SUBSIM Radio Room Forums



SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997

Go Back   SUBSIM Radio Room Forums > General > General Topics
Forget password? Reset here

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-24-21, 04:29 PM   #16
Skybird
Soaring
 
Skybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: the mental asylum named Germany
Posts: 41,432
Downloads: 9
Uploads: 0


Default

On CHOLESTEROL:


A very interesting, fascinating explanation why the consummation of saturated fats lead to higher levels of LDL. It might be not so much a sign of a health issue, but a normal adaptation mechanism.

https://sciencenorway.no/cholesterol...ystery/1810159

The understanding of fats and cholesterol has seen a revolution in the last decade or even slightly longer. Food and pharma lobby bitterly fight and argue against it, but it is quite clear by now that the old belief that saturated fats are bad and unsaturated fats are better, can no longer be supported.

The Norwegian ecothrophologist authoring the article behind the link above, is just a very new look at it (and she has beside her witty brain also the good looks of herself to offer...). We also need to understand that cholesterol gets transported by LDL and HDL, from liver to organs, and back. Certain fats like coconut fat include very high levels of saturated fat acids, (90-96%), and correlate with rises in LDL. However, there are LDLs with small and with big particle sizes. The problem are the small ones, since these can penetrate into the walls of blood vessels, if these are already fractured or rough, for any reason. Then the small particles can start to clot and form atherosclerosis, possibly (it depends on so many other facotrs, on the ability to counter oxydation, the presence of other molecules and vitamines and nutrients and amino acids and so much more). The message here is that LDL is not just LDL. While coconut oil can correlate with a rise in LDL, it nevertheless has a health benefit, because it raises the LDL mostly by big particled LDL, while reducing small particled LDL, which is the dangerous one. So while you have a higher total LDL, you may nevertheless enjoy a lower level in small particled LDL, which in the end is a net gain in health effect.




After coconut oil got celebrated, since some years the food industry tries to defame it again, instead wants to sell their seed oils with claimed healthy unsaturated fats and their toxic levels of inflammatory Omega 6 (sunflower oil has a O6 : O3 ratio of 125:1 !!!) from their monumental monocultural farms that bring so much wanted profits (if not for the farmers, then at least for the food industry...). Don't believe everything they try to tell you to scare you and fearmonger you!

There are studies that the increased consummation of saturatedf fats can even extend the life of the elderly people and protect them to some degree against strokes and cardiovascular diseases (CVD).

What should be avoided, are trans fats, seed oils and Omega-6 oils, as well as any oil that is especially prone to fast oxidation (linseed oil!). Eat freshly shreddered linseeds and nuts completely instead of using just their oil. The O6 may still be in the comolkete seed/nut - but also plenty of antioxidants mother nature put into the nut and seed that keep O6 under control and in balance. In oils, you usually miss these antioxidants. Also, avoid refined oils, ald every oil sold in clear plastic bottle (light and UV means constant ongoing oxydation). Avoid oils that get won by using heat, and in plenty of light. Keep heat and oxydation out of the equation of creating oil, whereever possible.
__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

Last edited by Skybird; 03-24-21 at 04:38 PM.
Skybird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-21, 06:38 AM   #17
Skybird
Soaring
 
Skybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: the mental asylum named Germany
Posts: 41,432
Downloads: 9
Uploads: 0


Default

On OBESITY & DIABETES:


When I went to school, leaving school in the mid-80s, there were no fat kids. Today there are many fat kids, and some already have adult onset diabetes. Tendency growing. Fast.

The obesity wave started rolling in the 80s. That was when we slowly realised that still recommending refined white sugar maybe is not so good an idea. We started to avoid sugar, slowly, and started to turn to artificial high-chem sweeteners. And we started to become obese.

Sugar was not the only thing that changed. When I grew up, at home we had three meals a day, and rarely only was I allowed to snack inbetween. Sweets got strictly controlled by my Mom. I knew it to be like this with the parents of other kids as well. It was common, it was how parent used to run their "regime". Today, we snack all day long. Additionally to the main meals of the day. And obesity has turned into a pandemic overrolling the industrialised world. We have breakfast, on the way to work we have a bonbon maybe, in the office somebody switches on the caffee machine and guess what - somebody puts some cookies on the table. In the meeting we maybe have a piece of cake, the woke eco friends have a banana or apple instead, and then comes lunch. After that, this or that person may join colleagues in the cafeteria and have a coffee, probably with a cookie or a chocolte bar as dessert. Afternoon shift, more coffee maybe, ad an occasional toffee. And at home, what do we do? Having supper. And to the TV we go (many of us do not excercise, lets be honest), and what is a good film without some sweets or candies, popcorn or potatoe flips?

We eat all day long.

Our reaction to that obesity wave in many cases is a very infantile one: we start to babble about self-esteem and being proud of our (ugly fat) body, and we invest much time into convincing others of how great it feels to have this (ugly fat) body, and , in the end, convince mostly ourselves how well we feel in our (ugly fat) body, so that we must not lift our lower backs from he couch and start with getting something done about our beautifully ugly fat body. The health consequences of this ugly fatness we nevertheless will and must suffer in the future - but we ignore them as long as we do not feel the pain: non-alcoholic fatty liver, liver inflammation, liver hepathitis, diabetes-amputation-blindness-death, CVD, silent inflammations, auto-immune deseases.

How could it be that all this overwhelms Western societies, when we get so "well advised" by nutrition societies and state authorities to avoid sugar, to eat frequently and at rest, vegetable 5, 6 or 7 times a day, fruits 3, 4, 5 times a day, a balanced diet with "healthy plant oil" and no smoking and no alcohol? Its been recommended since 40 years. And thats the 40 years when the obesity wave arrived and started to flatten society and financially overwhelm health systems with ugly fat bodies.

Is the good advise by nutrition societies really that good an advise? Well, to put it this way: I avoid such nutrition societies and their advice like the most lethal of pleagues. I cannot even just laugh about them anynmore - I am furious about them. Due to their eating advice, but also for other reasons having to do with supplements and how they demonise them and mistake absolutely minimum doses as above-optimum and almost dangerous doses. It oversteps the thin red line to physical assault, like recommending to eat rat poison would.

What is wrong with having 5 portions of fruits per day and 5-7 portions of vegetable per day? Well. You eat. And eat. And eat. And eat. And eat. And eat. And eat. And eat. And eat. And eat.

You eat all day long. You layaway yourself from fruit to vegetable, from vegetable to fruit (if you would do that). More realistically, you layaway yourself from snack to snack. Unhealthy snacks, filled with plenty of bad oils and fats, and sugar. You add limonades and corn syrup-enriched liquids.

And almost every time you put something into your mouth, your create an insuline spike.

Artificial sweeteners do not save you. They may not rise your blood glucose level, they may not add calories to your metabolism, but they nevertheless trigger an insuline production spike. Worse, this spike can be higher than that of a similiar amount of sugar! I did not know this until just days ago. I did not like learning this. I do not drink lemonades, but I thought I do a little good deed when not using sugar but sweetner in my coffee. Damn!

Insuline is a hormone whose purpose is to press fructose into the liver and into the fat cells. Whenever insuline gets produced, you build fat - in the liver with its limited storage capacity (reach that limit and the liver starts to form "symptoms"), and into the body's fat cells.

It is a myth that you become fat due to eating more calories than you "burn", it also is a myth that you can loose weight by exercising. There are even studies showing that it does not work this way.

The problem is - insuline. This is at the heart of the problem of obesity and diabetes. The more often you eat, the more insuline spikes you have over the day. The more often your fat depots get fed. The more your general insuline level must rise, due to rising insuline restistance: more and more insuline is needed to still get all that fructose pushed into your overloaded fat cells.

And here you have the reason why fat is not your enemy, but your friend, good fats that have no trans fats and that have small or minor levels of inflammatory Omega 6 in them: fat does not create insuline spikes. Not on a level worth to be mentioned at least. By eating fat, you offer your body the other fuel that it can burn: beside glucose, it can burn fat. The liver forms ketones from it. Ketones can feed your cells' energy cycles, especially your brain cells, and they can pass the blood brain barrier. Many cells in the brain and elsewhere even have the ability to take certain fats directly and build the ketones themselves, by passing the liver and not needing it, this for example is true with many brain cells.

"Food light" products, with reduced fat contents, work as good as sweeteners, therefore: not at all. Plus they are inferior in taste.

Proteins and carbohydrates trigger insuline spikes, fat does not. Now you know why many diets limit carbs ("low carb"). Full grain bread often has a higher glycaemic index than refined sugar! Not even connecting to the health issues that can be caused by wheat itself, it must be said that full grain diet probably is not a good idea at all, at least if you want to loose weight, or have a diabetes issue.

Another good method to reduce insuline production is - to not eat at all. Fasting. There is nothing wrong with it, its a natural state in our evolution. There are many ways how to do it, personally I have become a fan of intermittend fasting. I did it for 12 months three years ago, I lost 14 kilograms in six months, and kept that level easily for another 6 months. Alsmost 92 kg before, almost 76 kg after.

Nowadays, I have just two meals a day, a late breakfast and a later lunch with a warm meal. I only eat in the time window of 12am to 8pm, and every second or third or fourth day, depends on how I feel, I even skip the breakfast, and reduce the lunch to something with low calories not above around 600, its the only thing I care to make a reasonable calory estimation for - elsewise I think counting calories is total bollocks.

A recent blood test I needed to do in preparation for the anesthesia during a planned jaw surgery showed me unwelcomed high levels of blood glucose, low levels of HDL, and a slightly elevated level of GPT (which is an indicator for the liver health, often meaning there are inflammated cells in the liver). All this together with my weight development of the past months and last year indicated to me what I already suspected in decembre, due to my again reached weight of 92 kg back then: that I likely had a non-alcoholic fatty liver, and was and maybe still am in a state of so-called pre-diabetes.

Already in Decembre I had started with intermittend fasting again. I already was busy with studying vitamines and minerals due to corona and immune system and all that, as you have noticed , but since a few weeks, since that blood test, have dived into diet and low carb as well, combining low carb and intermittend fasting with elements of ketogen diet, especially I had - already before - replaced bad fats with good fats, and pushed fish and Omega-3 oil up on my charts. I try to teach my body to depend less on carbohydrates, and more on fats as a major fuel. And I am successful, I am at 81 kg (that is 11 kg in 3 months), still dropping constantly, it goes faster than three years ago when I fasted without low carb and keto.

If there is one message one should really understand about why we become obese despite doing as we are advised and using light food products and sweeteners, than it is this: obesity and diabetes are caused by dysbalances in the insuline metabolism. You do not become obese so much by what you eat, but when you eat. And "When" means: by eating too often and keeping your insuline level high all day long.

Antidot: Keeping insuline low, and avoid as many spikes as you can. Thats why fatty diet, low carb work, as does fasting. Combine the fatty diet (low insuline and switching to fat instead of glucose burning) with intermittend or full days fasting (reducing the number of opportunities over the day when insuline goes up) is your way to go.

The combining of intermittend fasting and elements of keto and low carb I experimented with and stumbled over all by myself, without having a full model of understanding, I imagined more or less a rough orientation (which turned out to have been right on target and being in congruency with theory I now read), but a few days ago I finally also found a very competent author and expert who finally also gave me the full deal on theory and explanation that my intellectual mindset also craves for. I want to recommend him to you if you feel interested in these topics for any reason. His name is Jason Fung, he is a Canadian nephrologist who got interested into these topics twenty years ago and today usually gets announced as one of the world's leading experts on treating obesity and diabetes. Form yourself an impression of him, I provide links at the bottom for starters. There are several books by him, I recommend his two bestsellers "The Obesity Code" and "The Diabetes Code".

Read 2 minutes, his best advise:
https://www.dietdoctor.com/my-single...eight-loss-tip

Get an impression on the man in person:
https://www.dietdoctor.com/how-to-maximize-fat-burning

^ The video, lasting 4 minutes., Four minutes that have it all in them.

I like the man. He is smart, I find him sympathetic, and after two books that I consummed in two rushed readings I say he obviously knows his stuff inside out. Here is a doctor whom I trust!

I will not avoid forever carbs, wheat, pasta. I baked my bread over 25 years myself, i would not have done that if I would not LOVE the taste and smell of fresh, good bread. I know a thing or two about how to do a real good pizza dough (like none I can get in any restaurant here in my hometown). I LOVE spaghetti with two or three different sauces I use to prepare for them. I love boiled potatoe with herring in dill cream, and ibnly butter and salt on the potatoes. But I will for exmaple avoid noodles, potatoes as part of a lunch that has other main inredinets: give me the fish, the meat, the fat, the vegetable, the sauce - but keep rice, noodles, potatoes.

But my short time goal is to drop below 80kg, my medium time goal is to get into the med-70 range, and my long time goal is to get near or right on the mark of 70. Thats why I currently eat more fat than before, but not as much as I would like to: the fat I eat is the fat my body must not burn from his fat deposits (take this as an indication that "eat fatty!" does not mean to blindly consume fat in absurd quantities). Thats why I avoid carbs currently. Thats why I drink no alcohol, no carb-including alcoho-free white beer, no pasta. Its not forever, but for some more months. Once I reached my target weight, I will eat carbs again, but at limited amounts and with time pauses between them, days. I will eat even more fat. I will allow myself an occasional Bailey's again. Life is too short to pass on all the good things always and forever.

Because last but not least: EATING SHOULD BE PLEASURABLE AND FUN AND SHOULD GIVE SATISFACTION IN TASTE AND SMELL!

This together with the massively improved nutrition status that i started to implement last year, results in many health benefits, loss of minor physical symptoms, and greater mental and emotional stability of mine. I feel so good like I have not since - well, since as long as I can remember. Very long time, I mean.

I had to change my doc, however, the old one was too unwilling to learn new, and strictly limited himself to what he learned at university long time ago, and what the DEG, the German Nutrition Society, says. The new one is not more educated, but a bit more open to listen to new stuff. Thats okay, I see doctors not as people making decisions in my place, but only as advisors. And I must not accept every advice if it does not make sense to me or cannot be reasonably explained.

Listen to your doctor - but never blindly trust one. They too are just humans, you know.
__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

Last edited by Skybird; 03-26-21 at 08:31 AM.
Skybird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-21, 06:22 PM   #18
Skybird
Soaring
 
Skybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: the mental asylum named Germany
Posts: 41,432
Downloads: 9
Uploads: 0


Default

Addendum: On SWEETENERS:


In the post before I mentioned that sweeteners were found to nevertheless trigger an insuline reaction although they may do not rise blood sugar/glucose.

Comparable claims I have red many times before, and it never made sense to me. It still does not, and thats why I researched it today after having red in a believable source recently that sweeteners can trigger an insuline spike up to 20% higher than normal sugar. I googled for it. Two hours long. And I did not find a convincing evidence for this claim. If there is evidence, then it still waits for me somewhere out there. Where is Mulder when you need him.

This is a confusing situation, and I think its worthy and necessary to shed some light on the situation of the debate. I do not like the picture I see.

What angers me is that when you look for biochemical arguments against sweeteners, you literally always sooner rather than later get confronted with criticism based on not chemical, physiological facts, but psychological and ecological arguments. They all get systematically mixed into just one argument, without any differentation: that sweetners are bad, should not be used, and implying that enjoying sweet taste is a sin in general, we better do not use neither sugar nor sweeteners. I am so sick and tired of this pleasure-hostile reeducation! While the changing of your diet changes your taste preferences a bit over time (due to TASTE, not due to feeling a duty of any kind), and consumming salt can reduce your craving for sweetness for sure on the brain-neurological level, and your appetite chnages as well (which is hormone-controlled and even can set up its own, hormone-dependent time tables: you feel an appetite because it is that time of the day and although you even are not hungry, because that hormone gets produced when the timer beeps), lets face it: a basic appetite for sweetness remains in many of us, always, if not in form of "sweetness intense", then at least as an additional ingredient helping to make something else you drink or eat more pleasurable a taste experience: coffee for example, tea. I love coffee - but never black, black it is an ineditable, bitter, suspicious brew to me, It makes me almost vomitting that bad it is, I add milk and some mild sweetnes to actually change it into somethign extremely! enjoyable. For the same reason, historically this is why Espresso traditionally gets served and enjoyed with lots and lots of sugar. The drink stems from the times when after WWII the factory workers in Italy had neither time nor money to waste precious money on expensive good coffee, they wanted a coffeine kick, and it had to be fast and affordable. The quality of the coffee used for cheap Espresso (a fast brew costing less time to prepare and to drink), was accordingly: it was a bitter, terrible brew, and it needed lots of sugar to turn into something eatable. Cheap coffee beans = bad coffee. Trivial!

Sweeteners are not all the same. Some get more metabolistically digested and chemically processed in your guts than others, thats why most of them differ in the dose at which they already produce diarrhea, the differences can be many factors. They also differ greatly in sweeteness intensity and own taste, some have very strict, strong own taste (Stevia) that even limit their usability, others are more neutral and less offensive in own taste, can even taste like sugar (I personally find the controversial Aspartam so convincing that I cannot reliably differentiate it from sugar, but I do almost never use it anyway).

Now, insuline. I have not found anything describing how sweeteners chemically or metabolistically trigger an insuline reaction while not causing a rise in blood sugar. Please note: some products that have sweetners in them, do cause insuline reactions, to varying degrees. You may even have a written warning on the bottle or box. Usually it is less intense than from sugars exclusively used. Since some sweetners are not completely free from calories, and/or get digested differently in the upper guts - and because additional agents are beign used that for themselves DO cause insuline spikes.

I think this is what the source of the quoted claim ("some sweetners can cause insuline spikes up to 20% higher than those from sugar") has allowed itself to get confused over: talking of sweetners as a pure agent while in fact referring to ready-to-eat products or liquids that include sweetners AND other agents.

Please note: mixtures of different sweeteners, mostly used in ready-to-eat products like lemonades for exmaple, can include different agents to add sweetness, and such an added agent for example can be fructose. In light lemondes, it can form up to 1% of the liquid's volume. That is something that definitely triggers an insuline reaction. Heck, its fructose, or corn syrups, so what else would you expect? But this does not mean that you get the same when adding for example Xylit - without any fructose. Xylit and Erythrit do not cause any raise in blood sugar, period. And hence I strongly assume they do not cause any insuline reaction at all. I found no evidence and no hint for that. If you know better, I would be thankful for letting me know, I really would like to know these things for certain.



Sometimes it is claimed that the brain realising the taste '"sweet", by this stimulus alone already creates insuline reaction. I cannot find anythign confirming this, however!? As long as this circumstance does not change, I rate this as unproven claim, and therefore: myth.


What is being done by routine by propagators of the anti-sweet-movement, to give the whole crowd a name to call them by, is this: they take psychological arguments on motivation and behaviour and imply these are like are hard-coded metabolistic reactions and processes on the bio-chemical level. But this is wrong - though a factor worth to be considered!

People can - and often do! - believe "Oh, this is a cola light, I saved calories, I have some calories free to eat somethign additional" and they throw in another chocolate bar, or they drink another bottle of it carelessly, ignoring or not knowing that it indeed includes not just a calory-neutral sweetner, but also 1% of fructose. And here you get an insuline reaction for sure - with a "light" product of which you wrongly assume it does not make you thick. It does, a tiny little bit per bottle. But that must not be the wrong of the pure sweetner itself...!

So the argument is that because people can be motivated to eat more because they drank a diet coke, products with artificial sweetners (without fructose or anything!) make people thick and fat and so should be avoided. Wouldn't it be better to educate people on the facts better and more honestly so to change their motivation this way? I personally take great anger from this deceptive and cheap argumentation. And until I do not get shown by evidence (!) that my reasoning is wrong on the chemical and metabolistical level, I insist on that taking sweetners is better than taking sugar as long as you take care not to throw in more other bad stoff due to using sweetners. So, I will continue to enjoy my coffee with a mild dose of sweetner in it (I do not want to have sweet coffee, but mild tasting coffee instead of bitter coffee, that ammount and not more sweetnes in it I want, same for condensed milk or cream), without feeling it as ecothrophologically sinful.

Another abstruse argument mistaken for chemical reality comes from the ecological direction. It is said that sweeteners are bad because they are indeed NEVER natural food, but always are chemically highly-processed agents from the lab. That is absolutely true, even for Stevia (and especially for that one), also for others that have a better reputation like many other sweetners, namely Xylit and Erythrit. They are food lab - like so much artificial stuff you can buy in the bio-market for vegans. Much of that is high tech food and anything but "natural". And often it is low in nutrients, causing deficits whichwho form patterns by which doctors can identify vegans and vegetarians, vegans and vegetarians, too different degrees, often (though not always) need to supplement nutrients like vitamines and minerals. There are many chemically highly processed food nobody cares to call out: plant oils, refined salt, margarine... And I say each of these is more dangerous than sweetners.

Also, an environmentalist argument in formed, due to the chemical processing of sweetners, quoting the energy needed to be invested, and chemical agents used in the process of chemically cracking up molecules, filtering and so forth. Well that is like with avocados. Avocados often get criticised for being transported over long distances, and they need plenty of water to be farmed. That are facts, yes. But these are facts for themselves the consumer should decide on by the standards by which his own personal word view ticks, they are no chemical, nutrition-relevant arguments. Avocados are not dangerous to your health just because they take long travels and need lots of water! They are VERY healthy for sure!

Here you again have the case that chemically hard-coded metabolistic arguments and non-related arguments get both mixed together and taken as one. Such intellectual sluggishness makes me wild! And often missionising drive and ideology is behind it - what makes me even wilder.

A word on Aspartam. It would be my preferred sweetner, because its sweetness is equal to that of sugar, you therefore can dose it like sugar, and I cannot differentiate the taste of it from the taste of sugar, no other sweetner to me tastes as natural and as much the same like sugar. However, I am only human, too, and I irrationally allowed to get scared by the argument that always is being used against it, although you only have an animal experiment with unclear results in its defence, and no human-researched hard evidence. A rat is a rat, and a man is a man, I reject to conclude from the the one on the other, it does not work, and I saw it not working in relation to according conclusions made in the reading on salt, fat, and acrylamide, too. A rat is no human. A chimp is no human. Chimps can digest cellulose, we cannot. As just one exmaple, the list of exmaple is open-ended.

"Aspartam causes cancer." Thats the one claim against Aspartam. More precise: it is claimed to cause cancer in rats, but it has not been really proven in those experiments. Said the American food authorities.

The other claim is indeed a chemical fact, and I learned about it already in physiology class at university. Aspartam includes phenylalanin, and there are people with so-called (German) phenylketonurie who are well advised to avoid phenylalanin, which has a very neurotoxical effect on them. The prevalence for this desease is 1 in 8000 (0.125%), and Aspartam-including products thus must have a warning on their packages that the product includes a phenylalanin source. For comparison, in Europe 0.3-8% of kids and 0.3-3% of adults are affected by any forms of food allergies. The Americans allowed Aspartam in the years from the early 80s to the early 90s for different food product groups, and since the mid-90s without any restrictions, and in the EU the product is allowed wihtout restrictions since 1990. The original patent has fallen, the most known marketing name is NutraSweet, but there are now many other companies offering it, too.

Personally, I am surprised by my own hesitation to use it more, I only use it on Belgian waffles a bit, since it can be dosed like ordinary powder sugar: one tea spoon of this and one tea spoon of that both taste the same and add the same quantity of sweetness. The rat claim is just a claim and never got proven and rats are not humans anyway, and the thing with phenylalanin is relevant for just every 8000th consumer. We have many diabetics that shoudl avoid sugar more or less. Does this make an argument to ban sugar from all and everything? People with peanut allergy - should peanuts be banned from the shelves? Other people having metabolic issues that prevents them from eating this and that - should these foods be banned in general?

Paracelsus said something like that the dose makes the poison, and there can even be individual doses for different people. Its like that with sugar and sweetners as well. People's organisms react differently to both, and can tolerate different doses of these. They all become toxic if you reach excessive doses. What a surprise!

In the late 80s/early 90s the Swedes panicked everybody by claimign that acrylamide causes cancer. What they did not say immediately is that they fed their poor rats - not humans! - with amounts of it that equalled up to several dozens and I think even a hundred times the animals' own body weight. Well, if I eat lets say 600 pounds of acrylamide, I assume I too would then prefer to lay still on the ground and being dead. - This is one of my most favourite examples of how absurd the nutrition debate is often led. In roughly the first decade of this century they tried to replicate the Swedish "findings", and so they amounted almost one thousand studies worldwide! And not one was able to replicate the Swedish findings: not one in almost one thousand! Even worse, more than half of these studies found all the same correlation: a correlation between acrylamid-avoiding eating behaviour, and prevalences to form various sorts of cancer. The more acrylamide-avoiding people were, the more often they got cancer! (This does not mean that acrylamide is an antidot to cancer, it most likely means that the lifestyle acrylamide-aware people are living by makes them prone to cancer: limiting food and nutrients for example) This study meanhwile has been withdrawn, is no longer being referred to, and the scandal is that it even was published in the first, this tells a lot about the lack of quality in the science magazine'S reviewing. Neverthless, until today we get warned to not fry our fries too hot and that we should reduce heat in deep fryers to 175° and you know what. Once the nonsens is out of the bottle, its hard to squeeze it back in. Personally, I do not care for acrylamide one bit. We are evolutionary adapted to it, because our ancestors roasted meat over open fire since - since how many thousands of years...?

I bring this example to illustrate from a different angle that not every claim against sweetners should be uncritically believed. Food sciences often base on only observation studies that do not allow causal linking, like correlations do not allow, too, and this is an inherent and unfortunately omni-present weakness of the whole academic branch of ecothrophology.

All I want to reach with stating this is: dont stop thinking yourself, be modest with whatever our eat, and practice healthy scepticism: do allow to get convinced, but do not allow to get convinced for free and without solid argument. Always scrutinze what is being claimed.



Edit:


P.S. The following is a release by the German "Süssstoff Verband e.V.", a lobby group for producers of sweeteners, so what they say better gets taken with some caution. Still - ah well, form your own opinion.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://suessstoff-verband.info/suessstoff-wissen/haeufige-irrtuemer/suessstoffe-regen-den-appetit-an-und-lassen-den-insulinspiegel-steigen/
Quote:
Recent studies on cell cultures and laboratory animals have shown that there is a stimulus from the taste receptors to certain hormone-producing cells in the digestive tract. Theoretically, these cells could promote insulin release. Numerous clinical studies with volunteers have shown, however, that this stimulus is so minimal that it ultimately has no effect on either blood sugar or insulin levels.

__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

Last edited by Skybird; 03-26-21 at 08:25 PM.
Skybird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-21, 08:47 AM   #19
Skybird
Soaring
 
Skybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: the mental asylum named Germany
Posts: 41,432
Downloads: 9
Uploads: 0


Default

Added content:

on Fats:

https://discover.grasslandbeef.com/b...an-trans-fats/

Why to be on your guard against Linolic Acid (LA) and Omega 6, and what oxidization and HDL and LDL have to do with it.

Avoid O6. Beef up your O3. Big particle LDL must not be much of a worry, but small mparticle LDL should, since it oxidizes easier. The first seemk to not help in forming atherosclerosis, the latter does. Additional information is needed to assess your cholesterol status, just the total HDL and LDL levels tell you almost nothing.
__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert.
Skybird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-21, 09:40 AM   #20
Skybird
Soaring
 
Skybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: the mental asylum named Germany
Posts: 41,432
Downloads: 9
Uploads: 0


Default

Added this:

on Fats / Omega 3:
https://link.springer.com/article/10...08-019-00687-x


The author prof. von Shacky and his companion prof. Harris are amiognst the world'S leading researchers on Omega 3 and close topics. Von Schacky is cardiologist in Munich. The two formed the world'S biggets database on patient data and fatty acid profiles and founded their own company Omega,metrix, which offers the clnical standard for the so-called HS-Omega3-fatty acid analysis, they do some things different than other labs. I had my own fat acid analysis one month ago done in their lab. Theire method seems to have reference character in the US, and slowly finds acceptance by clincial practtioners in germany, too. But I cocldude that as an outsider only.



The paper has to be trnaslated if you are not capable to read it in German. It covers some of the very basic thigns about von Schacky's findings,. illustrating why you cannot just recomend a dose of daily intake for Omega 3 fatty acid accordng to age and wight, the range of doifefrence in efficiency at which individuals digest and resorp it, is incredidbly high: 13x21x10 factors. Here is the reason why many recent studies seem to conclude that Omega 3 is overestimated and doe snot do that much of goods for you as was hyoped in the3 years before - these studies all base on wrong assunptions and ignore some very essential needed truths about it. If oyu do not pay attention to them, the traditonal reocmemndaitosn necessarily mjust fail and lead to a recomemndation "to not waste your money". Which simply is lackign knoweldge, and nonsense.



I am very happy to have managed to get my own fatty acid profile into the best shape possible, better the values practically cannot get.



Quote:
Abstract

Background

Confusion reigns about omega‑3 fatty acids and their effects. Scientific investigations did not appear to clarify the issue. Guidelines and regulatory authorities contradict each other.

Objective

This article provides clarity by considering not intake but levels of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in erythrocytes as a percentage of all fatty acids measured (omega‑3 index).

Current data

The largest database of all methods of fatty acid analyses has been generated with the standardized HS-Omega‑3 Index® (Omegametrix, Martinsried, Deutschland). The omega‑3 index assesses the in EPA+DHA status of a person, has a minimum of 2%, a maximum of 20%, and is optimal between 8% and 11%. In many western countries but not in Japan or South Korea, mean levels are suboptimal. Suboptimal levels correlate with increased total mortality, sudden cardiac death, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, other cardiovascular diseases, cognitive impairment, major depression, premature birth and other health issues. Interventional studies on surrogate and intermediary parameters demonstrated many positive effects, correlating with the omega‑3 index when measured. Due to issues in methodology that became apparent from the perspective of the omega‑3 index many, even large interventional trials with clinical endpoints were not positive, which is reflected in pertinent meta-analyses. In contrast, interventional trials without issues in methodology the clinical endpoints mentioned were reduced.

Conclusion

All humans have levels of EPA+DHA that if methodologically correctly assessed in erythrocytes, are optimal between 8% and 11%. Deficits can cause serious health issues that can be prevented by optimal levels.
__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert.
Skybird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-21, 10:57 AM   #21
Skybird
Soaring
 
Skybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: the mental asylum named Germany
Posts: 41,432
Downloads: 9
Uploads: 0


Default

On FASTING and INTERMITTEND FASTING


I have seen many of his shorter interviews, podcasts and lectures, but I found this to be the most suitable as an introduction to both the idea of fasting, and the man (to get an impression og him). I know it is a bit longer, one hour or so, but if yo are into these thigns or wondered about it before and did not dare or whatever, this might be what was needed to convince you.


I do much of that myself, and sinc elogner time now. It works. Its easy. You get used to it. Combine fastign with a carbohydrate reduced diet, replace your unhealthy with good eating fats, slash out refined sugar and do not snack between meals. Keep insuline spikes rare in numbers and low in amplitude. Then you are on a good way to improving your health.



__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert.
Skybird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-21, 06:28 PM   #22
Skybird
Soaring
 
Skybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: the mental asylum named Germany
Posts: 41,432
Downloads: 9
Uploads: 0


Default

"When you're a kid, you think adults have their shlt together, when you're an adult, you realize no one has their shlt together...." - Dr. Fung on the qualification of doctors who went through just the drilling program of ordinary medical studies at university.


Another brilliant presentation by Dr. Fung. I can only wonder on how many thousands of people'S lives he has had a positive, healing, life-saving influence on by not just sitting in his office and talking to those who find their way to him, but being so engaged in spreading the message as actively as he can. He has the empiry behind him, and his explanatiosn just make bloody strwight, consistent sense. Theory meets empiry, and they get happily married and have many kids.

The industry must hate this man. There is no money in what he recommends.

Fasting as a therapeutic option



Quote:
Originally Posted by video description
Dr. Jason Fung, MD, is a nephrologist and expert in the use of intermittent fasting and low-carbohydrate diets for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes. In this presentation, delivered on Aug. 2, 2018, at the 2018 CrossFit Health Conference in Madison, Wisconsin, Fung shares his first-hand experiences with “The Mess” and discusses how he shifted his research and medical practices as a result of those experiences.

Fung’s objectives for his presentation include: 1. Understanding why long-term weight loss is so difficult. 2. Introducing the concept of therapeutic fasting. 3. Understanding some myths and misunderstandings associated with the fasting process. He recalls treating obese and diabetic patients with traditional methods, which included what he characterizes as poor dietary recommendations and a slurry of drugs. He explains, “It became obvious that I’m just sort of holding their hand until they get their heart attack, until they get dialysis, until they go blind, until we chop their feet off.” “It’s really sad to realize that the profession that you’ve chosen is not really helping people,” he says. This realization compelled him to diagnose the problems associated with traditional care and seek alternative treatment methods for his patients.

Fung historicizes what he calls “the modern eating pattern,” which emerged in 1977 in the U.S. with the development of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. He notes the 1977 guidelines led to the consumption of more grains and sugars, which in turn led to people “eating often, eating late, and eating all the time.” Incidences of obesity and Type 2 diabetes reached epidemic levels, and the most common treatments long have been drug interventions. Unfortunately, the prevailing non-pharmaceutical prescription — to eat less and move more — has a 99.9% failure rate.

Fung observes that popular wisdom tells us to blame the patient and assume he or she did not adhere to the prescription. He claims a basic understanding of metabolism suggests otherwise, however. Fung explains why a significant reduction in caloric intake leads to a decrease in basal metabolism. This biological inevitability is ignored by the proponents of the “calories in, calories out” fallacy, he observes. He also explains why intermittent fasting is an effective alternative to traditional treatments for obesity and diabetes. The modern eating pattern keeps our insulin levels high all the time as we eat over long durations, and when insulin remains high all the time, Fung explains, our bodies store food energy as fat, and we remain hungry. Intermittent fasting, on the other hand, allows insulin levels to drop, which puts us in burning mode rather than storing mode. Fung claims his recommendations are so effective that patients no longer need to say, “Oh wow, I have to go see my doctor to see what pill I need,” or, “I need to go see my doctor to see if he needs to stick a stent in me.” Instead, Fung explains, “We’re giving you the power to take back your own health, because you’re not gonna get it from anywhere else.”
__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert.
Skybird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-21, 08:34 AM   #23
Skybird
Soaring
 
Skybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: the mental asylum named Germany
Posts: 41,432
Downloads: 9
Uploads: 0


Default

From the Deutsches Ärzteblatt:

"What is important to the proponents of such a low-carb diet is to reduce the increased insulin production. Hallberg finds strong words for this, she calls type 2 diabetes “carbohydrate poisoning” and insulin resistance “carbohydrate intolerance”. As soon as you recognize the carbohydrates as triggers for insulin production, the metabolic consequences are completely new. "Basically, we now see the insulin resistance of the organs no longer as the cause of the high insulin levels in type 2 diabetes, but vice versa as their consequence," explains Dr. Kerstin Kempf is turning away from the traditional approach to interpretation. "Ultimately, the body's cells protect themselves from too much sugar, which is forced upon them by ever higher insulin levels,"said the head of the study center at the West German Diabetes and Health Center in Düsseldorf."

https://translate.google.com/transla...r-Ketonkoerper

This makes all so terribly much sense. Its no new knowldge, thouzgh, but in principle it is very very very old knowledge. Dr. Fung makes this clear as well.
__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert.
Skybird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-21, 06:05 PM   #24
Skybird
Soaring
 
Skybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: the mental asylum named Germany
Posts: 41,432
Downloads: 9
Uploads: 0


Default

On IMMUNITY:



I currently have the book in reading again (after a longer interruption), necessarily in English, still no German translation. Good one.
__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert.
Skybird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-21, 05:31 PM   #25
Skybird
Soaring
 
Skybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: the mental asylum named Germany
Posts: 41,432
Downloads: 9
Uploads: 0


Default

More on SWEETENERS:

https://translate.google.com/transla...fwechselrisiko

I came across this text from the Deutsches Ärzteblatt, summarising some studies that I have not further explored, but some of the mentioned details, namely the relevance of the guts for indirectly helping to trigger an insuline resistence, had some alarm lights flashing up on my desk. Plus the relevance of certain sweeteners reducing the diversity of the microbiome in the guts. But especially the possibility of insuline resistence being helped to get boosted by sweeteners, what somewhat counters the reason why you would consume them in the first, has me in an raised state of attention-paying, where before I was always relatively relaxed. I expressed in the first post on sweeteners that I am relaxed about that "alarmism" and could not imagine how it should be true. Maybe I must change my view on that topic very substantially. Which would be bad news, of course.

I really would like to see research results on to what degree the insuline production caused by refined sugar equals, is higher or is lower than that caused by various kinds of sweeteners. Dr. Fung mentioned that some seem to trigger higher insuline reaction than white sugar, but did not further elaborate that at the text position where he wrote it in a book.

Quote:
Dr. med. Kristina Rother criticizes the fact that for a long time the discussion about the safety of a sweetener was largely based on cancer risk and teratogenicity. The sweetener expert, who comes from Germany, is doing research at the renowned US National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Washington and now sees the problem of sweeteners elsewhere: "We also have to talk about metabolic safety." In her opinion, there is clear evidence that that artificial sweeteners can promote insulin resistance. In fact, overweight subjects showed signs of insulin resistance after being given a drink containing sucralose, as measured in the oral glucose tolerance test ( 5th). This was confirmed again in a recently published randomized control study in healthy people of normal weight ( 6 ). Dr. med. Stefan Kabisch, doctor and researcher at the German Institute for Nutritional Research in Potsdam, is skeptical: “The new study is certainly an important aspect, but not yet proof.” For Rother, however, the matter is clear: “The connection between sucralose and insulin resistance is practically proven. ”She is of the opinion that this also applies to other sweeteners such as saccharin and acesulfame-K.

Edit: P.S.

Found something. And I do not like what I read.

https://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/36/9/2530

In the conclusions they describe in how far their study is different from earlier such studies which came to opposing results. This study here was done with obese black Americans, while before most such studies were done with non-obese Caucasians. Both race and obesity status are relevant differences in the body's metabolism and physiology, not drmatic, but such differences are real (for exmaple there is medications that help white people, but would almost kill an African, Africans need for the same purpose a different drug, that has nothing to do with "latent racism", but just is reality). Still, something tells me that there nevertheless is something very relevant in this study that points beyond just obese black Americans.


Why is it that the good tasting things so often are unhealthy, and the healthy things so often are less tasty? Its mean. The devil must have made things so.
__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

Last edited by Skybird; 04-23-21 at 05:46 PM.
Skybird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-21, 05:46 AM   #26
Skybird
Soaring
 
Skybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: the mental asylum named Germany
Posts: 41,432
Downloads: 9
Uploads: 0


Default

On WHEAT (ATI sensitivity, gluten & hidden general food allergy, cealiac desease etc.):


You may have noticed over the past couple of years that this issue has won increasing attention both in the public as well as in the medical community. In Germany, up to 30% of the population claim or is being - mostly wrongly - diagnosed with gluten intolerance. In fact, just 1% of the population actually has this problem.



Gluten-intolerance probably does not even exist as an independent desaease, but is a comftoable alibi diagnosis to hide that one doe snot really know what goes on. More likely is that it is an ndication for a general food allergy, or should be seen as singled-oput smyptom of ATI intolerance. Which is something different that coeliac desease again.


The author of the book I link to, is a global leading expert on these issues, Prof. Detlef Schuppan, he runs specialised on the topic ambulances in Mainz, Germany, and Harvard, USA, maintains scientific research projects in both locations, and teaches at both unversities, in Mainz, and at the Medical School Harvard. The book is slim, but demanding a bit, released by an established academic publisher, Springer Verlag. It goes a bit deeper into the medical and and biochemical, molecular basics, I found it quite demanding, and red it twice, therefore. On the other hand this is the only really profound book on the topic of wheat and according food allergies and ATI intolerance that nevertheless also is accessible for the common public, while still being very profound. There are many "en vogue" books on wheat, and many of them are quite populistic, lurid. This is the one book I recommend. And it is written by a leading expert with reputation beyond doubt and decades of experience, so what else to ask for.

https://www.amazon.com/-/de/dp/B07YFS6PTV/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?__mk_de_DE=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3 %95%C3%91&dchild=1&keywords=detlef+shed+an&qid=161 9260014&s=books&sr=1-1-fkmr0

As a - shallow - introduction, this text from a customer newsletter relased by the German pharmacies. I have not read beyond the above book on this topic, and so do not want to post too much commenting here by myself, i leave it to this "flyer". Being shallow it neverthless is not wrong. And is on the author of the above book.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.apotheken-umschau.de/krankheiten-symptome/magen-und-darmerkrankungen/ati-sensitivitaet-was-ist-das-748581.html


My personal consequences:
since I have lowered simple carb consumption anyway, of course I also had to slash down carbs from pasta, potatoes and cereals, grain, wheat, and so I eat far less bread, and on many days not at all. However, I like and love the taste of fresh bread (and pasta), and completely banning them would kill my compliance in record time. Sometimes a 70% effort gets you much farther than a 100% effort.



A trick that seems to work well for me is to no longer use potatoes and noodles as part of an ordinary lunch, but only when these are the main dish: either spaghetti, or boiled potatoes with butter and salt and a herring. That way you eat them once in a while and then even a bit more, but you do that only rarely (or how often in a week do you have pasta and boiled potatoes? I have pasta maybe every tend ays or so, and bopiled potatoes not more than once a month) That way I nevertheless consume much less of both, but still can enjoy them from time to time.
__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

Last edited by Skybird; 04-24-21 at 06:16 AM.
Skybird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-21, 04:50 PM   #27
Skybird
Soaring
 
Skybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: the mental asylum named Germany
Posts: 41,432
Downloads: 9
Uploads: 0


Default

Myth Busting: Does Fasting burn Muscle?

This is a very popular myth, even my old doctor (changed him earlier this year) told me that bollocks, amongst some other nonsense.

Take note of the links in the text that lead you to some dedicated studies on the matter.

And no, fasting DOES NOT burn muscle or weaken you. Quite the opposite. Maybe you do not turn into a muscular Schwarzenegger, but you become more energetic, enduring, physically lasting.

https://www.dietdoctor.com/does-fasting-burn-muscle

Beginners who find it hard to keep it, can ease it a bit by allowing a fatty coffee (but not as fatty as a bullet proof coffee) once per day, say 1-2 table spoons of cream 30+%. If that is what maintains your compliance, its worth the price ( I could not drink black, bitter coffee, not for my life). No sugar and no sweeteners, however, both trigger the insuline. Coffee and fat does not. Take salt, lots of water, consider supplementing vitamines and minerals, if you are concerned by that. It should not play a role if you fast only 2-3 days and maybe not even as often as I do (3-4 days in a row, then 4-5 eating days, plus daily intermittend fasting 17/7).

The food industry does not want you to fast. They cannot sell food to a person that does not eat. Instead they tell you you shoudl eat "frequently", and often, spreading over the whole day, or you should eat their wonderful "light" products, or special food designed to help you loosing weight. You could as well believe in the stork bringing the babies! I read nonsense like having 5 or better 6, no: even up to 9 small meals with vegetable and (fructose enriched) fruits, the magazines and daily press are full of this drivel - that borders physical assault, and recommending dangerous health hazards as a healthy cure! And from insuline spike to insuline spike your journey goes that way...
__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

Last edited by Skybird; 04-27-21 at 05:08 PM.
Skybird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-21, 12:53 PM   #28
Skybird
Soaring
 
Skybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: the mental asylum named Germany
Posts: 41,432
Downloads: 9
Uploads: 0


Default

On SUGAR, METABOLIC SYNDROME, CANCER


And there is scientific and legal causation in these. Thats why currently lawsuits against food companies run well and successfully.

I say: corn syrup, and worse: HFCS (high fructose corn syrup) should be rated as a national health hazard, and be banned from sale and production. Its a much more prominent killer than any of the criminalised drugs like cocaine or meth or heroine.

The worst sugar-sweetener you could use, is fructose.



Insuline leads to insuline resistence leads to metabolic syndrome leads to fattness leads to cancer (and many other illnesses).

Wanna live healthier? Eat stuff and eat in intervals that keep your insuline down. Plain logic. Insuline spikes at lower frequency, and - not as relevant - lower amplitudes. But the frequency - how often we eat over the day - that is the key.

Dont eat all the time, all day long. Once a day, connected to social circumstances, is enough! You have one hour of enjoying a meal with family or friends, and then 23 hours for your insuline normalising again (2-5 hours) and fat being burned (the longer the more). Man has lived with such conditions for millenia and millenia - and still is here! While obesity is a relatively new symptom in our evolution, measured in a small number of decades only. And it kills in scores.
__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

Last edited by Skybird; 05-04-21 at 04:49 PM.
Skybird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-21, 01:07 PM   #29
Skybird
Soaring
 
Skybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: the mental asylum named Germany
Posts: 41,432
Downloads: 9
Uploads: 0


Default

To know about all these things and others, regarding your food, and your doctors, and the way the food industry interferes with and finances health paradigms - this is the modern incarnation of the very old pricniple of surivval of the fittest. Remember: the industry does not want you to live healthy and eat less and rarely. Because you then do not buy their stuff.

Get fit. Learn, take your health's fate in your own hands. Do not blindly trust your doctors and the institutions, nor your family's habits and traditions. Question them.



.
__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

Last edited by Skybird; 05-04-21 at 04:52 PM.
Skybird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-21, 03:34 AM   #30
Skybird
Soaring
 
Skybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: the mental asylum named Germany
Posts: 41,432
Downloads: 9
Uploads: 0


Default

On SOY:


https://translate.google.com/transla...soja-ungesund/

This nicely sums up why I have come to avoid soy (since years already) although I liked Tofu roasted in the pan after being marinaded for some hours in soy sauce, roasted sesam oil and sherry. I also avoid meat "surrogates" made of soy. Only soy sauce is something i cannot do without in my kitchen, ketjap manis is somehting i cannot do without and cannot replace. But then, it is heavily fermented soy beans, so that is a bit of a difference than natural soy beans (same for Natto (grim taste and consistence, I happily skip it) and other Japanese fermented soy foods, fermentation really changes things, same for fermented milk products). We Westerners live under this impression that Japanese eat Tofu all day long, but they don'T, I knew Japanese people, and they had it rarely and said it is not common to eat often - and if so, then only in context of certain meals helping with Tofu's "fallout".

I also remind of that originally soy beans were not farmed for human consumption but as animal fodder. (Comparable to canola/rap originally getting produced to win lamp oil and ingredients for soap prduction exclusively, usiong it to feed humans came later, it was originally not farmed in huge quantities for human consumption).

Eat meat of god fat quality. Omega 6 and transfats are to be avoided. The concerns about saturated fats are no longer supportable, forget it, like we learned to forget about food cholesterol raising blood cholesterol - it doesn't. The surrogates made of soy imo never came even close to the taste and consistency of meat, not to mention that their nutrient mix is completely different. We should stop to talk of "meat surrogates", so far there are none, that simple the truth is. Like there is no surrogate for cow milk (I do not mean to say you should drink plenty of cow milk, you probably shouldn'T, but in cheese and curd and cream, milk gets processed, if it should taste well, you cannot avoid milk for this). Cereal-water mixes are no milk, do not taste like milk, and if you want to cook with them or put them in your coffee you immediately realise they also do not behave like milk. Try to cook a pudding with them, but don'T be too disappointed with the result!
All this babbling about "alternatives" in the end is just lame excuses for promoting a certain ideology and worldview.

Always watch out for, ask for, check for the quality and type of included fats and oils. I find that when I do that, 9 out of 10 "alternative" food surrogates immediately land in the waste bin. Spend more, east less, eat quality, gain health. To me that rates as just industrially processed food, often with included health hazard.
__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

Last edited by Skybird; 05-11-21 at 03:45 AM.
Skybird is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2024 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.