/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>19002142
>I fully agree with you on avoiding grains BTW, the sole benefit of grains is that they are extremely calorie dense
They're also very healthy, due to their nutrients, fiber, and the phytochemicals they contain

>>18723910
Quercetin, cyanin, vulgaxanthin, beta-carotene, delphinidin, kaempferol, catechin, salicin, allicin, daidzein, epigallocatechin gallate, theanine, resveratrol, lutein, glabrene, medicarpin, etc. Plants are complex things. It's not just vegetables either.

>>15618423
Eat ancient wheat if you're that paranoid, it still exists as spelt or kamut
>Ever see the labels on supermarket bread about it being "fortified" with certain vitamins? It's literally because the vitamin content of the wheat has been intentionally destroyed over time
That's white bread, because the grain kernels are polished of the bran and germ, not because the wheat itself has been bred to come out as just starch.
>That's why it always bugs me when people point to the past
>Even if you just go 200 years back, the carb counts in wheat, fruit, berries, vegetables, etc were all far lower while the fiber and (in the case of wheat) protein was much higher. The fallacy that's so often committed is to look at, say, modern strawberries
They don't say whole grains and fruits are good for us because people in the past ate them, they say it because all modern research suggests that to be the case, and all modern research is based on those modern versions of the foods. It doesn't matter what Romans ate or if it was healthier, it's still modern whole wheat and oats and brown rice that things are based on.

If you're interested in health and not politicized internet memes, whole grains should be your main source of calories, supplemented by vegetables, nuts/seeds, legumes, fruits, mushrooms, and sparingly, meat/dairy.

>>6691814

>not eating a variety of whole grains
>not eating a variety of plant foods in general

>>6411885

>Thought so.

Come on, you know scientists don't like to use absolutist language. When we're talking about if we have enough data to make informed decisions about diet and health, clearly we do. Is everything set in stone and it's impossible for anything to be wrong or incomplete? Of course not, but with the data the way it is, we have to accept that this is the way we currently understand things to be after decades of research, and it should have some influence on the way we think about nutrition.

>There is abundant anthropological evidence suggesting humans are omnivores

Sure, but we don't look to the fossil record to see what's good or bad for us. Ancient humans practiced cannibalism and carried heavy parasite burdens too. The behavior of short-lived cavemen who also lived in a completely different environment than us has no bearing on how we should eat today to have the best chance of living a long, healthy life.

Those are neat words you're throwing around, but apparently they aren't powerful enough to make a difference, because the data doesn't reflect it. Bioactive compounds that are known to decrease the risk of chronic disease both in theory and in practice are abundant in plants though.

>>6176158

>Is eating grains at all worth it? What are you getting out of it?

http://www.eufic.org/article/en/expid/Whole-grain-Fact-Sheet/

Basically whole grains help to lower your cholesterol, regulate blood sugar, help prevent certain types of cancer, lowers inflammation and blood pressure, lowers risk of alzheimers and dementia, and helps you poop with more regularity.

Researchers like Dr. Rui Liu from Cornell University consider whole grains to be as healthy or even healthier than fruits and vegetables, especially in light of modern research into the antioxidant potential of whole grains

http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/4184

Add to that the fact that they're a pretty good source of minerals and B-vitamins, they make a great backbone to build your diet around