Re: A cure for diabetes from 1806?

On Jan 28, 2:49 pm, "TC" <tunder...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 28, 1:45 pm, p...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

"Grains are just not all that nutritious, and the starchiness is a
problem as well as the gluten. It is fine food for cows and birds but it
is an inferior food for humans."

By what criteria can one make such a blanket statement? Grains are
"nutritional" by definition, the body uses them for basic energy sources
and other metabolic processes. Twigs and bark and other such are not
nutrients by definition as the body can not use them as such. Horn and
hoof and bone and hides etc. are likewise not nutrition unless modified
greatly. Stringing together nifty sounding sound bites is not science.

Basic energy source? Do you mean calories? Last time I looked we had a
calorie excess and rampant obesity, mostly due to overconsumption of
nutritionally empty foods,

No. It mostly due to a lathargic, lazy, non-exercising public. The
"fruit" punches, white bread, and KFC chicken/MacDonald Happy Meals
only compound the problem.

Most of which are overly processed grains,
sugars and hfcs. Make a basic comparison of white flour or any other
white flour product to any other food, be it meats, fresh dairy, or
fresh produce.

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/

And there you go yet, AGAIN, lumping white flour/refined grain
products with whole grain.

Why don't we lump Long John Silvers in with good broiled fresh salmon
too? Same crap, right?

You want evidence? Go check it out.

Real food is always more nutrient dense than fake over processed
manufactured grain foods. Always.

No ***. That's why whole grains are finally, finally, starting to
get their due.

Patrick

.

Quantcast