Wonder White Bread Vs Brown Bread.

[Guest SuperBru]

Wonder white bread boats that it has more dietary fiber than brown bread. It also contains various vitamins. I've always been told that brown bread is the best option yet i'm unsure this time.   

[Colin Macdonald]

Whole foods (like whole grains) are always your best option.

 

Things like "high fiber", "low-fat", and "vitamin enriched" are just buzz words that companies use to hit on all the notes that people associate with healthy food. Food producers will just add in whatever element is trendy currently. And it preys on our human tendency to get carried away, "Fiber is good, so more fiber is better!". But what they add generally isn't the same as what was in the whole food that it was refined from, the fiber in wonder bread is probably cellulose fiber (wood pulp). While on paper the fiber content may be higher, the way that those additives function in our bodies can have vastly different effects. If you go and buy a computer you'll see numbers for processor speed and how much ram they have, but go ask a computer expert if 1 gigabyte of ram is always the same I'm sure you'll get an earful. 

 

Currently, we simply lack the technology to break down and reassemble foods to make a better whole. (which is what enriched wonder bread is, it is refined down to it's simplest elements then mixed back together with other additives). But refining down all the elements and then reassembling is not only much easier for industrial food producers to do in order to make a uniform, long-lasting product, it's also much more profitable. Eventually we may develop the technology to beat nature in it's ability to feed us, but currently it simply isn't possible. And not simply for the macro nutrients, but for the thousands of other chemicals and co-factors that can be found in whole foods that refining can remove and destroy.

 

Whole foods aren't better just because they're natural or unrefined, it's simply that they generally present food in a form that we are biologically adapted to consume. On paper it all looks the same, but once you start messing with the ratios too much, and swap out nutrients with industrial substitutes, bad thing start to happen.

 

As a final note, be careful that the bread you buy is actually whole grain, and not just white bread with wheat fiber thrown back in.

[Keilani Gutierrez]

Whole foods (like whole grains) are always your best option.

 

Things like "high fiber", "low-fat", and "vitamin enriched" are just buzz words that companies use to hit on all the notes that people associate with healthy food. Food producers will just add in whatever element is trendy currently. And it preys on our human tendency to get carried away, "Fiber is good, so more fiber is better!". But what they add generally isn't the same as what was in the whole food that it was refined from, the fiber in wonder bread is probably cellulose fiber (wood pulp). While on paper the fiber content may be higher, the way that those additives function in our bodies can have vastly different effects. If you go and buy a computer you'll see numbers for processor speed and how much ram they have, but go ask a computer expert if 1 gigabyte of ram is always the same I'm sure you'll get an earful. 

 

Currently, we simply lack the technology to break down and reassemble foods to make a better whole. (which is what enriched wonder bread is, it is refined down to it's simplest elements then mixed back together with other additives). But refining down all the elements and then reassembling is not only much easier for industrial food producers to do in order to make a uniform, long-lasting product, it's also much more profitable. Eventually we may develop the technology to beat nature in it's ability to feed us, but currently it simply isn't possible. And not simply for the macro nutrients, but for the thousands of other chemicals and co-factors that can be found in whole foods that refining can remove and destroy.

 

Whole foods aren't better just because they're natural or unrefined, it's simply that they generally present food in a form that we are biologically adapted to consume. On paper it all looks the same, but once you start messing with the ratios too much, and swap out nutrients with industrial substitutes, bad thing start to happen.

 

As a final note, be careful that the bread you buy is actually whole grain, and not just white bread with wheat fiber thrown back in.

that was something i could totally identify with, nice touch with the processor speeds and ram! so true! 

 

do you think it's a good thing they can't dismantle and reassemble them better than whole foods? do you think we'd go down the same road if we could spin the electrons around these artificially made compounds? 

 

I'm sure we'd just be seeing this but on a lot less controlled process happening in nature. but then we have examples like Broccoli, but that's more of a GMO and kind of detracts from the original thought of making super foods from compounds. this would probably be a sweet addendum to military rations or astronaut food

 

edit: kind of how there's that biblical story of an angel feeding a biblical character with a food that kept him fed for 40 days. 

[gravy]

That "biologically adapted to consume" idea is BS. Humans adapted to eat whatever was available. A species is more likely to survive if it can safely consume a wide variety of things as opposed to starving.

[Joshua Naterman]

That "biologically adapted to consume" idea is BS. Humans adapted to eat whatever was available. A species is more likely to survive if it can safely consume a wide variety of things as opposed to starving.

This idea is not BS.

 

What IS BS is assuming that this only applies to a small number of foods. It absolutely applies to processed foods for one simple reason: They dramatically reduce your nutrient exposure.

 

In other words, when you compare what you get from eating 3-4 lbs of freshly cooked veggies (fresh or frozen, doesn't matter),  1-2 lbs of meats (or legumes + seeds, whatever natural protein source you want) and the natural fats that come with either fatty plants (coconut, olives, palm fruit, etc) or meat, vs what you get from a multi-vitamin and processed foods, you are looking at significantly different nutrient profiles. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of chemicals that humans have literally been consuming in large quantities for all of our collective history until the advent of packaged foods, that we know little to nothing about, and they are not included in vitamins or processed foods. They become permanently denatured and inactivated by pasteurization, and the amount of vegetable matter in processed foods is practically insignificant compared to the alternative I have provided.

 

I am 1000% positive, on my worst and most doubtful day, that we are meant to have the former alternative, and not the processed alternative.

 

You are also never going to see a perfect reproduction of real food that costs the same or less than real food, because you have to pay for all the energy, equipment, chemical reagents, and human manpower that go into industrial production.

 

Please, try to keep in mind that we ARE biologically adapted to consume foods that have all of their natural chemicals. We are not adapted to eating the macros without all of those micronutrients, which is why there is such a thing as essential nutrients, vitamins, minerals, etc.

 

That is part of why you will always have better health (and in my opinion better performance) if you focus on getting  as high of a percentage of your total food from whole foods (particularly a wide variety of plant matter) as you are able to.

[Guest SuperBru]

Whole foods (like whole grains) are always your best option.

 

Things like "high fiber", "low-fat", and "vitamin enriched" are just buzz words that companies use to hit on all the notes that people associate with healthy food. Food producers will just add in whatever element is trendy currently. And it preys on our human tendency to get carried away, "Fiber is good, so more fiber is better!". But what they add generally isn't the same as what was in the whole food that it was refined from, the fiber in wonder bread is probably cellulose fiber (wood pulp). While on paper the fiber content may be higher, the way that those additives function in our bodies can have vastly different effects. If you go and buy a computer you'll see numbers for processor speed and how much ram they have, but go ask a computer expert if 1 gigabyte of ram is always the same I'm sure you'll get an earful. 

 

Currently, we simply lack the technology to break down and reassemble foods to make a better whole. (which is what enriched wonder bread is, it is refined down to it's simplest elements then mixed back together with other additives). But refining down all the elements and then reassembling is not only much easier for industrial food producers to do in order to make a uniform, long-lasting product, it's also much more profitable. Eventually we may develop the technology to beat nature in it's ability to feed us, but currently it simply isn't possible. And not simply for the macro nutrients, but for the thousands of other chemicals and co-factors that can be found in whole foods that refining can remove and destroy.

 

Whole foods aren't better just because they're natural or unrefined, it's simply that they generally present food in a form that we are biologically adapted to consume. On paper it all looks the same, but once you start messing with the ratios too much, and swap out nutrients with industrial substitutes, bad thing start to happen.

 

As a final note, be careful that the bread you buy is actually whole grain, and not just white bread with wheat fiber thrown back in.

This post was a real eye opener thank you very much.

[Guest SuperBru]

The idea of genetically engineered food makes my blood boil. Once you start playing God you start playing with consequences you will never be able to handle.

[Joshua Slocum]

The idea of genetically engineered food makes my blood boil. Once you start playing God you start playing with consequences you will never be able to handle.

Genetically modified foods, done right, have the potential to lift billions of people out of starvation and malnutrition. It would be immoral to not try to feed those people.

[Guest SuperBru]

"Done right" this is the first problem and will take years to master. Growing up in Africa I learnt that the government doesn't give a rats ass about it's people. All the government cares about is money, money and more money. There have been many opportunities where the government could have fed his people however that has never happened. GMF will just be another science project with empty promises. 

[FREDERIC DUPONT]

(...) in Africa I learnt that the government doesn't give a rats ass about it's people

It is the case of ALL governments!

Governments care about one thing, that is to remain in power.

 

Genetically modified foods, done right, have the potential to lift billions of people out of starvation and malnutrition. It would be immoral to not try to feed those people.

You really don't need GMO to feed the world.

All that is needed are:

- To abolish all borders & border controls for people & goods. Feeding the world is technically a logistics problem; there is enough food for all, just not at the right place; furthermore humans are experts at impeding each others' efforts.

- To take a good look (each of us, individually) in the mirror and admit to ourselves that we humans are real bastards that don't give a crap if our neighbors & their kids are dying of hunger --> from then on things can change. As long as we are convinced that we are good guys, why would we change anything?

About 15% of the world population is underfed or malnourished; that has been the case ever since we have recorded figures (I think the first that made an inventory of the ugly empty bellies was Malthus circa 1810.

[edited for grammar... but still unsure...

 All that is needed is (two things?)

All that are needed are (all?)

All that is needed are(?)

dunno!]

[Guest SuperBru]

I agree 100% with you Fred.

[Colin Macdonald]

do you think it's a good thing they can't dismantle and reassemble them better than whole foods? do you think we'd go down the same road if we could spin the electrons around these artificially made compounds? 

 

Living in Italy, food isn't just fuel. Food is culture, family and life (for our family at least, there are lots of people here that eat a lot of industrial food). So I'm pretty biased towards not just whole food, but the process of preparing at home. But that's an emotional bias that I have. Realistically I think it would take some sort of pseudo-magical level of technology like Star Trek style replicators to perfectly replicate the stuff of nature. Currently I think that our best bet as a society is to focus our energy on better growing and using whole foods. But if we are ever able to mass produce cheap and perfectly nutritious food I can't objectively say it would be such a bad thing, though the soul might suffer a bit. 

 

That "biologically adapted to consume" idea is BS. Humans adapted to eat whatever was available. A species is more likely to survive if it can safely consume a wide variety of things as opposed to starving.

You have to keep in mind what kind of adaptions the body is capable of. Cows live off of grass (industrial feed lots excluded). It's a perfectly viable source of energy if you have the required stomachs to process it and you want to spend your entire life chewing. Humans have tried it with poor results, there are reports from the time of the Irish potato famine of people dying with their mouths stained green from trying to live off of grass. We are highly adaptable consumers, but there are limits.

 

The kind of adaptability we are capable as a species is quite dramatic within a certain context, we can get our energy primarily from fat or primarily from carbohydrates (I'm not talking about what's optimum, but there are examples of healthy cultures on both ends of this spectrum). These adaptions can take place quite quickly, and most of us do so on a regular basis unless you're following a very strict diet. One day you might have a a more fatty animal based meal, then you might have a carb based meal, without dropping dead of exhaustion in between.

 

Then there are certain adaptions that are more dramatic but take a much longer time. The ability to process things like lactose, ethanol and gluten are adaptions that have taken place over a very long period of time . For the most part people of European decent can include these things in their diet, in moderation, without much trouble. But if you take somebody from another culture like Native Americans, they react quite badly to a diet high in those elements and it will take many, many generations for them to develop the necessary adaptions.

 

Things like fast food and other industrial foods present a triple threat against out capabilities of adaption. The energy in fast food is perfectly viable from a strictly chemical view, industrial vegetable oils and fructose are food energy like any other. And they even seem similar to whole foods if you just look a their macro nutrients. But currently, like was once the case with lactose and ethanol, we simply aren't prepared as a species to have them be a large part of our diet. It may be possible eventually with hundreds of years of adaption, but within our lifetimes it's simply impossible. The second problem is well explained by Joshua, industrial processing takes things out that we simply don't have the ability back in. And unlike with switching between fats and sugars for energy, our bodies need certain micro nutrients from external sources that we simply can't create internally. And lastly there are the proportions of certain ingredients that we aren't used to consuming. For thousands of years with have eaten whole foods without added salt and higher levels of things like potassium. We have the ability to a certain degree to balance these levels out. But industrial foods have so much salt, and so little potassium that it's stretches these abilities to their very limits. While it's up for debate exactly where "diseases of civilization" like heart disease and diabetes come from, it's generally agreed upon that these three factors play a primary role. 

 

This post was a real eye opener thank you very much.

I'm glad to hear that! 

[Samuli Jyrkinen]

Japanese scientists have learned to make solid food from human feces. THAT will save the world.

[gravy]

The idea of genetically engineered food makes my blood boil. Once you start playing God you start playing with consequences you will never be able to handle.

lmfao. note to self, ignore everything this guy has to say.

 

as for josh:

so what? some humans eat a bunch of crap. does that mean we did not evolve to eat the processed foods? because to me, it seems like humans digest these nutrient deficient foods just fine. sure, for most (sedentary) people it gets stored as fat, and in some cases cause health issues. but this does not mean that we evolved to eat one type of food over another.  if humans eat processed/junk foods a few times a year does this mean they'll die automatically or have long term health issues because they did not evolve to digest the processed foods? no. eating garbage regularly is similar to not exercising regularly. humans are not "meant" to have one kind of food over another. humans eat whatever is available, and sometimes humans make extremely stupid decisions.

 

let's take an extreme situation for example: if nutrient deficient foods (like processed/junk food) were available and humans were starving, the humans that had access to these foods would have a higher survival rate as opposed to those who only had access to mud, grass, and rocks as food. does this mean that humans are evolutionarily adapted to junk food, but not mud, grass, and rocks? hell no. humans are adapted to be generalists. (in the first world) humans can make decisions that determine their health. some make "healthy" decisions, some make trashy ones. the whole evolved to eat x instead of y argument is a huge marketing ploy for the paleo diet. choose what you put into your body, and do what you will. but don't make the claim that humans evolved to eat this or that. that's totally BS and not supported by any evidence. open a genetics book.

[Guest SuperBru]

"lmfao. note to self, ignore everything this guy has to say." Based on what evidence?  You are questioning Josh who knows a lot more about nutrition than you do. Your post has no references at all so that makes your info BS. Have a nice day.    

[Guest SuperBru]

Japanese scientists have learned to make solid food from human feces. THAT will save the world.

Those Japanese never cease to amaze me.

[Colin Macdonald]

 

let's take an extreme situation for example: if nutrient deficient foods (like processed/junk food) were available and humans were starving, the humans that had access to these foods would have a higher survival rate as opposed to those who only had access to mud, grass, and rocks as food. does this mean that humans are evolutionarily adapted to junk food, but not mud, grass, and rocks? hell no. humans are adapted to be generalists. (in the first world) humans can make decisions that determine their health. some make "healthy" decisions, some make trashy ones. the whole evolved to eat x instead of y argument is a huge marketing ploy for the paleo diet. choose what you put into your body, and do what you will. but don't make the claim that humans evolved to eat this or that. that's totally BS and not supported by any evidence. open a genetics book.

Humans are adapted to be "generalists" within the context that I explained. Outside of that context is where problems start to happen.

 

Humans can certainly make decisions about their health and what they eat. And some decisions are healthy and some are not.

 

The paleo diet as it is commonly viewed (and all the problems with how paleo is commonly presented) has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the limits of human adaptability, not that you should eat like a caveman. I talked about our acquired ability to eat things like lactose and gluten, which certainly isn't "paleo". Please read what I say more carefully before you respond.

 

I'd prefer you respond to the specific and detailed ideas I have presented. If you want to have a pub med slapping contest where we just direct each other to read other articles to rectify my supposed ignorance, you're going to have to provide me with specific references with which I can educate myself. 

[Guest SuperBru]

Just a heads up I was directing my criticism towards gravy's ignorance. 

[Joshua Naterman]

lmfao. note to self, ignore everything this guy has to say.

 

as for josh:

so what? some humans eat a bunch of crap. does that mean we did not evolve to eat the processed foods? because to me, it seems like humans digest these nutrient deficient foods just fine. sure, for most (sedentary) people it gets stored as fat, and in some cases cause health issues. but this does not mean that we evolved to eat one type of food over another.  if humans eat processed/junk foods a few times a year does this mean they'll die automatically or have long term health issues because they did not evolve to digest the processed foods? no. eating garbage regularly is similar to not exercising regularly. humans are not "meant" to have one kind of food over another. humans eat whatever is available, and sometimes humans make extremely stupid decisions.

 

let's take an extreme situation for example: if nutrient deficient foods (like processed/junk food) were available and humans were starving, the humans that had access to these foods would have a higher survival rate as opposed to those who only had access to mud, grass, and rocks as food. does this mean that humans are evolutionarily adapted to junk food, but not mud, grass, and rocks? hell no. humans are adapted to be generalists. (in the first world) humans can make decisions that determine their health. some make "healthy" decisions, some make trashy ones. the whole evolved to eat x instead of y argument is a huge marketing ploy for the paleo diet. choose what you put into your body, and do what you will. but don't make the claim that humans evolved to eat this or that. that's totally BS and not supported by any evidence. open a genetics book.

You are missing the point, which is what referencing extreme situations is all about. You can drive your car up to 20,000 miles on standard engine oil without changing it, which I know because my boss had us do that with our work truck, but then it broke down 200,000 miles before it was supposed to. It worked for 170-ish thousand miles, and then died. Then he had us do the same thing with an old Tacoma. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean that is what you were MEANT to do.

 

We are designed to get a ton of chemicals from whole foods that we do not get with processed foods.

[Quick Start Test Smith]

Those Japanese never cease to amaze me.

 

That's going to be something they're going to want to leave OFF the nutritional information chart.

[gravy]

Humans are not "designed" and are not "meant" to do anything. By definition, these claims imply that humans have a designer that imposed a purpose/meaning upon humans. Humans are a product of evolution. Maybe I'm being nit-picky about the terminology being used. But from a scientific point of view, those terms used in that context are erroneous. Some of the forum users here may not view things from a scientific standpoint, but from a religious one. Which is fine. However, when discussing science, religion should be kept separate.

 

I'll try to explain this as simply as possible. Lifespan and "health" can be maximized with the specific conditions and resources, such as intake of nutrient dense foods. However, it is important to note that this does not mean that humans evolved to eat nutrient dense foods. All species (that eat) are more likely to live longer and be healthier with the consumption of nutrient dense foods. However, a species is most likely to survive if it evolved to survive variable conditions. Earth’s geography is diverse. Every region has different characteristics with its own variance in amounts and types of animals and plants available. Before the agricultural revolution, nutrient dense foods were not always available for consumption. So humans ate whatever could be scavenged to survive. Given the right conditions (be it lack of resources, starvation, hypoglycemia, etc.), the foods that are considered to be suboptimal for your health (example: foods high in processed sugar) can be the best option for your survival if it is one of the few things available. Not starving is always better than starving.

 

Humans did not evolve to eat a specific set of foods. To reiterate: there is no objective list of foods which humans evolved to eat. There is no basis for such a claim. You can search all the research databases for the rest of your life, and I guarantee that you will never find legitimate evidence for such a list. You cannot just lump foods into two categories: foods that humans evolved to eat and foods that humans didn't evolve to eat. It is not that simple.

[Travis Widmann]

I agree with you on the language, gravy. It's easy to jump from "evolved to" to "meant to." Sometimes it's harmless mistake, but it's a vital distinction between design and the illusion of design stemming from observed complexity. Still, like thecolin mentioned, we can safely make certain assertions, such as that humans are not adapted to live off eating grass.

 

I think everyone agrees more than not here. Yes, we can survive eating an astonishing array of foods. We all agree on that. We thrive eating naturally occurring nutrient-dense whole foods. We all agree on that. We are a product of evolution. Hopefully we all agree on that, but at least some of us do. Therefore, we can say that we are adapted to subsist on many foods, and to flourish on whole foods. By flourish I mean in the sense of the body's health.

 

The problem with the truck and oil analogy is that the truck is designed and evolution is not design. I mean it's a useful comparison superficially, but "MEANT TO" is a troubling phrase to replace "adapted to" with.

[Joshua Naterman]

Absolute bullshit.

 

We are designed to be able to stay alive and reproduce, and we are designed to be able to develop a wide variety of cognitive and motor abilities. We are designed with the capacity to experience emotion, and to be able to display self-control in a wide variety of situations. We are designed to be self-aware. These are all facts.

 

If we weren't designed to need a lot of chemicals from food sources in nature, we wouldn't die from a wide variety of mineral and/or vitamin deficiencies. If we weren't designed to eat a bunch of plants, the chemicals that we exclusively find in them would not improve our resistance to chronic diseases like cancer the way they do. If what we ate didn't matter, if there weren't a bunch of foods that we were meant to eat, we would NOT be seeing all of the health problems that we see in today's world as a result of a completely different diet. 

 

 

Design does not mean some digital geneticist in the sky created us to be this way. It means that we have specific molecular machinery in place, and that it absolutely DOES require those chemicals to function at it's best. In many ways, the human machine breaks down prematurely in a HUGE variety of ways when it doesn't get them. That's why we take f-ing Flintstone Vitamins, dude. 

 

Try to keep some perspective.

[Colin Macdonald]

Maybe I'm being nit-picky about the terminology being used.

Agreed.

 

You seem to be focusing on minor details and ignoring the larger points of the conversation, and once again responding to things that aren't being said. Nobody is saying that it's better to starve than to eat industrial food.

 

Yes, humans are highly adaptable. If you want to get pointlessly semantical, you're correct, we didn't evolve to eat specific foods. We are able to consume a large range of energy sources to sustain ourselves, as I've already covered at length. In terms of raw calories we have many options, we also have certain requirements that can only be avoided for so long.

 

Evolution means finding an optimum niche within a given context, out of that context problems occur. If you put a chicken in the arctic or feed a person nothing but grass or throw your cat in the ocean, bad things will happen. Life has a certain range it's adapted to exist in, McDonald's isn't within that optimum range. It just takes longer to die of excessive fructose than freezing to death or drowning.

[gravy]

Give me the list of foods that humans evolved to eat with the peer reviewed research performed to compile and evidence this list, and I will immediately revise my past knowledge. (If the research is logically sound and well executed).

For the record, I initiated the discussion of the "biologically adapted to consume" idea, not the optimal nutrition for humans idea.