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!
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.)
I will take the wheat and candy diet and be healthier then everyone.
No. Nobody eats nothing but one food, it wouldnt mirror real-world results. Foods arent meant to be eaten in isolation like that.
Originally Posted by Diana Renata
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.
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.
Originally Posted by God
You're an imbecile.
Ok, two things.
Originally Posted by Reventon
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 at 11:32 PM.
Don't you have a bridge to be guarding somewhere?
Originally Posted by God
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 at 01:03 AM.
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.
Originally Posted by God
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.
Who said all MDA'ers hate grains?
Originally Posted by God
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