Elsie N
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 6,658
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
The maltodextrin is just glucose, and very rapidly turned into blood sugar. That is inflammatory and as we know, diabetics with their high levels of blood glucose (even under drug control) have a much increased heart attack rate. Grapeseed oil is an industrial seed oil and also highly inflammatory, which again leads to arterial damage. The oats are also rapidly turned to blood glucose.
The (rather famous) Framingham heart study showed that dietary cholesterol was not an issue. Our bodies do indeed need fat (and protein), and if you're going to ingest any significant amount of carbohydrate it should be of the forms that are neither high in fructose nor are turned rapidly to blood glucose.
It appears the engineer who came up with this is basing his diet on very outmoded dietary models, indeed the same models that have lead to obesity and heart disease in our populations.
Graeme
I'm happy to learn you are as well-read and knowledgeable about what it takes to run a body as you are about what it takes to run a camera or a Red Ray Player.
I agree with you that cholesterol isn't the issue, while the ratio between HDL and LDL cholesterol is. I remember reading a study done during the great cholesterol scare of decades past when we were told not to eat eggs because of the cholesterol in them. The study had individuals eating a dozen eggs or so per day and then measured their cholesterol. Initially, the participant's cholesterol rose. But after a period of adjustment, their cholesterol came back down to normal levels even with the large number of eggs in their diet.
And while I applaud the straightforward approach to reducing "food" to the status of fuel for the body, I disagree that doing that can maximize life-span. Life is a trade-off. If we work too hard (read: stress our body and mind Too Much) indulge ourselves in food and drink in excess (some alcohol may be beneficial... re: a study on C Elegans (nematode used in research) showed that a tiny amount of a solvent like alcohol extended the life span of the worm. (This research could indicate the worm in the bottle of Mezcal is still alive, just pickled so it looks dead '-)
What I'm getting at is, there's too much edible diversity missing from the formula to maximize our individual life span. Maybe Soylent would work as a substitute for a meal, but as Graeme points out there may be things in it that aren't conducive to best practices. Of course, if you are going to eat fast food instead, maybe the Soylent is a better choice.
But from my point of view, I need to ensure the foods I do eat are nutrient diverse and dense. Reason is, I have recently adopted a 2 random day per week fast and the other 5 days are food days. I've done this after reading about it first, then watching the program "Eat, Fast, and live longer" by Michael Morley. That really showed the effect food as calories, and protein specifically, has on the well-being of the body... the protein in excess possibly having a negative effect on one's lifespan (The good news is, hard work keeps the mind off one's hunger during the fast days)
And since I'm eating less food now, I just want to make sure my body is getting sufficient amounts of the really important foods and condiments, herbs and spices, that can protect and enhance one's health status.
Last edited: