Healthy Bread?

4068ac1elhodqr

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

And what you've outlined is a ****ty diet.

And what you dismissed is what a majority of people might consume daily:
Toast n' sandwiches at least once a day (perhaps 2-6 slices avg), the majority also white.

Doesn't really matter what the put inside their sambo, the bread itself will provide empty exess calories and 1/2 the RDA of sugar for 5 or so slices.

Let's just hope it's not streaky bacon (or worse) fried bread. Throw in a couple of highstreet takeaway coffees or a fizzy drinks and it could be close to 100%rda sugar.

adox

I eat a supermarket bought brown bread daily to up my intake of fiber mainly.
Less than a gram of sugar per slice.

Alf Veedersane

Rosa Great Hag wrote: »

And what you dismissed is what a majority of people might consume daily:
Toast n' sandwiches at least once a day (perhaps 2-6 slices avg), the majority also white.

Doesn't really matter what the put inside their sambo, the bread itself will provide empty exess calories and 1/2 the RDA of sugar for 5 or so slices.

Let's just hope it's not streaky bacon (or worse) fried bread. Throw in a couple of highstreet takeaway coffees or a fizzy drinks and it could be close to 100%rda sugar.

I'm not dismissing it. Toast for breakfast, sandwich for lunch and toast/bread for tea is a sh*tty diet.

goat2

I think rye bread is the most healthy option

Alf Veedersane

Branchranch wrote: »

The facts are that grains have very little nutritional value, they often contain phytic acid and/or lectins. These are not things you want to be regularly putting in your body.

As far as I know, heat will minimise destroy phytic acid/phytates though which would be the case when baking bread, no. Obviously, open to correction but fairly sure that's the case.

Also, phytic acid has some potential benefits/preventative properties.

Either way, if you've a balanced diet it's a nom-issue for the vast majority.

wakka12

Branchranch wrote: »

When did I say I'm an advocate of keto or have a hatred of carbs. I'm saying that grains are generally unhealthy and a poor choice of food to put in your body. Potatoes and fruit are much better sources of carbs. The majority of diets that are reviewed contain grains so it's hardly surprising that the ones at the top will have grains.

The facts are that grains have very little nutritional value, they often contain phytic acid and/or lectins. These are not things you want to be regularly putting in your body.

The foods I would advise people eat are foods which are highly nutritional . Seafood, offal, red meat, poultry, pork, eggs, fruit, vegetables, real grass fed butter, grass fed dairy depending on how a person tolerates dairy and Coffee. Eat plenty of saturated fats and minimise PUFA fats. Cook with saturated fats, don't touch vegetable oils.

If consumption of grains were as unhealthy as you claim then people who consumed them would be less healthy than people who dont consume grains. But theres no evidence to support that being true, in fact usually the opposite is true, that a diet high in whole grains leads to longer life than one high in red meat and saturated fat as you are claiming. You have no evidence to support your very bold claim
The only thing you say that is backed up by most studies is to avoid vegetable oils other than olive oil

Anyway some grains are highly nutritious like quinoa. As I said these sweeping statements are just so pointless, why the limiting of such a large food group without strong reasoning?

silverharp

wakka12 wrote: »

A lot. Of course a moderate consumtion of 1-2 slices daily of even white bread as part of a balanced diet with plenty of fruit and vegetables and exercise will not have any noticeable negative impact on your health

The most important thing about diet is balance and diversity. I think the law of diminishing returns is very applicable here in the people who limit entire food groups for no real reason. Theres only a few things about diet absolutely agreed upon, such as reducing added sugar and sodium and over consumption of refined carbs,avoid fried foods, to eat plenty of vegetables, etc after that it gets very muddy very quickly and there no concrete proof at all that diets like no dairy, no gluten, keto,raw, paleo, vegan are necessarily significantly better or worse than one another, and what diet works for you might not for another person or be the healthiest type for them/you. So try to eat whole fresh unprocessed food in a varied balance diet and most importantly BE HAPPY and enjoy your food and dont listen to nutters on the internet advising outrageous and extreme diets, because it is mostly baseless and just their own subjective interpretation of literature

Your post is a little contradictory , if a particular diet works for someone then they should follow that diet surely?, you almost seem irritated by the idea that some people have turned their health around by say Keto/Low carb for example? There are doctors in the UK proscribing low carb to reverse symptoms of diabetes type 2 and take them off their meds, presumably if “everything in moderation” worked in all cases they wouldn’t bother, so for these people there is pretty close to an objectively good reason to prefer the approach. If Ive learned anything from looking at nutrition is that there is not as much “ concrete evidence” for lots of areas as we are led to believe. I think the supermarket shelves are testament to the often dubious nutritional advise out there parading as fact

Alf Veedersane

Branchranch wrote: »

Mark Sisson provides an excellent rebuttal of the conclusion from studies that wholegrains consumption causes people to live longer.

https://wwwmarksdailyapple.com/will-eating-whole-grain-fiber-help-you-live-longer/

He raises questions about the conclusions from a single study and they're fair points he makes about other health/lifestyle factors that a good study would call out explicitly. Not sure if the study did or not or if it was kust the reporting on it that was the issue.

And he doesn't argue that whole grain diets should lead to better results than refined grains. He just raises the point that there should be studies on whole grains versus no grains.

wakka12

Branchranch wrote: »

The evidence suggests red meat and saturated fat is a net positive affect on health, and that grains have a net negative affect on health. I'll provide the studies and reasoning later.

Do you have evidence that grains have a net positive affect on health?

Mark Sisson provides an excellent rebuttal of the conclusion from studies that wholegrains consumption causes people to live longer.

https://wwwmarksdailyapple.com/will-eating-whole-grain-fiber-help-you-live-longer/

That is an interesting article and perhaps grains arent as health protective as media say, but that is far away from calling whole grains unhealthy,which you seem to be saying. Rather it just that theyre not as great as they might seem at surface level. It sounds like whole grains have more of a neglible impact on health rather than protective, but as I said before they are a massive, readily available, diverse,cheap, tasty food group and this is hardly information that would justify kicking them from your diet.