Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are Lollipops Techinically Better Nutrition Than Wheat?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Are Lollipops Techinically Better Nutrition Than Wheat?

    Yeah, I know, this seems like another one of those hare-brained threads of mine.
    But bear with me, I may be onto something this time.


    If wheat contains gut irritants like gluten which rips holes in your intestines (may be exaggerating here, may not be) not to mention lectins and the like, does that mean technically eating your fill of lollipops would be healthier than eating the equivalent amount in bread?

    I'm saying keep eating meat, dairy, and other normal food but swap all your wheat (and other gluten-grains) for candy, and that would make you healthier?

    Yeah, sure, it's straight sugar and obviously that's bad BUT it's the same amount of sugar you'd be getting from the wheat anyway, just a more instant-dose, AND, there will be no holes getting ripped in your stomach.


    I've got this idea brewing for a clinical study where we put 2 groups of people on the same diet for a period of time, the only difference would be one would eat Whole-wheat, the other would eat the equivilant calories in candy. The rest of their diet would be as paleo as possible so they aren't deprived of anything essential. And basically see who's healthier at the end of the trial.

    I'm betting Wheat-Paleo will get beaten by Candy-Paleo because a good portion of the group will be gluten intolerant without realizing it and will see a dramatic improvement in health just from eliminating wheat. The people who arent intolerant will probably see improvement as well just because wheat is pretty fucking bad for you. The trial would need to be run for a good period of time incase the Candy-Paleo group has issues detoxing from wheat, yanno, withdrawals and the like, plus the general need to adapt to a new diet.

    If this study was run properly and presented to the media it would be hilarious! And not only that but it would prove once and for all that grains, especially whole-grains, are absolute shit.



    Share your thoughts guys!

  • #2
    It doesn't seem as there would be a measurable difference, UNLESS participants had a wheat intolerance/allergy. With that, a wheat intolerance is far more common than a sugar/food color intolerance, so based on that, yes, the people eating sugar would probably fare better.

    If you really want to measure sugar vs wheat, put people on an either all-wheat diet or all-lollipop diet and see who fares better. My bets are on the wheat in that case (intolerance/allergies not withstanding.)

    Comment


    • #3
      I will take the wheat and candy diet and be healthier then everyone.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Diana Renata View Post
        If you really want to measure sugar vs wheat, put people on an either all-wheat diet or all-lollipop diet and see who fares better. My bets are on the wheat in that case (intolerance/allergies not withstanding.)
        No. Nobody eats nothing but one food, it wouldnt mirror real-world results. Foods arent meant to be eaten in isolation like that.

        Plus, your study wouldn't produce the result I want, which is to make wheat look worse than candy, which it is.

        And also, wheat rips holes in everyone's guts. It's not like some people's intestines are made of iron or something. People who are intolerant just get even more problems.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by God
          Plus, your study wouldn't produce the result I want, which is to make wheat look worse than candy, which it is.
          So you're saying that in this fantasy of yours you want to fund a study to come up with a predetermined result for a conclusion you've made without bothering to test it empirically. You want the empirical testing to support the conclusion rather than develop one as a matter of good science.

          You're an imbecile.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Reventon View Post
            So you're saying that in this fantasy of yours you want to fund a study to come up with a predetermined result for a conclusion you've made without bothering to test it empirically. You want the empirical testing to support the conclusion rather than develop one as a matter of good science.

            You're an imbecile.
            Ok, two things.

            One - You're ignorant. This is how science is done these days. You start with an idea you want to push ("Whole grains are healthy", "saturated fat is bad") then you craft a study to prove your idea. This is what the government does, this is what big universities like Harvard do - I'm not making this shit up, as a MDAer you should be wise to the way science works these days. I'm just fighting fire with fire.

            Two - My study is a CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL, as opposed to an OBSERVATIONAL study which is what the medical industry uses to prove it's bullshit claims about saturated fat and whole grains, even though anyone who has done first year college statistics can tell you that OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES don't prove cause and effect. My study is cool.

            Three - Fuck you, I'm sick of pessimistic people like you shooting down my ideas just cause you can't think outside the box.
            Last edited by God; 01-08-2014, 11:32 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by God View Post
              Ok, two things.

              One - You're ignorant. This is how science is done these days. You start with an idea you want to push ("Whole grains are healthy", "saturated fat is bad") then you craft a study to prove your idea. This is what the government does, this is what big universities like Harvard do - I'm not making this shit up, as a MDAer you should be wise to the way science works these days. I'm just fighting fire with fire.

              Two - My study is a CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL, as opposed to an OBSERVATIONAL study which is what the medical industry uses to prove it's bullshit claims about saturated fat and whole grains, even though anyone who has done first year college statistics can tell you that OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES don't prove cause and effect. My study is cool.

              Three - Fuck you, I'm sick of pessimistic people like you shooting down my ideas just cause you can't think outside the box.
              Don't you have a bridge to be guarding somewhere?

              But hell, I'll bite. Game on.

              To your first point, that's not how science is done, that's how propaganda is executed. Science is the tool, the modus operandi and ultimately the victim of the ruthless, the feckless and the dogmatic. Combating one form of propaganda with your own and becoming more popular doesn't make you right, it just makes you the louder idiot.

              To your second point, who cares? A skewed study aimed at deriving a preconceived conclusion irrespective of data is bullshit any way you slice it. There are all kinds of clinical trials that have been misrepresented in a pro CW or anti paleo slant before plenty of times. What you're suggesting is not useful or original in the slightest, just unprofitable. That's the only reason it hasn't been done before.

              Thirdly, you've proven you're an imbecile with that remark and the need to use it. Good for you. I'm not pessimistic, I'm just in favour of the truth. I don't have an agenda to serve beyond the long term health of myself and those I love. If good, solid empirical data comes to light that shows I can make a better choice by modifying or altering my position entirely, I will do it.

              I haven't shot your idea down because it's outside the box - you've copied the model of what's largely destroyed the modern health paradigm to begin with, ignoring the truth for the sake of an agenda.

              Trolling: ur doin it wrong
              Last edited by Reventon; 01-09-2014, 01:03 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Look, guy, this is all hypothetical. I don't have the resources to actually pull off a study like this. There's no need to get all angry at me, I'm not going to be putting anyone on a candy diet any time soon.

                And, more to the point, the actual study idea I proposed isn't really skewed or biased. We're changing one variable and keeping everything else the same. We're just comparing wheat to candy and see which actually causes more health harm. Virtually everyone knows candy is bad for you, if we showed them that wheat is actually worse, they might seriously reconsider their diet.

                All agendas aren't created equal. You could argue Mark's pushing an agenda but I bet none of the people on this forum think he's doing a bad thing. Some agendas are good.


                See unlike you, I care about things other than myself, I don't want to see people turned cattle, grain-fed and pumped full of drugs to keep them productive until they die from one of the many chronic diseases that they'll probably accumulate over their lifetime.


                We were once a epic warrior race and we have been turned into cattle. Doesn't that bother you a bit?


                I'm a bit disappointed that you are jumping down the throat of a fellow MDA'er too. We're on the same side man! Don't you hate grains like I do? And calling me a troll just because I have a sense of humor and a bit of personality is a bit harsh. Do you call everyone you disagree with a troll?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by God View Post
                  Look, guy, this is all hypothetical. I don't have the resources to actually pull off a study like this. There's no need to get all angry at me, I'm not going to be putting anyone on a candy diet any time soon.

                  And, more to the point, the actual study idea I proposed isn't really skewed or biased. We're changing one variable and keeping everything else the same. We're just comparing wheat to candy and see which actually causes more health harm. Virtually everyone knows candy is bad for you, if we showed them that wheat is actually worse, they might seriously reconsider their diet.

                  All agendas aren't created equal. You could argue Mark's pushing an agenda but I bet none of the people on this forum think he's doing a bad thing. Some agendas are good.


                  See unlike you, I care about things other than myself, I don't want to see people turned cattle, grain-fed and pumped full of drugs to keep them productive until they die from one of the many chronic diseases that they'll probably accumulate over their lifetime.


                  We were once a epic warrior race and we have been turned into cattle. Doesn't that bother you a bit?


                  I'm a bit disappointed that you are jumping down the throat of a fellow MDA'er too. We're on the same side man! Don't you hate grains like I do? And calling me a troll just because I have a sense of humor and a bit of personality is a bit harsh. Do you call everyone you disagree with a troll?
                  No, just people who decide to put rational argument aside for the sake of being arbitrarily contrary. Don't play the passive aggressive "stop bullying me" card because you're the one who took the conversation down this track. Don't play the "oh, we're all on the same forum, therefore we're on the same side" game. We're all people with access to the same information making our own decisions. I don't hate or love grain, it is what it is. I hate people lying about its healthfulness or lack thereof, whether willfully or ignorantly.

                  I understand your points about a fantasy study are hypothetical. That makes them no more or less dangerous, nor any more or less intelligent. A lot of the exchange of ideas and arguments is purely hypothetical.

                  At the end of the day people have to make decisions for their own good of their own accord. Disseminating false information to drive them to a healthful outcome is no better than doing it to make them sick, because one way or another they're still cattle.

                  The difference between what Mark and other "experts" do is he lists his own bias honestly and clearly and tried to account for the bias he sees in the data and evidence he presents. He persuades rather than preaching.

                  Whatever. Bored now.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by God View Post
                    I'm a bit disappointed that you are jumping down the throat of a fellow MDA'er too. We're on the same side man! Don't you hate grains like I do? And calling me a troll just because I have a sense of humor and a bit of personality is a bit harsh. Do you call everyone you disagree with a troll?
                    Who said all MDA'ers hate grains?
                    And I'm sure he's not the only one to call you a troll.



                    Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Marks Daily Apple Forum mobile app

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Whole wheat has beneficial nutrients, lolly pops do not.

                      If you were to actually carry out such a study I would suggest recruiting a lot of celiac patients and assigning them to the wheat eating group. That way you could really prove you're hypothesis.


                      It would be about as honest as the people who promote low carb diets by putting them up against low fat junk food diets and declaring low carb diets winners.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by God View Post
                        This is how science is done these days. You start with an idea you want to push, then you craft a study to prove your idea.
                        God here is correct that this IS the scientific method. It's not just how it it's done "these days." It's how it's been done in the days since ancient Greece. Observation, hypothesis, prediction based on hypothesis, experiment, observe the results yes/no, modify the hypothesis to account for observation, new prediction based on new hypothesis, experiment, etc. And yes, even supposedly neutral scientists have to "push" ideas in order to get the funding. However, any "pushed" idea still must be proven by results. Propaganda don't matter if there are experiments which disprove it.

                        The problem is that it's nearly impossible to control all the conditions so you can isolate what is causing the results. You can't really tell if your experimental results were caused by your hypothesis, or by some other piece of the hypothesis you don't know about, or by a skew in the sample. Science is hard enough to do even on the molecular scale where there are fewer variables; in people-based studies it's nearly impossible.

                        God, for your study, it's probably best to use the SAME set of people.* Feed them the wheat for six months, then switch them all to candy for six months. That will filter out the variations among people.

                        MEANWHILE, back on the original topic. It doesn't matter if wheat has nutrition. We're already getting all the nutrients from meat and veggies. The question is whether it's better to get our sugar from sugar, or from wheat which is digested into sugar. I'm only an N=1, but I cheated like a mutha with candy for the past few months and gained maybe five pounds. Actually, every couple days, I got tired of sugar and had to back off for a couple days, then started sugar again. It was more like a carb refeed than SAD. If I stopped the candy, the weight drops fast. (this is with NO exercise). But with wheat, I never got tired of it, and couldn't lose any weight at all.

                        If you're really in need of the micronutrients from wheat, just eat Ketchmer wheat germ from the jar and avoid the whole wheat berry. The endosperm is where most of the carbs are.

                        -----------
                        *businesses do the same thing when they track sales on a yearly basis. They track "same store" sales to filter out factors like location or customer income.
                        5'0" female, 45 years old. Started Primal October 31, 2011, at a skinny fat 111.5 lbs. Low weight: 99.5 lb on a fast. Gained back to 115(!) on SAD chocolate, potato chips, and stress. Currently 111.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by God View Post
                          Yeah, I know, this seems like another one of those hare-brained threads of mine.
                          This is the truth right here.
                          Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Candy? I can't eat the stuff. It's impossible to find it without wheat, nuts, soy, peanuts and a myriad of other things that I can't/won't eat.

                            Sugar cubes? I sometimes indulge
                            Stumbled into Primal due to food allergies, and subsequent elimination of non-primal foods.

                            Start Gluten-Free/Soy-Free: December 2012; start weight 158lbs, Ladies size 6
                            Start Primal: March 2013, start weight 150lbs, Ladies size 6
                            Current: 132lbs, Ladies size 2
                            F/23/5'9"

                            26lbs lost since cutting the crap.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by God View Post
                              Plus, your study wouldn't produce the result I want, which is to make wheat look worse than candy, which it is.
                              Sorry bro, that's not how science works. You're supposed to disprove your hypothesis, and when you absolutely can't, then and only then can you say it's proven.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X