Re: Glycemic Index and Diabetes
- From: "Andy <q>" <q>
- Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 06:57:12 -0600
Chris Malcolm said...
Kurt <kurtwheeling1965@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 2, 5:25???pm, Chris Malcolm <c...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Kurt <kurtwheeling1...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 27, 6:22???pm, Susan <neverm...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Alan S wrote:
I still use, sparingly, brown rice in lieu of white. But for
nutritional value, not BG control.
But it has a nutritional value of near zero for every nutrient
listed in a 100 gm portion.
In small amounts they all would be zero.
SusanAnother lie from the itty bitty eat all the cow and sit on your butt
In the past Susan and others have posted excerpts from nutritional
databases to support their claims of the comparatively poor
nutritional value of brown rice.
In the past Susan has made false claims about whole grain brown rice
and I have refuted them with facts.
You refuted them with web sites which merely offered a contrary
opinion, but no numbers to back up their opinion. An opinion on a web
site does not constitute a fact.
Within the past couple of weeks I
posted a link that showed that whole grain brown rice is easy on the
bgs because of the fiber in it.
Which fails to address the numbers question. Your posts on this topic
remind me of the people who used to get very excited about the fact
that marihuana causes chromosome damage. They were right, it does. But
in failing to address the numbers question of "how much?" they failed
to appreciate the important point that it damaged your chromosomes
less than coffee does, which is not much.
It was in a link I posted all about
whole grain brown rice and could be verified by hundreds if not
thousands of sites if you Google.
I know there are thousands if not millions of sites which agree with
your point of view. What I want to see is just one which supports that
view with the actual numbers.
You're either being lazy, ignorant, or just trolling...but I'm not
posting the link again for you.
I'm none of those, Kurt. I'm a scientist. There's a very good reason
why we scientists insist on seeing numbers.
Look it up.
I did before I posted my ealier response, because otherwise you could
have made me look a fool by quoting that post. I'm sure you'd like to
make me look a fool, so if your claim that quoting your post would
make me look a fool is true, I'm puzzled by your failure to take
advantage of such an easy opportunity. (That's British irony :-)
You've never supplied a reference which shows that the micronutrient,
fibre, etc.. composition of brown rice is better than that of many
I think that given your aversion to science and numbers what has
happened is that like many of the health food sites you've cited in
support of your claims you've minsinterpreted and over generalised the
perfectly valid claims that brown rice is definitely better for you
than white. What you haven't shown, and I believe cannot be shown, is
that those of us here who who don't eat any rice at all would be
better off substituting brown rice for some of the veggies we eat.
Blogs are not fact. Merely opinions and point of views.
You want honest info, speak to experts, PHds and similar.
I hate Blogs. Usenet is just a rung down from Blogs.
- Prev by Date: Re: Glycemic Index and Diabetes
- Next by Date: Re: Fried won tons?
- Previous by thread: Re: Glycemic Index and Diabetes
- Next by thread: Re: Glycemic Index and Diabetes