I listed the non-food for you: cereal, frozen dinners, most canned food, canned soups, crackers, cookies, chips, white bread, soda…
Each with dozens of lab-made ingredients that offer non-nutritional matter. You really think this is progress?
Grains. Which we’ve been eating since the neolithic.
A vast and scattered category that cannot be meaningfully singularized. Unless ice cream is the same as frozen peas.
Another vast category that would seem to equate canned vegetables in water to tuna to soups.
Because putting a bunch of ingredients together in a can makes it non-nutritional?
More grains, more grains plus sugar, potatoes and fat, grains minus grit, and 90% water.
So I guess the question is… why do you hate grains?
Salt? I guess you could react sodium and chlorine together in the lab, but last I checked there’s plenty in the ocean and in mines. That seems to be the primary added ingredient to a lot of canned foods. Isinglass? From fish? Which lab made chemicals? What is the quantity in which they are used? Dough conditioners? Which largely disappear from the dough by the time it’s cooked? Which? What? How? Why? When?
Unless people who eat these things are starving to death, I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word, “nutritional.”
You think that by begging the question you’re making an argument?
2 Likes
Have you read the ingredients to the food that you are claiming to be healthy lately?
Neolithic cereal did not contain Butylated Hydroxytoluene.
Grain milling that was done a hundred or hundreds of years ago was fine, but that’s not what you’re getting a typical grocery store. You’re getting white flour that’s had most of its proteins, vitamins, lipids and minerals removed. Not to mention the radical genetic modification to ancient wheats that could permanently change our wheat globally.
Most fresh versions of canned food are readily available, minus the BPA lining found in most cans, minus the leakage of aluminum into the foods, minus the preservatives needed to keep them fresh and minus the questionable and often internationally unregulated juice that these things sit in before being opened.
Canned soup, same as above, plus an insane amount of unnecessary sodium.
Do I hate grains? Not the healthy ones, but you don’t really think that you’re getting the healthy, unprocessed unstripped down unmodified grains from cookies and crackers from a typical grocery store do you? I’m sure it’s easier pretending that you’re eating the same food as your grandmother did, but you’re not.
Just because food is preventing you from starving to death, it doesn’t make the food sustainable for your body’s nutritional needs.
We shouldn’t be eating Neolithic ANYTHING; the agricultural revolution began at the end of the last Ice Ace (circa 10mya). If you were to take all of recognised human evolution (roughly 6my) and condense it into a single 24-hour period, we’ve been farming grains for just 2.4 minutes - do you really think that’s enough time for our bodies to know how to digest them properly…?
Think about this: if our bodies could deal with grains properly - any grains, then do you think coeliac disease would exist…? If our bodies were properly adapted to deal with the proteins in grains (not just specifically wheat) then, surely nobody would suffer such an extreme reaction…?
Grains have NO place in a healthy diet; they are responsible - perhaps even more so than sugar - for the epic rise in obesity, and its related ills. Go read the NHS Choices pages on dieting with diabetes - it basically boils down to “eat whole grains and starches, avoid fat”, the same ‘advice’ the NHS gives anyone needing to lose weight, or who wants to adopt a ‘healthy’ lifestyle.
The NHS has been trotting out this same, well-worn, BS for nearly 40 years - all of it has been thoroughly debunked, yet kids are still being taught it at med school as though it was gospel truth, and GPs who attempt to tell their patients the truth, soon find their NHS positions becoming untenable. They are literally hounded out of the NHS for speaking the truth. Why does the NHS want the truth buried, that’s what I’d like to know. I have a VERY deep-rooted mistrust of the NHS, I refuse to call it a health service because, from the evidence I see all around me, it is anything but. It doesn’t take a doc to tell you that the LFHC, calorie-restricted diet the NHS insists on preaching isn’t working, the evidence is all around.
Here’s something else: the correct name for dementia/Alzheimer’s is ‘type 3 diabetes’, because your brain needs saturated fat and cholesterol to function properly; without saturated fat and cholesterol, It can’t renew neurons, meaning they die quicker, and in greater numbers, leading to dementia. Eat an NHS healthy diet and you’re almost guaranteeing that you’ll end up with some form of the disease. Statins are another major cause of dementia because they starve the brain of essential cholesterol.
My parents subscribe to the Torygraph, and I leaf through it occasionally, and according to its science and health editor, dementia is now “inevitable”. This nihilistic view is caused by an almost religious belief in that the NHS is right - the NHS is never wrong, and to criticise the NHS is almost akin to blasphemy. It’s like a cult, and the nation hangs on its every word - it’s terrifying if you think about it for a second. That one organisation should have such a hold over a nation’s populace that they completely forget how to think for themselves. You go to the quack, quack scribbles you a prescription, and off you toddle to Boots to get it filled. The you pop those pills, knock back the jollop, like a good little disciple
This is the dictionary (Chambers) definition of ‘cult’
1. A system of religious belief
2. A sect
3. An unorthodox or false religion
4. A great, often excessive, admiration for a person or idea
5. The person or idea giving rise to such admiration (with of) a fad adjective
6. Applied to objects associated with pagan worship
7. Relating to, or giving rise to, a cult, extremely fashionable
3, 4 and 5 do, in my opinion, define the NHS. Also, cult members tend to get angry if you criticise the cult and/or its doctrines, texts, beliefs and practices. That’s exactly what happens when GPs feel,they can’t lie anymore and start speaking the truth, their lives are made a living hell and they’re forced out, the official line will be that they left “due to stress-related illness”.
Yes, this is one of my soapboxes, and I’ll keep preaching the Gospel According to The Truth until some fucker actually listens. I keep mentioning Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, because he’s the only British GP I know of who’s as vociferous as I am at wanting to get the truth out. Please, I urge you all to go read his blog - http://www.drmalcolmkendrick.org - his specialist subject is statins, saturated fat and cholesterol. He has a book, ‘The Great Cholesterol Con’, which I may have mentioned on here a few times before. If you’re on statins, your GP is insisting you take statins, or you know someone who takes them please, go buy it, it’s no hyperbole to say that it may very well save your life. The comments on the blog are worth reading too.
The NHS seems hellbent on demonising the true constituents of healthy diet, and I for one demand to know why. I don’t trust the NHS, and nor should anyone else, either.
Think about this: if our bodies could deal with shellfish properly, then do you think shellfish allergy would exist? If our bodies were properly adapted to deal with the proteins in shellfish then, surely nobody would suffer such an extreme reaction?
Shellfish allergy affects about 2% of Americans, coeliac disease about 1%. Yet shellfish eating has been going on since we were Homo erectus.
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 3 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
