Porridge is bad for you - boards.ie
Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
24-06-2011, 10:24   #1
Scanlas The 2nd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,112
Porridge is bad for you

I just found out that porridge is bad for you after learning about the Paleo aka caveman diet. All this time I thought I was being healthy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet

Apparently all grains are bad for you as they are a result of the agricultural revolution. So that means porridge, pasta, rice, bread, beans and dairy is bad for you. This makes meal planning quite tricky.
Scanlas The 2nd is offline  
(2) thanks from:
Advertisement
24-06-2011, 10:26   #2
dr.bollocko
Moderator
 
dr.bollocko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,341
Moved from AH.
dr.bollocko is offline  
24-06-2011, 10:27   #3
Cookie_Monster
Registered User
 
Cookie_Monster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New Plymouth
Posts: 19,331
Send a message via Skype™ to Cookie_Monster
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=252

you can ask about it here OP

I wouldn't say it's bad for you, just that excessive carbs: porridge + bread+ pasta etc all in a day is not fantastic

Irish government food advice is bad for you though, great thread over on that forum about it.
Cookie_Monster is offline  
(2) thanks from:
24-06-2011, 10:27   #4
jester77
Registered User
 
jester77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 7,916
My mum gave me a pyrex dish of porridge (bowl not big enough) before school every morning and I'm still alive. If you believe everything you read you'll die hungry!
jester77 is offline  
(2) thanks from:
24-06-2011, 10:34   #5
Wibbs
Moderator
 
Wibbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Nothing in life has any business being perfect
Posts: 30,407
Not necessarily S. For a couple of reasons. 1) The Paleo diet isn't very well researched IMH. 2)"cavemen" ate grains. Even Neandertals did. They didn't eat as many as today, that's true, but it was on the menu. 3)(and most important) You're no longer a Paleolithic human. You're not even a mesolithic human and you're barely a neolithic human. We've evolved more in the last 10,000 years than we did in the previous 40,000 as far as gene changes in the population(most look different too. Smaller, more delicate). Most of those changes are in response to novel diets.

IMHO I would avoid certain foods depending on that genetic heritage though. EG if you're european I'd not touch soya. It's a new protein easily handled by Asians as they've been exposed to it for 2000 years plus. Europeans haven't. I'd avoid gluten if you're Irish. We've one of the highest rates of coeliac disease in Europe. One theory being we relied on potato starch for a few 100 years and many lost the ability to process gluten. If you're Indian avoid milk and milk based products etc. Not hard and fast rules mind, but just a thought.
Wibbs is offline  
(3) thanks from:
Advertisement
24-06-2011, 10:47   #6
rocky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,312
We had another thread around here (now deleted I believe), entitled "Poridge is fattening!!!1". Draw your own conclusions.
rocky is offline  
24-06-2011, 10:53   #7
metamorphosis
Moderator
 
metamorphosis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Cork & Limerick
Posts: 4,821
if you're worried about anti nutrient content of the grain, why not ferment them overnight to make them less bad???
metamorphosis is offline  
24-06-2011, 11:04   #8
Khannie
Make your dreams happen
 
Khannie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 9,180
Quote:
"The oldest man in Ireland has died at the age of 106".....

"attributed his longevity to “porridge and hard work” according to the paper and had continued cycling until the age of 100."
link

Ah sure you'll be grand.
Khannie is offline  
(3) thanks from:
24-06-2011, 11:12   #9
eco2live
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 487
I think this is true that porridge is not a natural food for humans. Not necessarily bad for you but I am coming more and more around to that way of thinking.

When you think about it anything that needs to be processed is not a natural food for Humans. That's not to say that we don't get some benefit from these foods. I know I love all kinds of food but I do wonder if it is bad for you? I was in the supermarket this morning and 95% of what was in there is processed.

Scientists say that they estimate that we only understand 10% of all the vitamins, nutrients and minerals that we get from food. By only eating processed food and taking vitamins we are limiting our exposure to a lot of health benefits. The processing and cooking of food removes important benefits.

I was reading a book on this recently called the 80/10/10 diet and basically it is a raw fruit with some plants diet. It makes complete sense from an evolutionary perspective. Who would look at an dead animal and think that I would love to munch on that raw. Who would look at a field of grain and say that they would love to tuck into that. We are the only mammals in the world that drink the bodily fluids of other animals and cultivate bacteria in the form of dairy products.

We need to cook meat to make it palatable. We need to process grains to eat them. Look at the amount to fruit flavors and sugar we add to foods for taste, emulating our natural desire for fruit. We feed animals grains to grow fat quick.

I know there are a lot of people who will argue that there is too much sugar in a fruit only diet but if you remove all of the processed food it is perfectly healthy.

Why are we different? I am thinking of giving this a go for health reasons. I am overweight and suffering with depression at the moment and will try anything to give me a boost. Most of the reasons we live longer is that we live in civilization/captivity. Animals in Zoos live up to 30% longer then they do in the wild. Genetics, warmth, modern medicine and healthcare makes a huge difference but you combine good nutrition and all of these things we could really benefit.

look at this quick vid for example. This girl eats 97% fruit:


Last edited by eco2live; 24-06-2011 at 11:14.
eco2live is offline  
Advertisement
24-06-2011, 11:28   #10
Jarren
Registered User
 
Jarren's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Neverland
Posts: 4,208
Everything in moderation OP.and don't believe in everything Internet is telling you,draw you own conclusion, very active people would need some form of carbs to fuel their workouts,for the sedantary people the Carb intake should be minimal IMHO
The oats are great and it should not be victimized
Jarren is offline  
(5) thanks from:
24-06-2011, 13:01   #11
Wibbs
Moderator
 
Wibbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Nothing in life has any business being perfect
Posts: 30,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by eco2live View Post
When you think about it anything that needs to be processed is not a natural food for Humans.
Untrue. Humans have been "processing" food for literally millions of years. Yes TV dinners are utter muck, but it isn't a case that all food processing is bad. Processed tomatoes for example release significantly higher amounts of lycopene than raw. Try eating soya without processing. Ring your friendly neighbourhood GP first though
Quote:
cooking of food removes important benefits.
Incorrect. Overall cooking releases more nutrients that it destroys.

Quote:
I was reading a book on this recently called the 80/10/10 diet and basically it is a raw fruit with some plants diet. It makes complete sense from an evolutionary perspective.
No. It really really doesn't. Not when you actually look at human evolution. We've not been an exclusively(nor anything like it) raw fruit with some plants eating species for millions of years.
Quote:
Who would look at an dead animal and think that I would love to munch on that raw.
Quite a few cultures did and still do. Sushi is one example. Ever eat parma ham/Prosciutto? That's essentially uncooked meat.
Quote:
We are the only mammals in the world that drink the bodily fluids of other animals and cultivate bacteria in the form of dairy products.
Because we can, because we're adaptable and brainy and are very good at discovering novel food sources.
Quote:
We need to cook meat to make it palatable.
No we cook meat to break down said meat and release more nutrients. We have the gut length of an omnivore with a carnivore leaning, but we've lost the strong stomach acids of the carnivore. Cooking does what the acid did. In the same way that stone tools gave us external "teeth". It's a form of predigestion. There's nothing "unnatural" about it. We've also lost the longer gut of the near herbivore. Next time you see a gorilla on the telly have a look at their body shape. They've got big bellies. Basically a very long gut is usually required to break down plant material and get the benefit from it. Even then gorillas often eat their own poop to fire it through the digestor again. Chimps are similar though it's harder to see their bellies(and they eat far more meat)
Quote:
Look at the amount to fruit flavors and sugar we add to foods for taste, emulating our natural desire for fruit.
Our natural desire for a sugar hit. A rarity in our wild state in the past, so now in a time of plenty we still seek it out. It's got little to do with any natural desire for fruit. For a start outside of very very few environments on earth we couldnt be year round fruit eaters. Simply because there wouldnt be enough in season.
Quote:
We feed animals grains to grow fat quick.
This I agree with you 100%. It is daft. You have people convinced that "corn fed" is a byword for health. I've heard even qualified nutritionists come out with this. It really isn't. Cattle don't eat corn by choice. Neither do chickens. The corn industry in the US would feed it to fish if they could.

Quote:
I know there are a lot of people who will argue that there is too much sugar in a fruit only diet but if you remove all of the processed food it is perfectly healthy.
Still too much sugar and the worst sugar of all fructose(depending on the fruit). Still a can of coke etc has a lot more fructose.
Quote:
look at this quick vid for example. This girl eats 97% fruit:
Oh yea one reason she would lose weight. Plus how crap was her diet beforehand? Even these oddball diets can be better than a maccydees diet.

jarecki1976 sums it up IMHO everything in moderation.
Wibbs is offline  
24-06-2011, 13:03   #12
dlofnep
Closed Account
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 20,245
Cavemen lived on average to their 20's, 30's max. Our average lifespan is 70-80. Porridge is good for you. It fills you up in the morning, and gives you enough energy to make it to lunch.
dlofnep is offline  
Thanks from:
24-06-2011, 13:28   #13
Wibbs
Moderator
 
Wibbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Nothing in life has any business being perfect
Posts: 30,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlofnep View Post
Cavemen lived on average to their 20's, 30's max.
Again not quite true D, if a very common misconception. Modern hunter gatherers are observed to live to their 70's. Yes they have significantly more childhood mortality, but if they hit 20, their chances of seeing into their 60's and beyond is very close to ours in the west. They're a lot healthier too by all the markers at each life stage. "Cavemen" of the past varied. Neandertals were elderly, toothless and arthritic by 40, if they lived that long. Our species started to live longer than that for no obvious reason around 40,000 years BP. They like their modern counterparts were more likely to die of trauma and/or infection. Certainly not lifestyle driven conditions like today, but even so judging by the modern ones 60's and beyond wouldn't have been that rare(and the fossil record does show this. Most young ones are trauma related deaths).

Closer to today? 2000 years ago in the christian gospels Jesus is quoted as saying 3 score and ten(70 years of age) is the average span of a life(and goes on to say 4 score(80)for stronger people). His audience didn't think this so odd, which they would have if this misconception had them dropping like flies in their 20's. And his audience were dirt poor, half starved peasant farmers at the very bottom of the social heap where medicine was herbs and a poultice if you were lucky.
Wibbs is offline  
24-06-2011, 14:00   #14
dlofnep
Closed Account
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 20,245
Oh come on, the Bible also stated that Noah lived until he was 950, and that there was a talking snake. It hardly constitutes as a scientific text. Show me evidence that anyone 2000 years ago lived up to their 70s and 80s.

People get on just fine with porridge. To suggest that it's bad for you in some way is pure paranoia. The human body evolves, like anything else and adjusts itself to cope with varied diets. I'm all for eating healthy - but this is pure and utter poppycock.
dlofnep is offline  
Thanks from:
24-06-2011, 14:04   #15
eco2live
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 487
You do make some valid points Wibbs.

I enjoy a peppered steak with garlic potatoes and veg followed by a chocolate desert with freshly prepared ice cream as much as the next person(and more then most). I suppose that balance is the key. A little bit of everything?? It does seem that this is a bit of a cop out.

We deffo did not start out as natural carnivores but I agree that cooking meat removes most of the problems with eating meat and is a method of predigestion. That is a fair point. The increasing import of meat and the ways they are processed is starting to turn me off it the more I look into it.

Fruit, veg, fish and unprocessed foods everyone agrees are good for you. Most of what the average Irish person consumes is processed to death. Just look at the supermarket.

I agree that cooking food has its benefits when eating other food rather then fruit but that is my point. Cooking veg really helps you to consume it and get great nutrition from it that you otherwise would not get. Anyone fancy a raw turnip?

If you eat what is natural for humans then there is no need to process it to make it consumable or palatable. I am addicted to processed food so I am looking for a change and this might be the way for me. I might try it for a bit and see how I get on. Can't be worse then my diet at the mo and the book makes a lot of sense.

It makes no sense that we require foods that are not natural to humans. Enjoyable as they are

Last edited by eco2live; 24-06-2011 at 14:07.
eco2live is offline  
Thanks from:
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet