CC vs Not CC
Replies
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »A practicing MD by the name of William Davis last year published Wheat Belly Total Health. It it the best book I have found in a medical sense that cuts through a lot of the conflicting diet info out there today.
Wheat belly is just another fad diet thought up by one person.
To sell books0 -
Exactly! I eat whatever I want. I realize that I cannot ban foods or go on a time- limited diet. Those things won't work long term. I've lost quite literally hundreds of pounds in my life. Unless I find a balance of calories in, out vs exercise / activity calories out will equal weight loss and eventually maintenance. This is truth. It matters not what the calories from, so I need to simply count every single one and remain within my allotted calories per day. If I want to eat more volume, I need to eat whole, raw or plenty of veggies. Or, I can eat s smaller amount -- like pasta or rice, and round it out with protein and fat. Truth is: you can eat anything and bliss weight. I repeat: you can eat anything and still lose weight. It's kind of empowering once you really internalize the power of that statement. Skip the 'diets' unless you want to end the diet and ultimately regain the weight. Teach yourself to weigh, measure, and log everything. For as long as you need to; maybe the rest of your life. ☺Counting calories has made all the difference for me, but I also had to face reality about the type of foods I ate - even when I was still coming in under my calorie target. These last two weeks for example - my junk eating has been out of control (it had not been bad before then).
Although I have not gained weight because I have still counted and logged every calorie - living off ice-cream, chocolate and fast food has really started to take its toll on my moods and energy levels.
I have had this little junk season and I am sick of it. I have not gained weight, but it was still not worth it. What works best for me is maintaining an 80/20 of healthy food to junk, which I am going back to from today onwards.
You start to get disgusted by convenience food when you eat it too often. You long for vegetables! I am at that stage.
I will still have junk days, but I think I have learnt my lesson around the sustainability of that.
I have to say though, there is a lot of judgement around eating junk on this site. Most of us eat it, but I think a lot of people struggle to log it honestly for fear of judgement. I log every morsel. If however, someone wants to moan at me about it without my permission, they will get immediately booted off my friends list.
I am here for support, but I don't need a mommy or a policeman thanks very much. We should all feel safe and comfortable logging the large pizza or the McDonalds blow-out, when it happens without needing to shroud it behind a quick calorie entry.
0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »A practicing MD by the name of William Davis last year published Wheat Belly Total Health. It it the best book I have found in a medical sense that cuts through a lot of the conflicting diet info out there today.
Wheat belly is just another fad diet thought up by one person.
To sell books
And one that seems to fail on some basic fact checking levels. My understanding is the book claims wheat was genetically modified in the 1970s (a technology that didn't exist back then) and that is when wheat started having gliadin (gliadin has always been in wheat).0 -
Do what works for you and WITH you. If it's a battle, it's likely not going to work. What works for and with each of us varies.0
-
queenliz99 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »A practicing MD by the name of William Davis last year published Wheat Belly Total Health. It it the best book I have found in a medical sense that cuts through a lot of the conflicting diet info out there today.
Wheat belly is just another fad diet thought up by one person.
To sell books
And one that seems to fail on some basic fact checking levels. My understanding is the book claims wheat was genetically modified in the 1970s (a technology that didn't exist back then) and that is when wheat started having gliadin (gliadin has always been in wheat).
Not it was not genetically modified and he does say this. The wheat was bombarded with toxic mutagenic chemicals to create mutations, then they took the ones they wanted and bred them.0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »A practicing MD by the name of William Davis last year published Wheat Belly Total Health. It it the best book I have found in a medical sense that cuts through a lot of the conflicting diet info out there today.
Wheat belly is just another fad diet thought up by one person.
To sell books
And one that seems to fail on some basic fact checking levels. My understanding is the book claims wheat was genetically modified in the 1970s (a technology that didn't exist back then) and that is when wheat started having gliadin (gliadin has always been in wheat).
Not it was not genetically modified and he does say this. The wheat was bombarded with toxic mutagenic chemicals to create mutations, then they took the ones they wanted and bred them.
Woo0 -
Isn't it possible to do both? I eat heathy clean food but I also log. Mostly to be sure I am getting enough food in. Healthy whole food is so much lower in calories I need to be sure I get enough in0
-
queenliz99 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »A practicing MD by the name of William Davis last year published Wheat Belly Total Health. It it the best book I have found in a medical sense that cuts through a lot of the conflicting diet info out there today.
Wheat belly is just another fad diet thought up by one person.
To sell books
And one that seems to fail on some basic fact checking levels. My understanding is the book claims wheat was genetically modified in the 1970s (a technology that didn't exist back then) and that is when wheat started having gliadin (gliadin has always been in wheat).
Not it was not genetically modified and he does say this. The wheat was bombarded with toxic mutagenic chemicals to create mutations, then they took the ones they wanted and bred them.
Woo
No, that's really how they did it. What are you wooing about?0 -
morning_joy wrote: »Isn't it possible to do both? I eat heathy clean food but I also log. Mostly to be sure I am getting enough food in. Healthy whole food is so much lower in calories I need to be sure I get enough in
Healthy foods have calories.0 -
Actually not exactly. Use of radiation and mutagens on crops is common practice. Technically, we've been doing it since the dawn of time because the sun's UV rays and Earth's background radiation do this, but specifically we sped up the process in more recent times with induced radiation and use of terratogenic mutagenic chemicals. Interestingly, this process, which makes random mutations happen across uncountable numbers of base pairs is just FINE, and perfectly acceptable in ORGANIC farming, or any farming, really, with no safety testing. Meanwhile, transgenic technology takes known genes, splices 1-10 base pairs or so, and then requires $1 million plus and possibly ten years worth of safety testing before going onto the market, isn't allowed in organics, and scares people that don't understand what dihydrogen monoxide is but know for a fact that transgenics are scary.queenliz99 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »A practicing MD by the name of William Davis last year published Wheat Belly Total Health. It it the best book I have found in a medical sense that cuts through a lot of the conflicting diet info out there today.
Wheat belly is just another fad diet thought up by one person.
To sell books
And one that seems to fail on some basic fact checking levels. My understanding is the book claims wheat was genetically modified in the 1970s (a technology that didn't exist back then) and that is when wheat started having gliadin (gliadin has always been in wheat).
Not it was not genetically modified and he does say this. The wheat was bombarded with toxic mutagenic chemicals to create mutations, then they took the ones they wanted and bred them.
Woo
Regardless, I've seen people describe it as transgenics or genetic engineering. Mutagenesis isn't genetic engineering / genetic modification unless you want to also call selective breeding genetic modification as well. It also isn't what cause gliadin to be in wheat. Gliadin is a naturally occurring protein in the family of plants wheat belongs to. It isn't something that was introduced at some point in the 1900s.0 -
It depends. I've seen claims that calorie counting won't work for everyone. Sure, that's true.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Do what works for you and WITH you. If it's a battle, it's likely not going to work. What works for and with each of us varies.
I've seen claims that creating a calorie deficit won't cause weight loss in everyone. That's not true.0 -
Actually not exactly. Use of radiation and mutagens on crops is common practice. Technically, we've been doing it since the dawn of time because the sun's UV rays and Earth's background radiation do this, but specifically we sped up the process in more recent times with induced radiation and use of terratogenic mutagenic chemicals. Interestingly, this process, which makes random mutations happen across uncountable numbers of base pairs is just FINE, and perfectly acceptable in ORGANIC farming, or any farming, really, with no safety testing. Meanwhile, transgenic technology takes known genes, splices 1-10 base pairs or so, and then requires $1 million plus and possibly ten years worth of safety testing before going onto the market, isn't allowed in organics, and scares people that don't understand what dihydrogen monoxide is but know for a fact that transgenics are scary.queenliz99 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »A practicing MD by the name of William Davis last year published Wheat Belly Total Health. It it the best book I have found in a medical sense that cuts through a lot of the conflicting diet info out there today.
Wheat belly is just another fad diet thought up by one person.
To sell books
And one that seems to fail on some basic fact checking levels. My understanding is the book claims wheat was genetically modified in the 1970s (a technology that didn't exist back then) and that is when wheat started having gliadin (gliadin has always been in wheat).
Not it was not genetically modified and he does say this. The wheat was bombarded with toxic mutagenic chemicals to create mutations, then they took the ones they wanted and bred them.
Woo
Regardless, I've seen people describe it as transgenics or genetic engineering. Mutagenesis isn't genetic engineering / genetic modification unless you want to also call selective breeding genetic modification as well. It also isn't what cause gliadin to be in wheat. Gliadin is a naturally occurring protein in the family of plants wheat belongs to. It isn't something that was introduced at some point in the 1900s.
That was over my head for my pea brain. I'll take your word for it however. But ya' coulda' just agreed with me. Woo. LOL0 -
It depends. I've seen claims that calorie counting won't work for everyone. Sure, that's true.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Do what works for you and WITH you. If it's a battle, it's likely not going to work. What works for and with each of us varies.
I've seen claims that creating a calorie deficit won't cause weight loss in everyone. That's not true.
Well, calorie counting works for everyone on a technical level, just not necessarily on the adherence level. And deficit obviously always works.0 -
I mean it doesn't work in that for some people compliance will be an issue. All diets can be subject to compliance issues. It is never going to be easier to follow rules than "eat whatever the frack you want".stevencloser wrote: »
It depends. I've seen claims that calorie counting won't work for everyone. Sure, that's true.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Do what works for you and WITH you. If it's a battle, it's likely not going to work. What works for and with each of us varies.
I've seen claims that creating a calorie deficit won't cause weight loss in everyone. That's not true.
Well, calorie counting works for everyone on a technical level, just not necessarily on the adherence level. And deficit obviously always works.0 -
Yup.0
-
i count calories which is why i gravitate towards wholerish (yes a word!) foods because they fill me up. A whole head of cauliflower or a slice a bread? depends on what i feel like. Do you need to get mired in the details/fads to lose weight, nope. 100 pounds of proof.0
-
Gliadin is woo. The idea that wheat has actually been altered with radiation and chemicals - true. Almost all plants we eat have been subject to some amount of it to produce modern varieties. The woo is in making it seem like this is creating vegetable versions of the x-men.queenliz99 wrote: »
Actually not exactly. Use of radiation and mutagens on crops is common practice. Technically, we've been doing it since the dawn of time because the sun's UV rays and Earth's background radiation do this, but specifically we sped up the process in more recent times with induced radiation and use of terratogenic mutagenic chemicals. Interestingly, this process, which makes random mutations happen across uncountable numbers of base pairs is just FINE, and perfectly acceptable in ORGANIC farming, or any farming, really, with no safety testing. Meanwhile, transgenic technology takes known genes, splices 1-10 base pairs or so, and then requires $1 million plus and possibly ten years worth of safety testing before going onto the market, isn't allowed in organics, and scares people that don't understand what dihydrogen monoxide is but know for a fact that transgenics are scary.queenliz99 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »A practicing MD by the name of William Davis last year published Wheat Belly Total Health. It it the best book I have found in a medical sense that cuts through a lot of the conflicting diet info out there today.
Wheat belly is just another fad diet thought up by one person.
To sell books
And one that seems to fail on some basic fact checking levels. My understanding is the book claims wheat was genetically modified in the 1970s (a technology that didn't exist back then) and that is when wheat started having gliadin (gliadin has always been in wheat).
Not it was not genetically modified and he does say this. The wheat was bombarded with toxic mutagenic chemicals to create mutations, then they took the ones they wanted and bred them.
Woo
Regardless, I've seen people describe it as transgenics or genetic engineering. Mutagenesis isn't genetic engineering / genetic modification unless you want to also call selective breeding genetic modification as well. It also isn't what cause gliadin to be in wheat. Gliadin is a naturally occurring protein in the family of plants wheat belongs to. It isn't something that was introduced at some point in the 1900s.
That was over my head for my pea brain. I'll take your word for it however. But ya' coulda' just agreed with me. Woo. LOL0 -
Gliadin is woo. The idea that wheat has actually been altered with radiation and chemicals - true. Almost all plants we eat have been subject to some amount of it to produce modern varieties. The woo is in making it seem like this is creating vegetable versions of the x-men.queenliz99 wrote: »
Actually not exactly. Use of radiation and mutagens on crops is common practice. Technically, we've been doing it since the dawn of time because the sun's UV rays and Earth's background radiation do this, but specifically we sped up the process in more recent times with induced radiation and use of terratogenic mutagenic chemicals. Interestingly, this process, which makes random mutations happen across uncountable numbers of base pairs is just FINE, and perfectly acceptable in ORGANIC farming, or any farming, really, with no safety testing. Meanwhile, transgenic technology takes known genes, splices 1-10 base pairs or so, and then requires $1 million plus and possibly ten years worth of safety testing before going onto the market, isn't allowed in organics, and scares people that don't understand what dihydrogen monoxide is but know for a fact that transgenics are scary.queenliz99 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »A practicing MD by the name of William Davis last year published Wheat Belly Total Health. It it the best book I have found in a medical sense that cuts through a lot of the conflicting diet info out there today.
Wheat belly is just another fad diet thought up by one person.
To sell books
And one that seems to fail on some basic fact checking levels. My understanding is the book claims wheat was genetically modified in the 1970s (a technology that didn't exist back then) and that is when wheat started having gliadin (gliadin has always been in wheat).
Not it was not genetically modified and he does say this. The wheat was bombarded with toxic mutagenic chemicals to create mutations, then they took the ones they wanted and bred them.
Woo
Regardless, I've seen people describe it as transgenics or genetic engineering. Mutagenesis isn't genetic engineering / genetic modification unless you want to also call selective breeding genetic modification as well. It also isn't what cause gliadin to be in wheat. Gliadin is a naturally occurring protein in the family of plants wheat belongs to. It isn't something that was introduced at some point in the 1900s.
That was over my head for my pea brain. I'll take your word for it however. But ya' coulda' just agreed with me. Woo. LOL
Thanks for dummying it down for me!! I like the X-men and that helped my understanding even better.0 -
Gliadin is woo. The idea that wheat has actually been altered with radiation and chemicals - true. Almost all plants we eat have been subject to some amount of it to produce modern varieties. The woo is in making it seem like this is creating vegetable versions of the x-men.queenliz99 wrote: »
Actually not exactly. Use of radiation and mutagens on crops is common practice. Technically, we've been doing it since the dawn of time because the sun's UV rays and Earth's background radiation do this, but specifically we sped up the process in more recent times with induced radiation and use of terratogenic mutagenic chemicals. Interestingly, this process, which makes random mutations happen across uncountable numbers of base pairs is just FINE, and perfectly acceptable in ORGANIC farming, or any farming, really, with no safety testing. Meanwhile, transgenic technology takes known genes, splices 1-10 base pairs or so, and then requires $1 million plus and possibly ten years worth of safety testing before going onto the market, isn't allowed in organics, and scares people that don't understand what dihydrogen monoxide is but know for a fact that transgenics are scary.queenliz99 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »A practicing MD by the name of William Davis last year published Wheat Belly Total Health. It it the best book I have found in a medical sense that cuts through a lot of the conflicting diet info out there today.
Wheat belly is just another fad diet thought up by one person.
To sell books
And one that seems to fail on some basic fact checking levels. My understanding is the book claims wheat was genetically modified in the 1970s (a technology that didn't exist back then) and that is when wheat started having gliadin (gliadin has always been in wheat).
Not it was not genetically modified and he does say this. The wheat was bombarded with toxic mutagenic chemicals to create mutations, then they took the ones they wanted and bred them.
Woo
Regardless, I've seen people describe it as transgenics or genetic engineering. Mutagenesis isn't genetic engineering / genetic modification unless you want to also call selective breeding genetic modification as well. It also isn't what cause gliadin to be in wheat. Gliadin is a naturally occurring protein in the family of plants wheat belongs to. It isn't something that was introduced at some point in the 1900s.
That was over my head for my pea brain. I'll take your word for it however. But ya' coulda' just agreed with me. Woo. LOL
???0 -
Actually not exactly. Use of radiation and mutagens on crops is common practice. Technically, we've been doing it since the dawn of time because the sun's UV rays and Earth's background radiation do this, but specifically we sped up the process in more recent times with induced radiation and use of terratogenic mutagenic chemicals. Interestingly, this process, which makes random mutations happen across uncountable numbers of base pairs is just FINE, and perfectly acceptable in ORGANIC farming, or any farming, really, with no safety testing. Meanwhile, transgenic technology takes known genes, splices 1-10 base pairs or so, and then requires $1 million plus and possibly ten years worth of safety testing before going onto the market, isn't allowed in organics, and scares people that don't understand what dihydrogen monoxide is but know for a fact that transgenics are scary.queenliz99 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »A practicing MD by the name of William Davis last year published Wheat Belly Total Health. It it the best book I have found in a medical sense that cuts through a lot of the conflicting diet info out there today.
Wheat belly is just another fad diet thought up by one person.
To sell books
And one that seems to fail on some basic fact checking levels. My understanding is the book claims wheat was genetically modified in the 1970s (a technology that didn't exist back then) and that is when wheat started having gliadin (gliadin has always been in wheat).
Not it was not genetically modified and he does say this. The wheat was bombarded with toxic mutagenic chemicals to create mutations, then they took the ones they wanted and bred them.
Woo
Regardless, I've seen people describe it as transgenics or genetic engineering. Mutagenesis isn't genetic engineering / genetic modification unless you want to also call selective breeding genetic modification as well. It also isn't what cause gliadin to be in wheat. Gliadin is a naturally occurring protein in the family of plants wheat belongs to. It isn't something that was introduced at some point in the 1900s.
It's interesting to me how people who tell us not to worry our heads about GMOs call natural breeding by farmers genetic modification, but when it doesn't suit their argument nitpick about earlier forms of genetic modification by chemicals.
Meanwhile, I'll eat cloned cow and mutant plants all day. As long as I have reasonable, non-biased, thoroughly researched scientific evidence that they are healthful.
We aren't there yet.0 -
What organisms on this planet aren't mutants, exactly? Or do you refuse to eat only man-made mutants but not natural mutants?
Actually not exactly. Use of radiation and mutagens on crops is common practice. Technically, we've been doing it since the dawn of time because the sun's UV rays and Earth's background radiation do this, but specifically we sped up the process in more recent times with induced radiation and use of terratogenic mutagenic chemicals. Interestingly, this process, which makes random mutations happen across uncountable numbers of base pairs is just FINE, and perfectly acceptable in ORGANIC farming, or any farming, really, with no safety testing. Meanwhile, transgenic technology takes known genes, splices 1-10 base pairs or so, and then requires $1 million plus and possibly ten years worth of safety testing before going onto the market, isn't allowed in organics, and scares people that don't understand what dihydrogen monoxide is but know for a fact that transgenics are scary.queenliz99 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »A practicing MD by the name of William Davis last year published Wheat Belly Total Health. It it the best book I have found in a medical sense that cuts through a lot of the conflicting diet info out there today.
Wheat belly is just another fad diet thought up by one person.
To sell books
And one that seems to fail on some basic fact checking levels. My understanding is the book claims wheat was genetically modified in the 1970s (a technology that didn't exist back then) and that is when wheat started having gliadin (gliadin has always been in wheat).
Not it was not genetically modified and he does say this. The wheat was bombarded with toxic mutagenic chemicals to create mutations, then they took the ones they wanted and bred them.
Woo
Regardless, I've seen people describe it as transgenics or genetic engineering. Mutagenesis isn't genetic engineering / genetic modification unless you want to also call selective breeding genetic modification as well. It also isn't what cause gliadin to be in wheat. Gliadin is a naturally occurring protein in the family of plants wheat belongs to. It isn't something that was introduced at some point in the 1900s.
It's interesting to me how people who tell us not to worry our heads about GMOs call natural breeding by farmers genetic modification, but when it doesn't suit their argument nitpick about earlier forms of genetic modification by chemicals.
Meanwhile, I'll eat cloned cow and mutant plants all day. As long as I have reasonable, non-biased, thoroughly researched scientific evidence that they are healthful.
We aren't there yet.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
What organisms on this planet aren't mutants, exactly? Or do you refuse to eat only man-made mutants but not natural mutants?
Actually not exactly. Use of radiation and mutagens on crops is common practice. Technically, we've been doing it since the dawn of time because the sun's UV rays and Earth's background radiation do this, but specifically we sped up the process in more recent times with induced radiation and use of terratogenic mutagenic chemicals. Interestingly, this process, which makes random mutations happen across uncountable numbers of base pairs is just FINE, and perfectly acceptable in ORGANIC farming, or any farming, really, with no safety testing. Meanwhile, transgenic technology takes known genes, splices 1-10 base pairs or so, and then requires $1 million plus and possibly ten years worth of safety testing before going onto the market, isn't allowed in organics, and scares people that don't understand what dihydrogen monoxide is but know for a fact that transgenics are scary.queenliz99 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »A practicing MD by the name of William Davis last year published Wheat Belly Total Health. It it the best book I have found in a medical sense that cuts through a lot of the conflicting diet info out there today.
Wheat belly is just another fad diet thought up by one person.
To sell books
And one that seems to fail on some basic fact checking levels. My understanding is the book claims wheat was genetically modified in the 1970s (a technology that didn't exist back then) and that is when wheat started having gliadin (gliadin has always been in wheat).
Not it was not genetically modified and he does say this. The wheat was bombarded with toxic mutagenic chemicals to create mutations, then they took the ones they wanted and bred them.
Woo
Regardless, I've seen people describe it as transgenics or genetic engineering. Mutagenesis isn't genetic engineering / genetic modification unless you want to also call selective breeding genetic modification as well. It also isn't what cause gliadin to be in wheat. Gliadin is a naturally occurring protein in the family of plants wheat belongs to. It isn't something that was introduced at some point in the 1900s.
It's interesting to me how people who tell us not to worry our heads about GMOs call natural breeding by farmers genetic modification, but when it doesn't suit their argument nitpick about earlier forms of genetic modification by chemicals.
Meanwhile, I'll eat cloned cow and mutant plants all day. As long as I have reasonable, non-biased, thoroughly researched scientific evidence that they are healthful.
We aren't there yet.
None. And many plants are acute and chronic toxins, I presume at least some mutated to be that way so we wouldn't eat them.
Like I said, give me all the mutated, cloned food available. After the proper research has been done. It hasn't been.
0 -
But if all food is mutated, what do you eat if not mutated food?DeguelloTex wrote: »
What organisms on this planet aren't mutants, exactly? Or do you refuse to eat only man-made mutants but not natural mutants?
Actually not exactly. Use of radiation and mutagens on crops is common practice. Technically, we've been doing it since the dawn of time because the sun's UV rays and Earth's background radiation do this, but specifically we sped up the process in more recent times with induced radiation and use of terratogenic mutagenic chemicals. Interestingly, this process, which makes random mutations happen across uncountable numbers of base pairs is just FINE, and perfectly acceptable in ORGANIC farming, or any farming, really, with no safety testing. Meanwhile, transgenic technology takes known genes, splices 1-10 base pairs or so, and then requires $1 million plus and possibly ten years worth of safety testing before going onto the market, isn't allowed in organics, and scares people that don't understand what dihydrogen monoxide is but know for a fact that transgenics are scary.queenliz99 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »A practicing MD by the name of William Davis last year published Wheat Belly Total Health. It it the best book I have found in a medical sense that cuts through a lot of the conflicting diet info out there today.
Wheat belly is just another fad diet thought up by one person.
To sell books
And one that seems to fail on some basic fact checking levels. My understanding is the book claims wheat was genetically modified in the 1970s (a technology that didn't exist back then) and that is when wheat started having gliadin (gliadin has always been in wheat).
Not it was not genetically modified and he does say this. The wheat was bombarded with toxic mutagenic chemicals to create mutations, then they took the ones they wanted and bred them.
Woo
Regardless, I've seen people describe it as transgenics or genetic engineering. Mutagenesis isn't genetic engineering / genetic modification unless you want to also call selective breeding genetic modification as well. It also isn't what cause gliadin to be in wheat. Gliadin is a naturally occurring protein in the family of plants wheat belongs to. It isn't something that was introduced at some point in the 1900s.
It's interesting to me how people who tell us not to worry our heads about GMOs call natural breeding by farmers genetic modification, but when it doesn't suit their argument nitpick about earlier forms of genetic modification by chemicals.
Meanwhile, I'll eat cloned cow and mutant plants all day. As long as I have reasonable, non-biased, thoroughly researched scientific evidence that they are healthful.
We aren't there yet.
None. And many plants are acute and chronic toxins, I presume at least some mutated to be that way so we wouldn't eat them.
Like I said, give me all the mutated, cloned food available. After the proper research has been done. It hasn't been.
Also, I don't know how much I'd want to characterize evolution in such a seemingly goal-oriented way... though I am glad that the capsaicin-bearing plants worked out the way that they did.
But the whole wheat belly tangent is straying pretty far afield, at this point.
0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »A practicing MD by the name of William Davis last year published Wheat Belly Total Health. It it the best book I have found in a medical sense that cuts through a lot of the conflicting diet info out there today.
Wheat belly is just another fad diet thought up by one person.
To sell books
And one that seems to fail on some basic fact checking levels. My understanding is the book claims wheat was genetically modified in the 1970s (a technology that didn't exist back then) and that is when wheat started having gliadin (gliadin has always been in wheat).
Not it was not genetically modified and he does say this. The wheat was bombarded with toxic mutagenic chemicals to create mutations, then they took the ones they wanted and bred them.
Woo
No, that's really how they did it. What are you wooing about?
All this woo reminds me of that one episode of HIMYM with the woo girls...
:laugh: ok... carry on. :laugh:
0 -
Lasmartchika wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »A practicing MD by the name of William Davis last year published Wheat Belly Total Health. It it the best book I have found in a medical sense that cuts through a lot of the conflicting diet info out there today.
Wheat belly is just another fad diet thought up by one person.
To sell books
And one that seems to fail on some basic fact checking levels. My understanding is the book claims wheat was genetically modified in the 1970s (a technology that didn't exist back then) and that is when wheat started having gliadin (gliadin has always been in wheat).
Not it was not genetically modified and he does say this. The wheat was bombarded with toxic mutagenic chemicals to create mutations, then they took the ones they wanted and bred them.
Woo
No, that's really how they did it. What are you wooing about?
All this woo reminds me of that one episode of HIMYM with the woo girls...
:laugh: ok... carry on. :laugh:
All that's in my head is Ric Flair.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
But if all food is mutated, what do you eat if not mutated food?DeguelloTex wrote: »
What organisms on this planet aren't mutants, exactly? Or do you refuse to eat only man-made mutants but not natural mutants?
Actually not exactly. Use of radiation and mutagens on crops is common practice. Technically, we've been doing it since the dawn of time because the sun's UV rays and Earth's background radiation do this, but specifically we sped up the process in more recent times with induced radiation and use of terratogenic mutagenic chemicals. Interestingly, this process, which makes random mutations happen across uncountable numbers of base pairs is just FINE, and perfectly acceptable in ORGANIC farming, or any farming, really, with no safety testing. Meanwhile, transgenic technology takes known genes, splices 1-10 base pairs or so, and then requires $1 million plus and possibly ten years worth of safety testing before going onto the market, isn't allowed in organics, and scares people that don't understand what dihydrogen monoxide is but know for a fact that transgenics are scary.queenliz99 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »A practicing MD by the name of William Davis last year published Wheat Belly Total Health. It it the best book I have found in a medical sense that cuts through a lot of the conflicting diet info out there today.
Wheat belly is just another fad diet thought up by one person.
To sell books
And one that seems to fail on some basic fact checking levels. My understanding is the book claims wheat was genetically modified in the 1970s (a technology that didn't exist back then) and that is when wheat started having gliadin (gliadin has always been in wheat).
Not it was not genetically modified and he does say this. The wheat was bombarded with toxic mutagenic chemicals to create mutations, then they took the ones they wanted and bred them.
Woo
Regardless, I've seen people describe it as transgenics or genetic engineering. Mutagenesis isn't genetic engineering / genetic modification unless you want to also call selective breeding genetic modification as well. It also isn't what cause gliadin to be in wheat. Gliadin is a naturally occurring protein in the family of plants wheat belongs to. It isn't something that was introduced at some point in the 1900s.
It's interesting to me how people who tell us not to worry our heads about GMOs call natural breeding by farmers genetic modification, but when it doesn't suit their argument nitpick about earlier forms of genetic modification by chemicals.
Meanwhile, I'll eat cloned cow and mutant plants all day. As long as I have reasonable, non-biased, thoroughly researched scientific evidence that they are healthful.
We aren't there yet.
None. And many plants are acute and chronic toxins, I presume at least some mutated to be that way so we wouldn't eat them.
Like I said, give me all the mutated, cloned food available. After the proper research has been done. It hasn't been.
Also, I don't know how much I'd want to characterize evolution in such a seemingly goal-oriented way... though I am glad that the capsaicin-bearing plants worked out the way that they did.
But the whole wheat belly tangent is straying pretty far afield, at this point.
I don't want to go any further off topic either, I will end with this: If my ancestors ate it and didn't die I am probably okay (although like anyone who gets a bellyache from dairy I'd be fool not to listen to my own body on the topic, too). As far as more modern manmade changes in food, we need a government and media that isn't influenced by private money or we will never have a sufficient body of unbiased research on anything that might affect profits. Because it isn't hard to buy studies to counter any undesired results, no matter how scrupulously those undesired results were obtained. So I'm leery of such things. That, and only that, molds my position on the matter. As a meat eater who hates the idea of slaughterhouses, when I know it's healthful and when I can afford it, I will be so happy to eat cloned meats!0 -
I think part of the genetic changes in wheat is the discussion on its chromosomes, it adds on more. I read the book many years ago so I've forgotten a lot, but wheat started out with less than 10 pairs of chromosomes and now it has quadrupled (correct me if I'm way off). It used to have lower protein levels (gliadin - which will effect those with a gluten sensitivity more) and be over 6 feet tall rather than a stumpy, top heavy, 2-3' tall grass. It's changed a lot through human manipulation.0
-
queenliz99 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »A practicing MD by the name of William Davis last year published Wheat Belly Total Health. It it the best book I have found in a medical sense that cuts through a lot of the conflicting diet info out there today.
Wheat belly is just another fad diet thought up by one person.
To sell books
And one that seems to fail on some basic fact checking levels. My understanding is the book claims wheat was genetically modified in the 1970s (a technology that didn't exist back then) and that is when wheat started having gliadin (gliadin has always been in wheat).
Not it was not genetically modified and he does say this. The wheat was bombarded with toxic mutagenic chemicals to create mutations, then they took the ones they wanted and bred them.
Not toxic at all, but hey, it's a fun buzzword to throw around. Mutations? Like a shorter stems and higher yields with the aim of improving food supplies on less land. Read up on the mutations, they weren't toxic or anything. They were made with the purpose of improving the food supply. Similar mutations have been done to plenty of other foods. I bet you even eat some of them.
Go ahead and google mutation breeding.
0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »A practicing MD by the name of William Davis last year published Wheat Belly Total Health. It it the best book I have found in a medical sense that cuts through a lot of the conflicting diet info out there today.
Wheat belly is just another fad diet thought up by one person.
To sell books
And one that seems to fail on some basic fact checking levels. My understanding is the book claims wheat was genetically modified in the 1970s (a technology that didn't exist back then) and that is when wheat started having gliadin (gliadin has always been in wheat).
Not it was not genetically modified and he does say this. The wheat was bombarded with toxic mutagenic chemicals to create mutations, then they took the ones they wanted and bred them.
Woo
No, that's really how they did it. What are you wooing about?
Check into what they modified. You're ... taking buzzwords meant to alarm, but not looking at what was actually altered. The primary problem at the time was stem rust (something that's making a resurgence). Borlaug bred wheat for properties of high yield, disease resistance, and then he crossed it with a dwarf Japanese variety so it would have a shorter stem -- so as to combat the stem rust.
None of this fundamentally changed the wheat. It simply addressed problems farmers were having. The grain stayed the same.
0 -
I'm willing to call anything on this planet a GMO because that's the nature of genetics, they change. What I would likes is for the fear mongers to have to use the word transgenic so they could start to have some clue what they're talking about. I didn't pick for people to have sloppy terminology, but they do. I do have a problem that organic farmers and such have used GMOs to mean certain techniques that are prohibited in organic, but then someone calls mutagenis GMO (it isn't for those purposes) to make it sound scary to talk about gliadin, which has always been in wheat.
Actually not exactly. Use of radiation and mutagens on crops is common practice. Technically, we've been doing it since the dawn of time because the sun's UV rays and Earth's background radiation do this, but specifically we sped up the process in more recent times with induced radiation and use of terratogenic mutagenic chemicals. Interestingly, this process, which makes random mutations happen across uncountable numbers of base pairs is just FINE, and perfectly acceptable in ORGANIC farming, or any farming, really, with no safety testing. Meanwhile, transgenic technology takes known genes, splices 1-10 base pairs or so, and then requires $1 million plus and possibly ten years worth of safety testing before going onto the market, isn't allowed in organics, and scares people that don't understand what dihydrogen monoxide is but know for a fact that transgenics are scary.queenliz99 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »A practicing MD by the name of William Davis last year published Wheat Belly Total Health. It it the best book I have found in a medical sense that cuts through a lot of the conflicting diet info out there today.
Wheat belly is just another fad diet thought up by one person.
To sell books
And one that seems to fail on some basic fact checking levels. My understanding is the book claims wheat was genetically modified in the 1970s (a technology that didn't exist back then) and that is when wheat started having gliadin (gliadin has always been in wheat).
Not it was not genetically modified and he does say this. The wheat was bombarded with toxic mutagenic chemicals to create mutations, then they took the ones they wanted and bred them.
Woo
Regardless, I've seen people describe it as transgenics or genetic engineering. Mutagenesis isn't genetic engineering / genetic modification unless you want to also call selective breeding genetic modification as well. It also isn't what cause gliadin to be in wheat. Gliadin is a naturally occurring protein in the family of plants wheat belongs to. It isn't something that was introduced at some point in the 1900s.
It's interesting to me how people who tell us not to worry our heads about GMOs call natural breeding by farmers genetic modification, but when it doesn't suit their argument nitpick about earlier forms of genetic modification by chemicals.
Meanwhile, I'll eat cloned cow and mutant plants all day. As long as I have reasonable, non-biased, thoroughly researched scientific evidence that they are healthful.
We aren't there yet.
And if you're saying we don't have thoroughly researched scientific evidence that transgenic crops are safe and healthy to eat, I'm sorry, but you're wrong.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 435 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions