Another reason to minimize highly processed foods

ahamm002
ahamm002 Posts: 1,690 Member
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132105.htm

Of course these results will have to be reproduced in humans. But it's very unlikely that human gut flora will behave all that differently from mouse gut flora.

Disclaimer before the strawman arguers come out in force:
-Yes, CICO still rules (but certain factors can set people up to either succeed or fail).
-No, I'm not advocating eating completely clean either. Restrictive diets don't work for most.
«13

Replies

  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 9,808 Member
    Meh, it would be nice to know which mice they use.....generally they are treated with mutagens to predispose them for specific scientific work, and of course we aren't mice. Low grade inflammation that probably does more harm is cell phone use now that they are attached directly to ones hand.
  • Jolinia
    Jolinia Posts: 846 Member
    Oh that's not good. My brother-in-law is celiac and eats packaged gluten free foods regularly. I wonder if this could be even worse news for him if it applies to humans?
  • ahamm002
    ahamm002 Posts: 1,690 Member
    Jolinia wrote: »
    Oh that's not good. My brother-in-law is celiac and eats packaged gluten free foods regularly. I wonder if this could be even worse news for him if it applies to humans?

    I don't see why it wouldn't. Human and mice have similar gut bacteria, and very similar GI tracts.
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    I guess I'm not surprised by these results. And I predict it's just a matter of time until this is readily shown in humans.
  • Jolinia
    Jolinia Posts: 846 Member
    ahamm002 wrote: »
    Jolinia wrote: »
    Oh that's not good. My brother-in-law is celiac and eats packaged gluten free foods regularly. I wonder if this could be even worse news for him if it applies to humans?

    I don't see why it wouldn't. Human and mice have similar gut bacteria, and very similar GI tracts.

    I just sent my sister a text to check out the article.
  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,951 Member
    I guess I'm not surprised by these results. And I predict it's just a matter of time until this is readily shown in humans.
    It probably already is easy to observe, but doubtful anyone is directly researching it.
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    dbmata wrote: »
    I guess I'm not surprised by these results. And I predict it's just a matter of time until this is readily shown in humans.
    It probably already is easy to observe, but doubtful anyone is directly researching it.

    Perhaps. But I am suggesting someone WILL be studying it soon enough.
  • Jolinia
    Jolinia Posts: 846 Member
    And of course my sis, being more healthy by far than I am for decades, is already on it and planning to make her own chocolate and other snackfoods completely from scratch.
  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,951 Member
    dbmata wrote: »
    I guess I'm not surprised by these results. And I predict it's just a matter of time until this is readily shown in humans.
    It probably already is easy to observe, but doubtful anyone is directly researching it.

    Perhaps. But I am suggesting someone WILL be studying it soon enough.

    we shall see. I think there is enough funding limiters out there that it will be a long time before funds are made available for research of these types.
  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,951 Member
    Jolinia wrote: »
    And of course my sis, being more healthy by far than I am for decades, is already on it and planning to make her own chocolate and other snackfoods completely from scratch.

    There are some things that are good to make on your own, others that are terrible.

    chocolate and butter being two that are terrible.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,453 Member
    Key here is the susceptibility of the host. Even stated in the study. Just like people who have red hair and blue eyes and fair skin have a much higher risk for skin cancer due to sun exposure susceptibility versus those of dark hair, dark eyes and darker skin.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png
  • Jolinia
    Jolinia Posts: 846 Member
    dbmata wrote: »
    Jolinia wrote: »
    And of course my sis, being more healthy by far than I am for decades, is already on it and planning to make her own chocolate and other snackfoods completely from scratch.

    There are some things that are good to make on your own, others that are terrible.

    chocolate and butter being two that are terrible.

    I hope for her sake you're wrong. She usually makes some pretty good homemade treats. And she loves her chocolate.
  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,951 Member
    well, if she has the money to buy a conching machine, then yeah, making your own chocolate is fine. provided you don't mind occasional cockroach infestations.
  • Jolinia
    Jolinia Posts: 846 Member
    dbmata wrote: »
    well, if she has the money to buy a conching machine, then yeah, making your own chocolate is fine. provided you don't mind occasional cockroach infestations.

    I'll mention the conching. As for roaches, she has a small dog with the disgusting habit of eating every bug it sees.
  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,951 Member
    edited February 2015
    well, if you aren't conching it, you aren't making good chocolate.

    (Yes, I just implied Taza is not good chocolate, it's hipster junk.)

    The cheapest concher I've seen that was suitable for a home was like $8k used, which is a touch steep for my budget just so I can make some mediocre chocolate. (Because mediocre is the best any home cook can make thanks to the cocao commodity market.)
  • Jolinia
    Jolinia Posts: 846 Member
    dbmata wrote: »
    well, if you aren't conching it, you aren't making good chocolate.

    (Yes, I just implied Taza is not good chocolate, it's hipster junk.)

    The cheapest concher I've seen that was suitable for a home was like $8k used, which is a touch steep for my budget just so I can make some mediocre chocolate. (Because mediocre is the best any home cook can make thanks to the cocao commodity market.)

    8k? Yikes. Not likely then! I had no idea making good chocolate at home required anything special. That's a shame.
  • ahamm002
    ahamm002 Posts: 1,690 Member
    edited February 2015
    herrspoons wrote: »
    All that will happen here is that some emulsifiers may be changed provided that the studied translate to humans, which they may or may not.

    My concern is that they would just change to another less studied emulsifier which will then later be shown to be just as bad if not worse. It seems like every few years we find out another additive to highly processed foods is actually pretty bad for us (certain food dyes, trans-fats, etc.).
    herrspoons wrote: »
    Bottom line is a microwave meal now and then isn't a problem.

    No arguments there.
  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,951 Member
    Jolinia wrote: »
    dbmata wrote: »
    well, if you aren't conching it, you aren't making good chocolate.

    (Yes, I just implied Taza is not good chocolate, it's hipster junk.)

    The cheapest concher I've seen that was suitable for a home was like $8k used, which is a touch steep for my budget just so I can make some mediocre chocolate. (Because mediocre is the best any home cook can make thanks to the cocao commodity market.)

    8k? Yikes. Not likely then! I had no idea making good chocolate at home required anything special. That's a shame.
    It's one of those things that to make a quality product you need both access to good ingredients (which are completely locked up by commercial producers) and technology. granted, said tech is like 200 years old, but it's essential nonetheless.

    Butter is another of those classic examples of something seemingly easy to make, but not something for the home cook to make.
  • runner475
    runner475 Posts: 1,236 Member
    Why did I even click this thread? I'm drooling reading "chocolate making"

    <3
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    ahamm002 wrote: »
    herrspoons wrote: »
    All that will happen here is that some emulsifiers may be changed provided that the studied translate to humans, which they may or may not.

    My concern is that they would just change to another less studied emulsifier which will then later be shown to be just as bad if not worse. It seems like every few years we find out another additive to highly processed foods is actually pretty bad for us (certain food dyes, trans-fats, etc.).
    herrspoons wrote: »
    Bottom line is a microwave meal now and then isn't a problem.

    No arguments there.

    The key phrase being "now and then". I don't think most folks eat heavily processed foods like the microwave meals "now and then".