I would just take up what it says on wheat though. Re. the “whole grain” label is a joke… these grains have usually been pulverized into very fine flour, so they have similar metabolic effects as refined grains....this overlooks the benefit of whole grains, i.e consuming the bran and the wheatgerm, notably FIBRE!
Where it concludes the wheat most people are eating today is unhealthy. It is less nutritious and may increase cholesterol levels and inflammatory markers....this overlooks the link between consuming fibre and its beneficial effect on cholesterol.
The article isn't bad overall. It's certainly more modern than the '80s tripe people were advised but I guess that's partly down to better medical knowledge.
I do question some of that stuff, whilst it does make sense, in the real world, some of it is just not as easily applicable.
Most of these are either already in the public domain or are still being argued over.
No harm in highlighting them for those who may not know. Also, whilst there is no conclusion to some of them then they remain in the realm of myths and should be acknowledged as such.
The definition of a "myth" would be quite different to that of a "so-far unproved theory".
Go on, admit it, Amy - you've missed me!;)
I am being paid to sit and do nothing today.....literally! But asI am away from home I have been browsing threads I normally wouldn't have read...inlcuding this one. I am little concerned by how the writer interprets the scientific papers.
Example the conclusion of one paper is this
A modest reduction in salt intake for four or more weeks causes significant and, from a population viewpoint, important falls in blood pressure in both hypertensive and normotensive individuals, irrespective of sex and ethnic group. Salt reduction is associated with a small physiological increase in plasma renin activity, aldosterone, and noradrenaline and no significant change in lipid concentrations. These results support a reduction in population salt intake, which will lower population blood pressure and thereby reduce cardiovascular disease. The observed significant association between the reduction in 24 hour urinary sodium and the fall in systolic blood pressure, indicates that larger reductions in salt intake will lead to larger falls in systolic blood pressure. The current recommendations to reduce salt intake from 9-12 to 5-6 g/day will have a major effect on blood pressure, but a further reduction to 3 g/day will have a greater effect and should become the long term target for population salt intake
yet somehow the writer of the article uses this to support the idea that salt reduction has NO effect?? Are they reading the same article as me??
Thanks for your post Tashanie. The link between salt and high blood pressure is not clear cut it would appear. Salt can be a factor but there are other causes that culminate in high blood pressure, e.g. stress and cholesterol levels.
The article over generalizes and is non-scientific in it's approach so shouldn't be used as a trusted source. It uses too many phrases such as "some studies suggest" and "may even" and "usually" etc.
Whilst it says things like
"Also, let’s not forget that the “whole grain” label is a joke… these grains have usually been pulverized into very fine flour, so they have similar metabolic effects as refined grains."
It doesn't highlight the facts about wheat processing, such as the difference between stoneground flours and machine ground flours (i.e. machine ground 'wholegrain' flours separate the parts of the grain and then some of those parts are re-combined, but some important 'healthy' parts are left out; whilst stoneground wholegrain doesn't separate the parts and is genuinely wholegrain; so buying organic stoneground wholegrain flours are the most healthy, for those who aren't gluten intolerant or coeliac)
Sorry, but I'm not keen on articles that try to be 'clever' and portray themselves as being superior in some way, when they're misrepresenting facts.
I'm sure the intention was good, but the construct was misguided.
All Love and Reiki Hugs
EnergyIz you make some valid points (and I commented on wholegrains in my OP).
Whilst it is not flawless, overall I feel it provides a pretty good yardstick/guide. Indeed, I found the link on a cookery forum (the members of which are very critical about food there) and it got the thumb's up mostly.
EnergyIz you make some valid points (and I commented on wholegrains in my OP).
Whilst it is not flawless, overall I feel it provides a pretty good yardstick/guide. Indeed, I found the link on a cookery forum (the members of which are very critical about food there) and it got the thumb's up mostly.
To me it this article is an example of exactly why people should NOT trust something they have read on the internet.....its how myths get propagated in the first place. Not everyone reads with their critical facilities in place. (And some of the 'myths' were total news to me) But I agree it did make some good points.