U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-10-2020, 06:54 PM
 
10,369 posts, read 6,826,163 times
Reputation: 19584

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckyd609 View Post

You know what really bugs me about these studies? Is that people take them seriously and then feel they are not eating the way they really 'should' be eating and then get frustrated and give up.

Amen!!!!!!!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-11-2020, 12:37 AM
 
Location: PRC
3,314 posts, read 3,423,687 times
Reputation: 3002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckyd609
You know what really bugs me about these studies? Is that people take them seriously and then feel they are not eating the way they really 'should' be eating...
Strange... because some other people need 'proof' and scientific studies in order to know what to believe.

To some these studies are a good thing and to others like the quote above they are a bad thing. I wish you guys would make up your mind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2020, 03:53 AM
 
Location: western East Roman Empire
7,080 posts, read 11,052,842 times
Reputation: 6595
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20 View Post
To some these studies are a good thing and to others like the quote above they are a bad thing. I wish you guys would make up your mind.
Problem is, in the mass-media age, and even more so in this the internet phase, virtually anyone can publish a "report" or "study" or an article and attach words like "science", "fact", "proof", "statistics", "truth" and "justice for all" to it, and even call it "peer reviewed", and have it copied virtually innumerable times when almost invariably the real motive is to sell a product or ideology or both or to advance someone's personal career or all the above.

Too many arrogant self-serving humans have demeaned what used to be venerable words.

If they would preface their proclamations with qualifiers like "probability", "projection", "speculation", "hunch", "general guidelines", "this may work for some people, but not for others, depending on the unique circumstances of each individual", maybe they would have more credibility and be taken with less scorn.

As it stands, all these "reports", "studies", "scientists", "science", "facts", "proof", "statistics", "truths", "justice", "peer reviewed", and the like, well deserve all the skepticism, cynicism, and scorn heaped on them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2020, 06:41 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
3,260 posts, read 1,271,428 times
Reputation: 7206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikala43 View Post
I listen to Dr. Greger and he talked about this. The more you process the less "wholesome" it becomes. So if you take steel cut oats, quick oats and oat flour, the sugar spike increases for the less "whole" the oat is.

It was also seen with blending fruits into a smoothie IIRC.

"Sugar spike" is not important at all to non-diabetics, and only maybe important to diabetics (it's the long term effects of chronically hi BS, not the minute to minute effects that are important)


Bigger question-- If you're diabetic, why are you eating ANY oatmeal at all? 56gm CHO per serving! https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts...cereals/1597/2


Back to the OP: "Structure" has to do with how the nutrients are released from the fibrous matrix of the food. You can let the factory "process" the raw material, or you can let your own intestines & liver do it. Same difference, but with eating the raw stuff means you're forced to handle the inert fiber and get rid of it. The factory is "pre-digesting" for you.


Gm for gm, there's more absorbable nutrient in the processed food than in the natural. ..In eating the raw food, more of the nutrients don't get released and absorbed. Your gut bacteria may be more healthy, but it's doing nothing for you.


Others above are quite right: the clinical significance of these studies are probably ZERO, not tp mention that the studies are more than likely not reproducible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2020, 09:45 AM
 
Location: Middle of the ocean
33,721 posts, read 21,420,534 times
Reputation: 49064
Dr. Greger ONLY goes with properly run, double blind studies. I don't remember everything that was in the podcast, but that's on me.
__________________
____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2020, 01:04 PM
Status: "Happy Hollydaze" (set 24 days ago)
 
Location: Tucson Arizona
4,250 posts, read 1,905,208 times
Reputation: 11184
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
"Sugar spike" is not important at all to non-diabetics, and only maybe important to diabetics (it's the long term effects of chronically hi BS, not the minute to minute effects that are important)


Bigger question-- If you're diabetic, why are you eating ANY oatmeal at all? 56gm CHO per serving! https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts...cereals/1597/2


Back to the OP: "Structure" has to do with how the nutrients are released from the fibrous matrix of the food. You can let the factory "process" the raw material, or you can let your own intestines & liver do it. Same difference, but with eating the raw stuff means you're forced to handle the inert fiber and get rid of it. The factory is "pre-digesting" for you.


Gm for gm, there's more absorbable nutrient in the processed food than in the natural. ..In eating the raw food, more of the nutrients don't get released and absorbed. Your gut bacteria may be more healthy, but it's doing nothing for you.


Others above are quite right: the clinical significance of these studies are probably ZERO, not tp mention that the studies are more than likely not reproducible.

Actually, it's as if you were eating less food, since more gets evacuated without being broken down and absorbed.

Old fashioned oats also have more "scrubbing action" than instant oats because of the larger, more durable pieces. That's the point if eating fiber.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2020, 01:08 PM
 
Location: Middle of the ocean
33,721 posts, read 21,420,534 times
Reputation: 49064
Plus, I have problems with blood sugar spikes (pre diabetic A1C), and oats don't cause my blood sugar to spike at all.
__________________
____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 04:17 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
3,260 posts, read 1,271,428 times
Reputation: 7206
Quote:
Originally Posted by steiconi View Post

Old fashioned oats also have more "scrubbing action" than instant oats because of the larger, more durable pieces. That's the point if eating fiber.

Actually, the "fiber benefit" is derived from erroneous conclusions based only on observational correlations made by 19th century British missionary doctors in Africa. Recent studies show there is very little if any benefit to high fiber diets.


There's no "scrubbing action." Chyme is the mass of digesting food as it traverses your intestines. It's a smooth, slimey, amorphous mass of short-chained molecules with very little recognizable fiber.


The biggest problem with any nutritional study is that, thanks to the ethics rules put in place in the '70s, it's nearly impossible to do real, controlled double blind studies anymore. Most nutritional studies have too few subjects to empower them to make any clear conclusions, confounding factors can't be controlled and they rarely, if ever, take into account individual genetic differences in digestion or dietary needs.


I'm pretty sure that our jails are now so over-crowded simply due to those ethics standards-- the prisoners can't shorten their sentences anymore by volunteering for experiments like they used to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:56 PM
 
Location: western East Roman Empire
7,080 posts, read 11,052,842 times
Reputation: 6595
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post

The biggest problem with any nutritional study is that ... have too few subjects ... to make any clear conclusions, confounding factors can't be controlled and they rarely, if ever, take into account individual genetic differences in digestion or dietary needs.

That's what I'm talking about.

So-called anecdotes, i.e. real living individuals, are much more meaningful than "statistics" who don't live anywhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top