Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not so sure about this calorie in vs. calorie out concept. Think it's been disproved. There are numerous articles/studies about how calories from different food groups (fats, sugars, carbs <and complex vs. simple>, and proteins are metabolized and stored differently in the body.
Hence all the advice to avoid "simple white carbs" and seek complex carbs from whole grains, beans/pulses and vegetables.
I'm just a layman, not a scientist. Using my own body, it is calories in, calories out. Of course I eat healthier foods for overall health, but if I ate 1300 calories of garbage, I'd still lose weight. I lost weight because of a caloric deficit, not what I ate. The advice against "empty calories" is that they don't fill you up, hence setting you up for overeating. They're cheap, easy and can be eaten in huge quantities. Would anyone eat just four twinkies and call it a day? The scientists that have done the Twinkie diet had the willpower of the gods to prove a point but other than that, your body would be screaming for meals with more substance.
Not so sure about this calorie in vs. calorie out concept. Think it's been disproved. There are numerous articles/studies about how calories from different food groups (fats, sugars, carbs <and complex vs. simple>, and proteins are metabolized and stored differently in the body.
Hence all the advice to avoid "simple white carbs" and seek complex carbs from whole grains, beans/pulses and vegetables.
But ultimately they all are processed and stored in the body, at least assuming a relatively healthy individual with no metabolic disorder or celiac disease. Excess macro nutrients all ultimately end up as fat as there is no storage mechanism for large amounts of carbohydrates in the human body. Excess protein ends up as fat, excess carbs end up as fat, excess fat ends up as fat. They may take different paths to get stored as fat but they get stored as fat. Doesn't matter if it's Twinkies or organic sprouted whole wheat bread or grass fed beef or asparagus. Excess calories are stored as fat.
But ultimately they all are processed and stored in the body, at least assuming a relatively healthy individual with no metabolic disorder or celiac disease. Excess macro nutrients all ultimately end up as fat as there is no storage mechanism for large amounts of carbohydrates in the human body. Excess protein ends up as fat, excess carbs end up as fat, excess fat ends up as fat. They may take different paths to get stored as fat but they get stored as fat. Doesn't matter if it's Twinkies or organic sprouted whole wheat bread or grass fed beef or asparagus. Excess calories are stored as fat.
One of the better points Gary Traubes makes is girls enter puberty, they fatten up. Is is because of their diet? When babies loose their baby fat, is it because they decided to start dieting? A woman who injected herself with insulin ended up fattening up at the injection site. Some people started over eating after getting a tumor or a brain injury.
So what about the biochemical mechanism? Even fat people will look at their favorite food with disinterest when they feel sated. So why the gap between appetite and intake for some people. Would it not suggest that there is a translation problem between energy uptake in the cells?
Some people at a very basic level don't think its about calories in and out. They usually accept density and fiber. It depends Try drinking apple cider all day and try to get to 2000 calories. Fiber can help make someone fat because it buffers the early signals for being sated.
Eating high glycemic foods alone will not make one fat. However mixing them with low glycemic foods surely may, especially if it buffers the early effects.
After you eat its the calories you ate..but why do you eat them?
One of the better points Gary Traubes makes is girls enter puberty, they fatten up. Is is because of their diet? When babies loose their baby fat, is it because they decided to start dieting? A woman who injected herself with insulin ended up fattening up at the injection site. Some people started over eating after getting a tumor or a brain injury.
Babies go through growth spurts. The fat is used when cells are highly actively and rapidly dividing. They aren't eating enough calories so the energy is coming from fat. Pretty normal and not unique. Men in particular go through it at puberty. If you put on a foot of height in a year you can pretty much eat everything you can stick in your mouth and still end up skinny as a rail. Girls going through puberty move fat around, eg breasts develop. If there's not enough excess calories they'll migrate the fat to fat cells in the breasts. Much more common for women to put fat on in the breasts than men. Regardless of where the fat goes though, it goes somewhere.
Yes, fat can build up around frequent injection sites. Happens with drug users as well as diabetics. Constantly damaging of the tissue can end up with more adipose tissues as well as larger adipose tissue in the area. Solution is to not inject in the same area over and over again.
Brain injury/tumor can do tons of things, including loss of impulse control, so that's not that surprising. They lost impulse control or maybe became depressed. Depressed people often over eat as well.
Quote:
So what about the biochemical mechanism? Even fat people will look at their favorite food with disinterest when they feel sated. So why the gap between appetite and intake for some people. Would it not suggest that there is a translation problem between energy uptake in the cells?
Not really, no. Satiety is more a soft science than hard science but yeah, it definitely exists. Classic example is doughnuts and oatmeal. Donuts are predominantly fat/carbs at about an equal ratio. Satiety level attempts to be scientific about judging satiety levels be interviewing people who eat things and averaging out how full they feel after eating them. People need to eat about 300 calories of donuts to feel as full as eating 100 calories of oatmeal. This runs contrary to the anti-carb myth but it's what soft science researchers have found. It's my general experience as well. I have no problem eating three regular donuts (around 1,000-1,200 calories). I really like donuts. They're delicious. Satiety signal for donuts, ice cream, candies, soda, Jamba Juice smoothies, they're just off for most people. Ever heard the saying "you can always find room for desert"? You've got to be well passed satiety and into uncomfortably full before a desert just doesn't look appealing, or at least I do. I can have one of those nice 1,500 calorie restaurant dinners and wouldn't have an issue finding room for a 500 calorie desert. I'm certainly not hungry any longer but so tasty.
Quote:
Some people at a very basic level don't think its about calories in and out. They usually accept density and fiber. It depends Try drinking apple cider all day and try to get to 2000 calories. Fiber can help make someone fat because it buffers the early signals for being sated.
Yes, and they're usually either obese are use other methods of not eating foods with very low satiety and high calories. Whether you care about the 300ish calories in a doughnut isn't that important. You can either go at it form doughnuts aren't that good for me so I'll only eat one or from jesus that's a lot of calories I better only eat one or I'll get fat. On the other hand if you just eat as many donuts as you feel like whenever you want, unless you just have an abnormally low access to donuts, you'll end up obese. That or you just don't like donuts, and who doesn't like donuts?
Maybe you meant the opposite. High fiber foods are generally high satiety level. Eg, oatmeal versus donuts. People who eat diets composed of lots of foods high in fiber have lower obesity. That's a correlation, not causation. Fiber supplements have no demonstrable effects but foods high in fiber have higher satiety in general so likely they eat less of them. That's more a learned behavior response. Eg, eat three donuts and they digest quickly and then your stomach is empty. Eat a big bowl of oatmeal and it stays in the stomach much longer. Possibly what's going on is your brain saying "hey, this stuff isn't a great source of energy -- can't you find something better to eat so you're not filling me up with this slow digesting food?" Then it gets a donut and goes "That's the stuff. Eat more of that!" Biomechanical feedback when it comes to satiety is not your friend. It's actually your worst enemy. It encourages eating more donuts and less oatmeal or vegetables. It has a strong preference for simple carbohydrates over complex carbohydrates. Sugar good, veggies bad.
Quote:
Eating high glycemic foods alone will not make one fat. However mixing them with low glycemic foods surely may, especially if it buffers the early effects.
Not really, no. Eating donuts with spinach won't make you fat. It's mostly the donuts as you it's pretty tough to eat any appreciable amount of spinach. How about carrots? High glycemic index index than doughnuts (doughnuts are relatively low glycemic considering the copious amounts of sugar because along with the copious amounts of sugar is lots and lots of fat. Substituting a higher glycemic carrot every time you get a donut craving is good in my book.
Apple cider versus donuts kind of contradicts you on fiber. Donuts have some fiber, although really not much. I'd personally find it far easier to eat 2,000 calories of donuts than drink 2,000 calories of apple cider despite that apple cider has no fiber. Satiety isn't straight forward carbs, proteins, fats, fiber. You get some straight out anomalies like potatoes. Very, very high satiety. It's also the combination. Fat generally is pretty good for satiety. Potatoes are EXCELLENT. Potato chips? Terrible. So you took a very high satiety food (potato) and combined it with another high satiety food (generally vegetable oil) and people will eat an entire bag and look for more.
Quote:
After you eat its the calories you ate..but why do you eat them?
Well, kind of the point. I didn't eat the donuts uncontrollably as I took some responsibility for what I put in my mouth. I might have one or two a few times a month. On the other hand I don't restrict high GI carrots. I eat as many of those as I want. Possible to get fat on carrots too, sure, but I don't like carrots that much anyway.
Babies go through growth spurts. The fat is used when cells are highly actively and rapidly dividing. They aren't eating enough calories so the energy is coming from fat. Pretty normal and not unique. Men in particular go through it at puberty. If you put on a foot of height in a year you can pretty much eat everything you can stick in your mouth and still end up skinny as a rail. Girls going through puberty move fat around, eg breasts develop. If there's not enough excess calories they'll migrate the fat to fat cells in the breasts. Much more common for women to put fat on in the breasts than men. Regardless of where the fat goes though, it goes somewhere.
You arre not understanding the point. Babies do not grow because of their diet. They grow because their appetite makes them seek calories. The calorie intake does not drive growth. The growth drives intake.
Quote:
Yes, fat can build up around frequent injection sites. Happens with drug users as well as diabetics. Constantly damaging of the tissue can end up with more adipose tissues as well as larger adipose tissue in the area. Solution is to not inject in the same area over and over again.
Brain injury/tumor can do tons of things, including loss of impulse control, so that's not that surprising. They lost impulse control or maybe became depressed. Depressed people often over eat as well.
So calories in doesn't really control that does it?
Quote:
Not really, no. Satiety is more a soft science than hard science but yeah, it definitely exists. Classic example is doughnuts and oatmeal. Donuts are predominantly fat/carbs at about an equal ratio. Satiety level attempts to be scientific about judging satiety levels be interviewing people who eat things and averaging out how full they feel after eating them. People need to eat about 300 calories of donuts to feel as full as eating 100 calories of oatmeal. This runs contrary to the anti-carb myth but it's what soft science researchers have found. It's my general experience as well. I have no problem eating three regular donuts (around 1,000-1,200 calories). I really like donuts. They're delicious. Satiety signal for donuts, ice cream, candies, soda, Jamba Juice smoothies, they're just off for most people. Ever heard the saying "you can always find room for desert"? You've got to be well passed satiety and into uncomfortably full before a desert just doesn't look appealing, or at least I do. I can have one of those nice 1,500 calorie restaurant dinners and wouldn't have an issue finding room for a 500 calorie desert. I'm certainly not hungry any longer but so tasty.
Doesn't really happen to me like that at this point.
Yes, and they're usually either obese are use other methods of not eating foods with very low satiety and high calories. Whether you care about the 300ish calories in a doughnut isn't that important. You can either go at it form doughnuts aren't that good for me so I'll only eat one or from jesus that's a lot of calories I better only eat one or I'll get fat. On the other hand if you just eat as many donuts as you feel like whenever you want, unless you just have an abnormally low access to donuts, you'll end up obese. That or you just don't like donuts, and who doesn't like donuts?
Quote:
Maybe you meant the opposite. High fiber foods are generally high satiety level.
Are you sure ? I would be sated in minutes with apple juice or honey. A high fiber food like beets will take longer and I will have more time to eat. A very low calorie density food will certainly prevent being able to take them in. However adding fiber to calorie dense food will buffer the rising blood sugar. Even after being satted it will continue to pour in .
Quote:
Eg, oatmeal versus donuts. People who eat diets composed of lots of foods high in fiber have lower obesity. That's a correlation, not causation.
You think its the fiber saving you with oatmeal? How about oat meal with butter and jelly which would tend to match the donut profile. Lets see oatmeal lose eight.
Quote:
Fiber supplements have no demonstrable effects but foods high in fiber have higher satiety in general so likely they eat less of them.
"no demonstrable effects"
Quote:
That's more a learned behavior response. Eg, eat three donuts and they digest quickly and then your stomach is empty. Eat a big bowl of oatmeal and it stays in the stomach much longer.
Again, add the same amount of fat and sugar and see how we are doing.
Quote:
Possibly what's going on is your brain saying "hey, this stuff isn't a great source of energy -- can't you find something better to eat so you're not filling me up with this slow digesting food?" Then it gets a donut and goes "That's the stuff. Eat more of that!" Biomechanical feedback when it comes to satiety is not your friend. It's actually your worst enemy. It encourages eating more donuts and less oatmeal or vegetables. It has a strong preference for simple carbohydrates over complex carbohydrates. Sugar good, veggies bad.
No whole food has this problem.
Quote:
Not really, no. Eating donuts with spinach won't make you fat. It's mostly the donuts as you it's pretty tough to eat any appreciable amount of spinach. How about carrots? High glycemic index index than doughnuts (doughnuts are relatively low glycemic considering the copious amounts of sugar because along with the copious amounts of sugar is lots and lots of fat. Substituting a higher glycemic carrot every time you get a donut craving is good in my book.
Why do you keep using donuts as a "food". Its a recipe of mixed foods never found in nature. No surprise we cannot automatically regulate it.
Quote:
Apple cider versus donuts kind of contradicts you on fiber. Donuts have some fiber, although really not much. I'd personally find it far easier to eat 2,000 calories of donuts than drink 2,000 calories of apple cider despite that apple cider has no fiber.
It contradicts you. Donuts have more fiber but they make you fatter. I said fiber does not play a role unless its a low calorie dense food.
Quote:
Satiety isn't straight forward carbs, proteins, fats, fiber. You get some straight out anomalies like potatoes. Very, very high satiety.
There is nothing anomalous about it. Its works the same way as bananas , sweet potatoes, honey, sugar, fruit juice or any other whole food thats high in sugar. It fills the blood sugar quickly, and you stop wanting to eat it. Other food with fiber delays it but they are not calorie dense. So even though it was slower to react , you have nto over eaten much.
Quote:
It's also the combination. Fat generally is pretty good for satiety. Potatoes are EXCELLENT. Potato chips? Terrible. So you took a very high satiety food (potato) and combined it with another high satiety food (generally vegetable oil) and people will eat an entire bag and look for more.
It isn't also the combination. It is the combination. We cannot biochemically regulate potato chips . You cannot use any of the fat because of insulin and the fat suppress glucose up take. So you may have been eating them for 15 minutes and the cells are sill not receiving much sugar.
You arre not understanding the point. Babies do not grow because of their diet. They grow because their appetite makes them seek calories. The calorie intake does not drive growth. The growth drives intake.
Of course they do. It's why children of zero generation immigrants from developing countries are often much, much taller than their parents. My best friend in high school, for example, his parents were barely five feet tall. Three brothers and a sister. The girl was five eight and the three boys all over six foot. From parents who were barely five feet tall. Genetically his parents would likely have been much taller had they had proper nutrition as children. They didn't so their growth was stunted.
Quote:
So calories in doesn't really control that does it?
Control what? Where fat deposits? No that's largely determined by genetics. That fat deposits? Absolutely.
Quote:
Are you sure ? I would be sated in minutes with apple juice or honey. A high fiber food like beets will take longer and I will have more time to eat. A very low calorie density food will certainly prevent being able to take them in. However adding fiber to calorie dense food will buffer the rising blood sugar. Even after being satted it will continue to pour in .
Absolutely. That's what science says. You may have a different psychological response as part of learned behavior that is contrary to that but it's how satiety works for the average person which is why donuts have a much lower satiety than oatmeal. It is a soft science though and not really understood. So yeah, you may react in the opposite way to most people. Still you react in the opposite way which is why you find sugary donuts more satiating while the satiety level is empirically far lower for most people.
Quote:
You think its the fiber saving you with oatmeal? How about oat meal with butter and jelly which would tend to match the donut profile. Lets see oatmeal lose eight.
Again, not entirely understood. I've never had oatmeal with buttery and jelly so I can't really say. Other than whole milk I don't really add any fat to my oatmeal. I have had potato chips however. My response is more typical. I find potatoes filling. Potato chips I'll devour the entire thing if I let myself and go find another bag.
Quote:
No whole food has this problem.
Why do you keep using donuts as a "food". Its a recipe of mixed foods never found in nature. No surprise we cannot automatically regulate it.
Little we eat is a "whole food," whatever that even means. It's almost all concoctions of various foods. Donuts are made of sugar, refined white flour, and generally fried in vegetable oils and then covered in sugary glazes. I suppose you could have a whole wheat donut. Would that make it a whole food? I've never seen it with donuts but it could be done, I suppose. You could make a pear Fritter for example with no added sugar, just caramelized pears and whole wheat flour. Sounds pretty tasty actually. Rather than vegetable oil you could fry it in butter. Fairly "whole food," whatever that means. Probably not much different than a regular apple fritter in terms of nutrition. I've made honey carmelized pears, however, with butter, honey, and a pears, sprinkle a bit of cinnamon on top. Excellent either with or without some vanilla ice cream. Let yourself get nice and hungry and give it a go and eat as many as you want until you're full and let me know how many you ended up eating. For me it would be quite a few.
Quote:
There is nothing anomalous about it. Its works the same way as bananas , sweet potatoes, honey, sugar, fruit juice or any other whole food thats high in sugar. It fills the blood sugar quickly, and you stop wanting to eat it. Other food with fiber delays it but they are not calorie dense. So even though it was slower to react , you have nto over eaten much.
Actually, not how it works at all really. You can look at scatter plots of satiety index with various food constituents, sugar, water, fat, protein, total carbohydrates. There's some trend lines but the clustering is not strong and the trend lines are mostly pretty weak. High fiber foods along with high protein foods generally do well. High fat more poorly. Interestingly foods with lots of water (grapes, oranges) do quite well. Total carbs and starches have almost no effect. In short, we basically just aren't very good at matching energy content to what we eat to when we feel full. Water throws us off. Whole grain breads or pastas are more satiating than white bread or non-whole grain pasta. That is to say you'll eat less whole grain pasta if you eat to satiaty than if you were eating non-whole grain pasta. Whole grain pasta is slower to digest and much better for you, but satiety tells you to do the opposite.
You can, of course, make a conscious effort to outwit the bodies preference for refined carbohydrates and high fat foods but it is a conscious effort. It's the natural inclination to do the opposite and eat low satiate foods. Eg, you eat it and it doesn't make you feel full so you eat more of it. Yummy! High satiate foods the natural inclination is to eat less.
Little we eat is a "whole food," whatever that even means. It's almost all concoctions of various foods.
Donuts are made of sugar, refined white flour, and generally fried in vegetable oils and then covered in sugary glazes. I suppose you could have a whole wheat donut. Would that make it a whole food?
Of course they do. It's why children of zero generation immigrants from developing countries are often much, much taller than their parents. My best friend in high school, for example, his parents were barely five feet tall. Three brothers and a sister. The girl was five eight and the three boys all over six foot. From parents who were barely five feet tall. Genetically his parents would likely have been much taller had they had proper nutrition as children. They didn't so their growth was stunted.
Control what? Where fat deposits? No that's largely determined by genetics. That fat deposits? Absolutely.
Absolutely not. its easy to fatten up rats on one food and make them lean on another. Gene expression matters. No one tells them what to eat except the biochemical reaction.
Quote:
Absolutely. That's what science says. You may have a different psychological response as part of learned behavior that is contrary to that but it's how satiety works for the average person which is why donuts have a much lower satiety than oatmeal. It is a soft science though and not really understood. So yeah, you may react in the opposite way to most people. Still you react in the opposite way which is why you find sugary donuts more satiating while the satiety level is empirically far lower for most people.
You keep comparing a whole food with one significant energy nutrient with one that has 3 of them. If you add butter and maple syrup to oatmeal you will wind up with close to the same results as donuts. You will also be able to serve that to people used eating them.
Quote:
Again, not entirely understood. I've never had oatmeal with buttery and jelly so I can't really say. Other than whole milk I don't really add any fat to my oatmeal. I have had potato chips however. My response is more typical. I find potatoes filling. Potato chips I'll devour the entire thing if I let myself and go find another bag.
People love to add cream and maple syrup etc. The reason why you can eat potato chips is because your cells do not receive the energy for quite some time. Firstly the starch is trapped in fat which will need bile. Then once the carbs are released fat energy is cut off completely. Mean while the fats in the blood stream tend to suppress glucose uptake. If one eats nothing but sugar, even if its dense calories , there are few cars on the freight train.
Quote:
Little we eat is a "whole food," whatever that even means. It's almost all concoctions of various foods.
That is kind of my whole point. That's why Scandinavia with high fat tends to do as well as low fat Japan. They do not chronically eat high fat, high protein and high carbohydrate diets , at least traditionally. Added fiber while adding high caloric density does not help at all. What ever benefit one gets from the lingering effects of slowed digestion is ruined by buffering the blood sugar rise whole two more slices of deluxe pizza go in. High fiber must also have low calorie density.
Quote:
Donuts are made of sugar, refined white flour, and generally fried in vegetable oils and then covered in sugary glazes. I suppose you could have a whole wheat donut. Would that make it a whole food?
Show me the donut fruit tree with that nutritional profile. one of the few would be the durian. The reported side effects are indigestion, heartburn and weight gain. And that isn't even trans or saturated fat which appear to confuse the body even more since palmetic acid is associated with fasting when glucose must be spared for essential areas.
Quote:
I've never seen it with donuts but it could be done, I suppose. You could make a pear Fritter for example with no added sugar, just caramelized pears and whole wheat flour. Sounds pretty tasty actually. Rather than vegetable oil you could fry it in butter. Fairly "whole food," whatever that means. Probably not much different than a regular apple fritter in terms of nutrition. I've made honey carmelized pears, however, with butter, honey, and a pears, sprinkle a bit of cinnamon on top. Excellent either with or without some vanilla ice cream. Let yourself get nice and hungry and give it a go and eat as many as you want until you're full and let me know how many you ended up eating. For me it would be quite a few.
A whole food is something that appeared in nature and gave our metabolism hundreds of thousands of years of adaptation. Whole foods is not a whole food.
Quote:
Actually, not how it works at all really. You can look at scatter plots of satiety index with various food constituents, sugar, water, fat, protein, total carbohydrates. There's some trend lines but the clustering is not strong and the trend lines are mostly pretty weak. High fiber foods along with high protein foods generally do well.
You mean like steak and salad? Of course. When its just fiber and no added calories it make little difference. You will eat more steak but it will be processed slowly. Its like eating steak twice. It also a good idea since vegetables deal with the waste product of protein like uric acid.
Quote:
High fat more poorly. Interestingly foods with lots of water (grapes, oranges) do quite well.
It makes not difference. Slowing the digestion on the back side just compensate for the buffering effects allowing you to eat more on the front side. You can eat more honey with a salad. it will slow it down, but you will delay the sated response. Its all self regulating until fats and added sugars enter the equation. I also don't like what I see when lean animal proteins and sugars are combined. Insulin response doubles.
Quote:
Total carbs and starches have almost no effect. In short, we basically just aren't very good at matching energy content to what we eat to when we feel full. Water throws us off.
Water does not throw anything off. That is what fruit is, water and sugar.
Quote:
Whole grain breads or pastas are more satiating than white bread or non-whole grain pasta.
You don't understand the chemistry. White bread sates faster. Wheat bread sates longer. The white bread eater will see blood sugar rise and stop eating faster. Granted its going to saw tooth the blood sugar a bit more but generally wheat bread and white bread is not going to cause much issue in the macro nutrients. The problem with white bread is you cannot store glycogen. That will definitely cause a blood sugar problem, however its because of potassium deficiencies, not the fiber. Whole wheat will give one at least a good dose of potassium. If one were to take a potassium supplement and eat white bread it would sate much longer.
Quote:
That is to say you'll eat less whole grain pasta if you eat to satiaty than if you were eating non-whole grain pasta. Whole grain pasta is slower to digest and much better for you, but satiety tells you to do the opposite.
A useless study mixing baked goods with whole foods like fruit. Is there added fat to the white bread or is it a wheat and salt sour dough? How long one wants to eat after is not relevant until we know how many calories were eaten first.
Quote:
You can, of course, make a conscious effort to outwit the bodies preference for refined carbohydrates and high fat foods but it is a conscious effort. It's the natural inclination to do the opposite and eat low satiate foods. Eg, you eat it and it doesn't make you feel full so you eat more of it. Yummy! High satiate foods the natural inclination is to eat less.
No there is no conscious effort. Eat all the maple syrup and carrots you like. You'd be lucky to get to 1500 calories for the day. I would not inhale it, but its going to hit the blood sugar so fat you will cease to have an appetite for more very soon.
Usually I have concoctions myself. For example, this morning I had oatmeal (oatmeal, whole milk, cinnamon, strawberries). So let's break that down. Oatmeal is out. It's pretty heavily processed already, even though, yeah I'm eating steel cut oats. Still a processed food. Whole milk is out. Homogenized and pasteurized, definitely out. Cinnamon is out. Extensively processed. Nobody grabs a tree branch and starts gnawing on it. Disgusting. Strawberies were pretty good. Unfortunately, I did process them by cutting off the tops. Nothing inedible about the tops of the strawberries. I just don't like them. So I cut them off. Of course I didn't eat the oat meal raw. More processing. So there we go. Oatmeal, one ingredient was only moderately processed (the strawberries). I had two fried eggs with that. Eggs aren't processed themselves but I cooked them in butter, which is definitely processed. Butter does not come out of cows. It's pasteurized and then churned (processing) to turn cream into butter. And I cooked them. Raw eggs are pretty disgusting. So more processed foods. I like foods processed myself. Relatively few are palatable without processing, mostly fruits. Raw fish is okay but I like most of my meat processed. Running out in the field and taking a bite out of a cow just isn't appealing.
In short, I ate almost nothing for breakfast today that was not processed. Strawberries were the closest thing. Everything was concoctions. I could have had them separately, but I didn't. Oatmeal tastes better with milk, cinnamon, and strawberries.
Usually I have concoctions myself. For example, this morning I had oatmeal (oatmeal, whole milk, cinnamon, strawberries). So let's break that down. Oatmeal is out. It's pretty heavily processed already, even though, yeah I'm eating steel cut oats. Still a processed food. Whole milk is out. Homogenized and pasteurized, definitely out. Cinnamon is out. Extensively processed. Nobody grabs a tree branch and starts gnawing on it. Disgusting. Strawberies were pretty good. Unfortunately, I did process them by cutting off the tops. Nothing inedible about the tops of the strawberries. I just don't like them. So I cut them off. Of course I didn't eat the oat meal raw. More processing. So there we go. Oatmeal, one ingredient was only moderately processed (the strawberries). I had two fried eggs with that. Eggs aren't processed themselves but I cooked them in butter, which is definitely processed. Butter does not come out of cows. It's pasteurized and then churned (processing) to turn cream into butter. And I cooked them. Raw eggs are pretty disgusting. So more processed foods. I like foods processed myself. Relatively few are palatable without processing, mostly fruits. Raw fish is okay but I like most of my meat processed. Running out in the field and taking a bite out of a cow just isn't appealing.
In short, I ate almost nothing for breakfast today that was not processed. Strawberries were the closest thing. Everything was concoctions. I could have had them separately, but I didn't. Oatmeal tastes better with milk, cinnamon, and strawberries.
:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
:
