lowest in any refined sugar. But like I said, the better nutrition comes at a price.
0
AnnesTripped Up by Libidos and HubrisAlexandria, VAIcrontian
edited August 2009
Ezekiel 4:9 bread. Freezer section. It makes the best damn toast ever.
You're correct in saying that most "wheat" sandwich breads on the shelf are no better for you than the typical white bread. The only difference between them, generally, is unbleached vs. bleached flour, but it's still refined flour. The good breads (usually) are larger slices than sandwich size (for some reason I don't understand), often say "100% whole wheat", and usually feel like a bowling ball in comparison to the sandwich loaves. I usually look at the label of these and try to find those lowest in any refined sugar. But like I said, the better nutrition comes at a price.
Comments
provide a link of this process. I want to know byproducts of each.
I at least provided data for my argument.
Prove that it is wrong.
Hamburger helper, makes a good meal, what?
Yes, using correct terms is always wrong.
1) all science is open for debate. That's what makes science great and how we advance. The world was flat, and flying was imposable at one time.
2) I'm not debating the metabolic process. I'm debating that most manufactured bread are a like.
I used crap bread in my study. It's crap because it proved a point? As I said before I'm sure there are uber health breads that are jammed packed with Vitamins and and other good things for you, but how do make the comparison.
Here this is real simple. Post a bread that you consider to be healthy and compare it to the "crap breads" I have. The label should be different and then we just look at the ingredients.
Ok everyone Bread choices to compare. who's got one
Jeff is right a calorie is a calorie in chemical terms, so where does this break down when we get into nutrition? Your body doesn't combust its fuel for energy.
If our bodies were steam engines then it wouldn't matter where the calories come from, calorie is calorie, heat is heat.
Everything that can be lit on fire has chemical calories. Those calories are not a good way to measure nutrition, but we use it anyway because it's the only thing that we have to measure with. Here's the best example I can think of:
A sheet of paper has how many chemical calories in it? 5? 10? okay, whatever that is... When you eat a sheet of paper, what happens to it in your body? nothing, it goes in one end, and out the other because our chemical systems can't process wood-pulp. dietary caloric intake is nul, despite what the label may say.
So: different things give more dietary calories than others, but that's not all:
As far as things that can be processed by the body, the way the body uses it is often determined by where it is processed. Something that can only be processed by the liver (like fructose), for example can cause different things to happen than something that is processed in the brain (like ethanol) or in the intestines (like lactose).
It's cool that you want to see the science behind it. There is a great video that I posted in this board called Sugar: the Bitter Truth which talks about all of this stuff from a scientific, chemical interaction viewpoint. Watch it, and get back to us.
You want some references for the points that the Brothers Hallock are making, that video should suffice.
A few things in that video that did proof my point. about 45 mins in he mentioned white bread and how it is adsorbed with out any problems. But he also said maid with glucose. This was the key I was looking for. All the breads I compared all contain fructose/sucrose. Which still makes all bad for you.
However, I will tip my hat to Thrax (with the help of CB) to say if your bread is made with the correct ingredients, sugars being very important, that the bread will be healthy for you, because of the way your body uses it. the way the sugars are used was absolutely fascinating.
I would still say I'm correct that white and wheat are the same, especially if they contain fructose but if I compared a white bread with fructose and a wheat bread with glucose I would not be able to see that on the nutritional label. So I will say the nutritional label does not reflect the whole story of the ingredients, I was wrong on this part.
Koreish: you just helped me proof that not everything on the internet is true. The 1st paragraph states that wheat is much higher in fiber and other B vit.. My data proves the opposite.
I will definitely pay more attention to my diet. Look like I'm headed for a heart attack and that really scares me. But I have to look at more that just weather its whole grain or white enriched, organic, or preprocessed. I'm kinda at a loss to determine what is good and bad. Knowing what fructose is a good start.
Great comments by all, yes even Nomad :-)
Should we argue with made up facts? Or unaccepted science?
No, he helped you prove that you used shitty bread.
You're not, because wheat is not a sugar and the wheat is more important than any additive. The structural complexities of coarse-ground wholegrain wheat not only retards the insulinemic response(1) to promote lipolysis (2) when compared to refined wheat, but its higher fiber content and digestive difficult also reduces caloric uptake(3).
(1) Whole-grain intake is favorably associated with metabolic risk factors for type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease in the Framingham Offspring Study:
"Plasma glucose and insulin responses (area under the curve) were highest after the fine-flour meal, followed by the coarse flour and cracked grain, with the lowest area under the curve observed after the whole-grain meal."
(2) Insulin and Glucagon:
"At the same time, insulin restrains processes that release stored energy; lipolysis and ketogenesis, glycogenolysis, proteolysis and gluconeogenesis. Insulin is necessary for uptake of amino acids to tissues and for protein synthesis. Insulin is THE central actor in homeostasis; the stabilization of the internal milieu."
(3) The calorie delusion: Why food labels are wrong
"Yet according to a small band of researchers, using the information on food labels to estimate calorie intake could be a very bad idea. They argue that calorie estimates on food labels are based on flawed and outdated science, and provide misleading information on how much energy your body will actually get from a food. Some food labels may over or underestimate this figure by as much as 25 per cent, enough to foil any diet, and over time even lead to obesity. As the western world's waistlines expand at an alarming rate, they argue, it is time consumers were told the true value of their food."
But again, I'd like to point out that you have not yet provided any evidence to suggest or otherwise confirm that your viewpoint on the matter is correct.
Time travel to the future and get some of that science and argue with it.
I dunno.
But yeah. He ALSO says several times during the lecture "even though a food may not have fructose, does not mean there aren't OTHER things in it that aren't good for you." Particularly when referring to McDonald's foodstuffs. Oh look, white bread in the hamburger patties.
The buns have fructose. He states that quite clearly.
"No, he helped you prove that you used shitty bread."
I think this statement ends the debate. All I can really say about the data is that the wheat and white used in the study were similar. I can't say all white vs all wheat are a like. I have to be careful of other ingredients make bread shitty. Some of the breads I used said whole wheat and whole grain, but still is shitty? How can I tell the difference? Should I look at the sugar to fiber ratio. I will agree non-shitty wheats will have a higher ratio. Who makes "good" breads?
It's too late to read all the articles you produced, I'll get to that later. I'm sure there informative. That's the information I'm looking for. Just saying i'm wrong isn't enough for me, especially when I have reason to question.
I'm a big pain in the ass sometimes, stubborn, hard headed, but I do admit when I'm wrong. I'm wrong. I made a false assumption based on bad data. That's how I learn sometimes. I don't like taking something at face value. Maybe that's a flaw I have, maybe not. I'll say at the end of this one I did learn quite a bit and I can say that's at all bad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbU26gxE-Qw
non of my breads said 100% whole grain. Is that what makes them shitty? or is whole grain at the top of the list ok?
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm
Serving Size: 1 slice
Calories: 100
Calories from fat: 10
Total Fat 1g (saturated 0g trans 0g)
Cholesterol 0mg
Sodium 200mg
Total Carbohydrates: 19g
Dietary Fiber 3g
Sugars 3g
Protein 5g
Ingredients: Whole wheat flour, water, vital wheat gluten, molasses and <2% of a bunch of stuff I can't pronounce and would rather not eat.
It's not the healthiest bread (not as good for you as Nomad's unleavened flour & water only recipe), but it's one of the healthier ones on the shelves, especially compared to white breads. Healthy(ish) breads are out there on the shelves, they just usually cost about a dollar more per loaf than the others. I think it's worth it for my health, though.
You're correct in saying that most "wheat" sandwich breads on the shelf are no better for you than the typical white bread. The only difference between them, generally, is unbleached vs. bleached flour, but it's still refined flour. The good breads (usually) are larger slices than sandwich size (for some reason I don't understand), often say "100% whole wheat", and usually feel like a bowling ball in comparison to the sandwich loaves. I usually look at the label of these and try to find those lowest in any refined sugar. But like I said, the better nutrition comes at a price.
Ingredients:
Organic Sprouted Wheat, Organic Sprouted Barley, Organic Sprouted Millet, Malted Barley, Organic Sprouted Lentils, Organic Sprouted Soybeans, Organic Spelt, Filtered Water, Fresh Yeast, Sea Salt
Damit where were you a few days ago. :-).