"A moderate portion of white rice is actually fine to eat as part of your diet, although brown rice is much better."
I used to believe that, but now I'm beginning to think the brown rice as a health food is hype/bs.
I actually came across something when reading about Celiac Disease because I know someone with celiac.
scdlifestyle.com/[...]
you can read the link for a more scientific analysis, but basically my understanding is that the exterior shell on the brown rice exists to protect the rice in nature from being eaten. and therefore, it's toxic. and the human body cannot digest it well. people with celiac respond very adversely, but i don't think anyone can digest brown rice well and maybe it isn't meant to be eaten at all.
@Alien, I'll get back to you about the oils.
Meant to be eaten? I think few organisms of any size want to be eaten. Not sure what you mean. But I don't know much about brown rice.
meant to be eaten from the point of view of health.
few organisms want to be eaten, but that's the way it is. perhaps you can take it up with the man upstairs.
I think you mean people shouldn't eat it because it's unhealthy, right?
fruit was meant to be eaten. the eater then deposits seeds some way from the tree all wrapped up in a ball of fertiliser. birds eat seeds and grains and do the same. now eating leaves is murder ;-) and as sarah palin said, 'if god didnit want us to eat animalsl he wouldnt have made them out of meat'
@Dazzer: ok, 'meant to be' meaning 'reproduces through being eaten', right? Unless a Consciousness or Designer is involved....but I've led us into trivialities, mea culpa.
>>you can read the link for a more scientific analysis<<
I don't know about that. It refers to research by the Weston A. Price Foundation to back a claim it makes.
That foundation is not without its detractors, to put it mildly.
E.g.: "Quackwatch describes the Foundation as promoting "questionable dietary strategies" and Price's core assumptions as contrary to contemporary medical understanding."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weston_A._Price_Foundation#Criticism
www.vegsource.com/[...]
there are always scientific studies that contradict and refute other studies. obviously, both sides of the argument can't be right. so then it's up to you to determine which one is right and which one isn't.
i took a quick glance at vegsource and it's off to a bad start. one article on the right claims that nuts can be the main culprit in weight gain. i have never met anyone who eats too many nuts. so right off the bat, my bs detector is working overdrive.
ok, i read the attack on weston price. it's baseless. basically, all the article does is engage in personal attacks against Sally Fallon, who is running the Weston Price foundation. But it offers no actual scientific claims to refute Weston Price's health claims.
and the reason is that there is no science that exists that can refute Weston Price's research. when you see name-calling and slander in a so-called scientific article, that's the sign of foul play. people who are genuine stick to the facts when disputing these concepts.
"Unless a Consciousness or Designer is involved"
oh, is that what atheists are calling God these days?
