Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: White rice link seen with Type 2 diabetes, says study page 3

  1. #21
    cori93437's Avatar
    cori93437 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    central FL
    Posts
    6,949
    Shop Now
    Quote Originally Posted by Daemonized View Post
    It's nearly wiped out the population of china.
    +1,347,350,000 (that's ONLY 19.25% of the world population).

    Ohhhh look... another STUDY! Yay.
    “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
    ~Friedrich Nietzsche
    And that's why I'm here eating HFLC Primal/Paleo.


  2. #22
    Roach's Avatar
    Roach is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    338
    Lots of studies say lots of stuff.

    I'm convinced that white rice is good for me

  3. #23
    lssanjose's Avatar
    lssanjose is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tigard, OR
    Posts
    1,491
    The question is, is it the trigger, or only a contributor? That's the real question, not being asked/addressed.

  4. #24
    Chaohinon's Avatar
    Chaohinon is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    1,926
    I wonder if white rice (vs. brown rice) might suffer the same problem as things like coffee, potatoes, and beef. Most people who consume them are convinced they're not healthy, so tend to eat a lot of other crap as well.
    “The whole concept of a macronutrient, like that of a calorie, is determining our language game in such a way that the conversation is not making sense." - Dr. Kurt Harris

  5. #25
    jammies's Avatar
    jammies is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,522
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    I agree that us being sedentary and confined to an office is a huge part of the problem, but I don't blame carbohydrate.





    Interestingly, we eat the same about of carbohydrate today that we did 100 years ago, and 100 years ago, heart disease and diabetes was rare. Evidence shows time and time again that it isn't carbohydrate that causes diabetes and heart disease, but rather individual sources of carbohydrate AND fat. The big difference in our diet is the source of our calories, and our total calorie intake.

    Real honey has been replaced with fake, boiled honey.
    Sugar has been replaced with HFCS and artificial sweetener.
    Wheat flour has been replaced with dwarf wheat flour.
    Butter and lard has been replaced by soybean and/or canola oil.
    Soy is in everything, where it used to be in nothing.

    Also, we consume around 400 total calories a day more, yet the majority of the jobs 100 years ago involved manual labor where today hardly any do. Ironically, since carbs have held constant, and protein is relatively unchanged, the thing that increased dramatically is fat intake. We ate lower fat diets 100 years ago. The difference is, steak, potatoes, butter and traditional wheat flour, brown sugar and molasses have been replaced by chicken breast deep fried in soybean oil, GMO dwarf wheat flour and white sugar/HFCS. Does anyone not eligible for AARP cook and bake with molasses or real honey anymore? They used to be (surprisingly nutritious) staples in households for ages.

    IMO, vegetable oils are the biggest contributor of modern disease, with GMO soy and GMO wheat being #2 and #3. I don't see as big of an issue with actual ancient wheat as an agent of disease for occasional treats, but not as a dietary staple. I feel like eggs and bacon have been replaced by cereal and pancakes nowadays.
    I was thinking about this some more today. I don't disagree with any of your points. But now I am wondering if the data does suggest a role for refined carbohydrate. If we eat the same number of carbs now, but they come from a crappier source in general AND we are more sedentary perhaps the combination is more that our metabolism can deal with.

    Perhaps we have to choose. We can be somewhat sedentary but need to be low-ish carb OR we can be super active and eat healthy carbs? Just thinking "out loud" here....
    Using low lectin/nightshade free primal to control autoimmune arthritis. (And lost 50 lbs along the way )

    http://www.krispin.com/lectin.html

  6. #26
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,534
    Quote Originally Posted by jammies View Post
    I was thinking about this some more today. I don't disagree with any of your points. But now I am wondering if the data does suggest a role for refined carbohydrate. If we eat the same number of carbs now, but they come from a crappier source in general AND we are more sedentary perhaps the combination is more that our metabolism can deal with.

    Perhaps we have to choose. We can be somewhat sedentary but need to be low-ish carb OR we can be super active and eat healthy carbs? Just thinking "out loud" here....
    Refinement is clearly an issue. Our grandparents didn't use HFCS, agave syrup and processed honey to sweeten things. They used brown sugar, blackstrap molasses, real honey and real maple syrup as staples. And probably white sugar, but white sugar's at least "clean". Artificial sweeteners didn't exist. They clearly didn't have GMO products in their diet since they didn't exist either, and all their foods weren't fortified with maltodextrin, "modified food starch", polysorbate 80, carrageenan, soy lecithin and all the other horrible things that are in seemingly every product in a box or a bag. Sure, they ate wheat and sugar, but it was actual wheat and sugar, not some genetically modified monstrosity and although it may not have been healthy, you could probably make it yourself without millions of dollars of fancy equipment and chemical solvents to extract it. There's clearly a difference.

    White rice is actual food. It's not a whole food, but it's clean and has been a dietary staple in societies for thousands of years. It may not be nutritious, but it isn't an agent of disease, either. I wouldn't make it a dietary staple, but it's a fantastic, clean, efficient source of glucose if you need it.
    Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 03-16-2012 at 10:04 PM.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  7. #27
    paleo-bunny's Avatar
    paleo-bunny is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    SW England, UK
    Posts
    2,667
    I agree - white rice is actual food. If it's eaten in Asian style-dishes e.g. stir-fried with fish or meat, spices and vegetables it makes a very nutritious meal, and the glucose won't be absorbed too quickly. The glycaemic index of plain rice is irrelevant to anyone who eats it in the context of balanced meals.

    White rice isn't idiot-proof, that's for sure. But nor are lots of life's essentials. If you follow the primal law of using your brain then it's a godsend.
    Last edited by paleo-bunny; 03-17-2012 at 04:12 AM. Reason: grammar
    F 5 ft 3. HW: 196 lbs. Primal SW (May 2011): 182 lbs (42% BF)... W June '12: 160 lbs (29% BF) (UK size 12, US size 8). GW: ~24% BF - have ditched the scales til I fit into a pair of UK size 10 bootcut jeans. Currently aligning towards 'The Perfect Health Diet' having swapped some fat for potatoes.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •