Coconut BAD!

A skeptical look at medical practices
User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3065
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby ElectricMonk » Sun Jun 18, 2017 6:50 am

I strictly adhere to a Seafood-diet:

If I see food, I eat it.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Jun 18, 2017 7:58 am

There is a high degree of agreement between health authorities about what is, and what is not, healthy. There are also lots of crackpots who will tell your differently.

Carbohydrates represent a wide range of different foods, some good, and some not so good. Generally speaking, carbs in the form of sugar is bad (including honey), and carbs in the form of purified white starch are bad. However, when those carbs are mixed with lots of dietary fiber, they are perfectly OK. Sugar with fiber is found in fruit, and fruits are good. Starch with fiber is found in many root vegetables, and in certain grain foods like whole grain bread and wholemeal pasta, and brown rice. Those are good.

Saturated fats should be consumed in moderation. Ditto salt, sugar, white starch, and trans fats. Certain vegetable fats, like canola and olive oil can be consumed in larger amounts (though they are still fattening.)

What is good is variety. Especially with fruits, vegetables, and nuts. Lots of them, with as big a variety as possible. Fish is often touted as wonderful, and it may be. But eating a lot of fish is causing the destruction of many fish species from over fishing, and I would discourage it.

There are no secrets about good nutrition, and the advice from medical organisations, such as your national medical association, is what you should listen to, because there are a lot of idiots out there who will tell you stuff that is plain wrong.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3065
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby ElectricMonk » Sun Jun 18, 2017 8:24 am

The more we learn about nutrition, the more obvious it becomes that what is healthy can be very different from individual to individual, based on their gut microbiome. Generalizations will only get you so far and might be quite wrong in some cases.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Jun 18, 2017 8:33 am

Wrong.

The gut microbiome, for example, can be manipulated in a healthy direction by eating high fiber food.

Where individual variation plays a part is in determining just how effective better nutrition will be. But a move towards better nutrition will always be beneficial.

Actually, EM, when you say "generalisations will only get you so far", I would say it is the generalisations that are the most reliable. It is the specifics that trip us up.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3065
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby ElectricMonk » Sun Jun 18, 2017 8:45 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Wrong.

The gut microbiome, for example, can be manipulated in a healthy direction by eating high fiber food.




nope.
Current studies show that is incredibly difficult to permanently change a persons microbiome.

And then there are things like gender (pregnancy), age and stress factor (illness, injury etc.) s which have a huge effect on how food is processed.

we are long past the point were generalizations are helpful beyond "don't drink bleach".
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10176
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jun 18, 2017 9:34 am

Major Malfunction wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:hogs were raised for the main purpose of rendering their fat..back fat specifically if I Recall Correctly. Different from belly fat.

Are you sure it's not the opposite? I'd like to know why. Taste, perhaps?

MM, sorry I missed your direct question. As a proponent of the dialectic progression, I endeavor to always answer direct questions. So...I read about hog fat years ago. I could well have gotten my hog fat location/type wrong. As such fats are not generally available, not much reason to remember it exactly except for the retelling. Way back when I even wonder if the location of the fat might have been identified on the different products for exactly the reason you give.

Upshot is: I buy and use much less butter than I used to a I do render or save all fats that come off food and save it: chicken, beef, or pork. I could give up on butter entirely, but I like its taste....and I do still hang up on the traditional advice to avoid the lard so I haven't even tried lard on toast. I should...... or maybe not.

My deep fat frying uses Virgin Olive Oil, not Extra Virgin, for its higher smoke point. I filter and store the oil in the fridge and it "never goes bad" I just keep topping it off with fresh oil when needed. I do use "used oil" as my everyday oil applying it with a silicone brush. In all applications, I don't taste the oil or at least it is not objectionable. I call this my "Mediterranean diet".

Like EM...I have read articles about how saturated fat may not be "that" bad. The First Law of Toxicology telling us that anything to excess is bad...so what about my own NATURAL (non-hydrogenated) rendered fats? I think they are close enough. fun to decide what side flavors I want in my food. The bacon fat does stand out as especially good. goes well with hash browns.

Rendering the fat from Turkeys at Thanksgiving time will normally get me from 1-2 cups of pure white fat per Turkey. I use my pressure cooker then skim the fat off then let the solidification in the fridge be the final step. Upshot is: I have learned to can the remaining liquid as stock for use throughout the year. I can't say the taste of stock is worth the effort, but its "there" and I feel virtuous on its use.

I think I've dithered a bit. So, I'll stop. "Living Cheap" is my new hobby. Provides endless new activities.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Jun 18, 2017 9:51 am

EM

You must have a different source of scientific information than me, regarding nutrition. My source says that high fiber diets do, in fact, change the gut microbiome for the better. What the Hades. There is always disagreement on this kind of thing.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10176
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jun 18, 2017 9:59 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:EM

You must have a different source of scientific information than me, regarding nutrition. My source says that high fiber diets do, in fact, change the gut microbiome for the better. What the Hades. There is always disagreement on this kind of thing.

High fiber diets would be good for so many other things...I wouldn't be surprised that gut flora benefit would not just be slop over?'

I'm in mind of stories about people taking a course of antibiotics that destroys the gut flora requiring it to be reestablished.....in the story of note: by eating some parental {!#%@}. I did start eating live yogurt for just this reason though. I haven't noticed anything different.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3065
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby ElectricMonk » Sun Jun 18, 2017 10:15 am

So called "pre-biotic" foods, high in fiber, help certain beneficial gut bacteria to prosper - but they must exit in sufficent amounts first. Most "pro-biotics" have proven to be basically useless unless you take massively high doses of live bacteria in stomach-acid resistant capsules or get a gut transplant. There is some reason to belief that the gut has some "safe spots" for its bacteria that keep cultures alive even through diarrhoea and anti-biotics (possibly the appendix). This combination of bacteria strong depends on the environment during very early development and length of breast-feeding.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 259
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Phoenix76 » Sun Jun 18, 2017 10:21 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:There is a high degree of agreement between health authorities about what is, and what is not, healthy. There are also lots of crackpots who will tell your differently.

Carbohydrates represent a wide range of different foods, some good, and some not so good. Generally speaking, carbs in the form of sugar is bad (including honey), and carbs in the form of purified white starch are bad. However, when those carbs are mixed with lots of dietary fiber, they are perfectly OK. Sugar with fiber is found in fruit, and fruits are good. Starch with fiber is found in many root vegetables, and in certain grain foods like whole grain bread and wholemeal pasta, and brown rice. Those are good.

Saturated fats should be consumed in moderation. Ditto salt, sugar, white starch, and trans fats. Certain vegetable fats, like canola and olive oil can be consumed in larger amounts (though they are still fattening.)

What is good is variety. Especially with fruits, vegetables, and nuts. Lots of them, with as big a variety as possible. Fish is often touted as wonderful, and it may be. But eating a lot of fish is causing the destruction of many fish species from over fishing, and I would discourage it.

There are no secrets about good nutrition, and the advice from medical organisations, such as your national medical association, is what you should listen to, because there are a lot of idiots out there who will tell you stuff that is plain wrong.


Lance, I don't disagree with most of what you said. However your first sentence puts me on the offensive.

Yes there is a high degree of agreement between health authorities, but that doesn't mean they are correct. I'm sure we will agree to disagree, but let me quote just one example where these "authorities" screw it up.

My wife is a T2 diabetic. The Diabetics Association of Australia posts us their magazine every whatever. The mag includes recipes, which is a normal expectation, but these recipes, with few exceptions are all high in carbohydrates. Now the last thing a diabetic wants is to load up on carbs - read glucose. She is already glucose intolerant, why do they want her to load up on more?

So Lance, I'm a very good skeptic, I do not just take their word for it. I have read too many studies that are biased to food or pharmacy companies. Yes there are a lot of mis-guided (idiots) people out there, but all they generally provide is association, not causation. Trouble is, it's very hard to get decent studies done today that are not biased, or at least give an appearance of non-bias, because it is a very expensive pasttime and normal researchers just don't have the funds. Which is why these studies are sponsored by food and pharmacy companies.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10176
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jun 18, 2017 10:27 am

ElectricMonk wrote:So called "pre-biotic" foods, high in fiber, help certain beneficial gut bacteria to prosper - but they must exit in sufficent amounts first.

Seems to me the gut is an environment in which bacteria would compete to survive..... everything in balance? And what is beneficial is highly variable according to the specifics of any given situation and individual variability? IOW: if you have any of a variety of bacteria in your gut, it should reproduce until brought into balance for your situation? An over abundance of any bacteria would be beneficial only if some abnormal situation needed to be addressed?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29080
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Gord » Sun Jun 18, 2017 10:47 am

ElectricMonk wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:Wrong.

The gut microbiome, for example, can be manipulated in a healthy direction by eating high fiber food.




nope.
Current studies show that is incredibly difficult to permanently change a persons microbiome.

Are you referring to the recent study on bread?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 135754.htm

Is white or whole wheat bread 'healthier?' Depends on the person

...a comprehensive, randomized trial in 20 healthy subjects comparing differences in how processed white bread and artisanal whole wheat sourdough affect the body.

Surprisingly, the investigators found the bread itself didn't greatly affect the participants and that different people reacted differently to the bread....

...Based on some of their earlier work, however, which found that different people have different glycemic responses to the same diet, the investigators suspected that something more complicated may be going on: perhaps the glycemic response of some of the people in the study was better to one type of bread, and some better to the other type. A closer look indicated that this was indeed the case. About half the people had a better response to the processed, white flour bread, and the other half had a better response to the whole wheat sourdough. The lack of differences were only seen when all findings were averaged together....

..."To date, the nutritional values assigned to food have been based on minimal science, and one-size-fits-all diets have failed miserably."

He adds: "These findings could lead to a more rational approach for telling people which foods are a better fit for them, based on their microbiomes."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/16/health/wh ... index.html

...despite the fact that whole-wheat bread has a higher fiber content -- and therefore would theoretically enter the bloodstream at a slower rate than white bread -- this wasn't the case for everyone in the study. Half of the participants had higher glycemic responses to white bread, as expected, but the other half had higher responses to whole-wheat bread. In fact, the glycemic response was more closely tied to the composition of bacteria in one's gut rather than the bread itself.

On the other hand, just a few years ago (2013) Scientific American published this piece: https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... nges-diet/

The Gut’s Microbiome Changes Rapidly with Diet

A new study finds that populations of bacteria in the gut are highly sensitive to the food we digest

...A new study, published Wednesday in Nature, indicates that these changes can happen incredibly fast in the human gut—within three or four days of a big shift in what you eat. “We found that the bacteria that lives in peoples’ guts is surprisingly responsive to change in diet,” Lawrence David, assistant professor at the Duke Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy and one of the study’s authors, says. “Within days we saw not just a variation in the abundance of different kinds of bacteria, but in the kinds of genes they were expressing.”...
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10176
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jun 18, 2017 10:53 am

Gord: excellent review...thanks. I always hesitate to post that human variability should always be taken into account. It depends on the subject? I think it actually applies to a whole lot more in "medicine" than is given credit.

Gave rise a while back to diets based on blood type? Fallen out of vogue.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3065
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby ElectricMonk » Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:12 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:So called "pre-biotic" foods, high in fiber, help certain beneficial gut bacteria to prosper - but they must exit in sufficent amounts first.

Seems to me the gut is an environment in which bacteria would compete to survive..... everything in balance? And what is beneficial is highly variable according to the specifics of any given situation and individual variability? IOW: if you have any of a variety of bacteria in your gut, it should reproduce until brought into balance for your situation? An over abundance of any bacteria would be beneficial only if some abnormal situation needed to be addressed?


pretty much.
"Our" bacteria have adapted to well to our guts that new strains from outside, even aided by the right kind of diet, have a hard time competing with th established combination of strains: like biofilms, gut bacteria not only feed of our food but also each other and each other's metabolic products. This makes it hard to shift the balance to another strain if the necessary "supply chain" of secondary metabolic products isn't produced in sufficient amounts by other guests in the gut.

We still have loads to learn about this, but it is important work since it mostly likely also affects how many oral drugs are absorbed into the body.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10176
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jun 18, 2017 2:41 pm

ElectricMonk wrote: We still have loads to learn about this, but it is important work since it mostly likely also affects how many oral drugs are absorbed into the body.

Yes, the human vs bacterium and even virii connections are fascinating, our microbiome. By individuals, 10x more bacteria cells than human cells fill our shoes. I read some time ago it was actually bacteria that are involved in the final step of creating....... something very important (a vitamin?)... to our survival.

Of note: while humans are 99% dna similar, our individual microbiomes vary widely. The environments we create for them are very different. Eg: the bacteria in a vegan are very different from those in a meat eater. What effects these microbiomes have on people is wide open for exploration.....
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11306
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Major Malfunction » Sun Jun 18, 2017 4:20 pm

Interesting thread. So much to comment on. Please bear with my brain-dump, and apologies for not dissecting it all into individual quotes...

Cellulose is a polysaccharide, but still a saccharide, so fits in the sugar circle, thus the "-ose".

If it's just saturated fats that cause heart disease, why do Eskimos have one of the lowest rates on Earth when all they eat is seal fat?

It's suggested the omega-3 fatty acids increase blood viscosity, so it flows better, and reduces clotting.

Omega-3 fatty acids are produced by various plants (olives are one) and autotrophs , and biomagnify up the food chain. Wild animals - or true free-range - eat varied diets including lots of those kinds of things. So they are the healthiest kinds of animals for us to eat. Our health depends on a wide variety of nutrients, and so does theirs. And this is where I think the problem is... Most meat we eat today is fed a very monotonous starchy diet to fatten them as quickly as possible, and then we eat that. No wonder we get fat!

Fat is the fastest tissue to grow, and remember, this stuff is sold by weight, so there's a strong commercial incentive.

People talk about the "gamey" taste of wild animals. Well, that's how meat is supposed to taste! That means it's full of nutrients. My favourite meat in the world is a grilled kangaroo steak (second is goat). So tangy. And next day I feel like I've got 50% more bounce. :)

Ever seen a fat wild animal?

Gut flora. We're born with sterile intestines. We get most of our gut flora from landing in the {!#%@} our mother expelled while giving birth. Don't cringe. Such is biology. Koalas actually feed their young with {!#%@}.

Maybe the sterile conditions we live under now is contributing to all the allergies and digestive problems? Probably a bunch of other stuff as well...

Still on gut flora. I read an interesting article recently, that there's a particular species of bacteria that lives only on the lining, in very close association, of our intestine, that facilitates nutrient transfer, and there's nothing so much as they like than a bit of greens. So, eat your vegies...

And if you need a really strong course of antibiotics that kills all you gut flora, you might need to take a literal Shit-Pill from your mother, preferably, or even die from malnutrition. Ahh, the majesty of Life...

The adaptability of gut flora? I know if I travel and eat different food, I either get clogged-up for a week, or {!#%@} my guts out. :)
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10176
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jun 18, 2017 4:28 pm

MM: excellent post. Thanks.

Omega 3==I'll google, but it sounds like that is a saturated fat? Famously available in Fish Oil.......if you can avoid the mercury? I buy whole Flax seeds and grind them up a weeks worth at a time to sprinkle on anything I feel like. Then I read that Omega 3 is still "a fat" and should be avoided...all part of one's total caloric intake?

Pros and Cons to all we do..........but we are what we eat. Just like cows in a feed lot.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8104
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Poodle » Sun Jun 18, 2017 4:47 pm

Please refrain from criticising sugar. With a bit of loving care and pretty please, it turns into alcohol.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12217
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby JO 753 » Sun Jun 18, 2017 4:49 pm

Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11306
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Major Malfunction » Sun Jun 18, 2017 5:15 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:if you can avoid the mercury

My thesis was heavy metals in seafood.

Ocean water is naturally pretty high in mercury. It's really not a concern. We can naturally expel a certain amount. Shallower coastal waters near industry and surface run-off present a problem, however. I found the mercury was much lower in freshwater-fed seawater than open ocean. But! Had really high concentrations of lead and cadmium.

Which, again, we can excrete, to a certain degree.

We're built for this whole living in our environment thang. And we've been doing it for a long time.

Praise be to biology!
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10176
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jun 18, 2017 5:22 pm

Major Malfunction wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:if you can avoid the mercury

My thesis was heavy metals in seafood.

Thanks for the heads up: so you really aren't to be trusted?

So...mercury...you split an infinitive or something. Whats not to worry: mercury in sea water or mercury build up in top predators?

And if you know: which is worse: mercury in wild tuna, or general poor protein and fat in farm raised tuna==>or whats the fact of the matter?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11306
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Major Malfunction » Sun Jun 18, 2017 5:29 pm

I don't recommend eating me.

I eat a lot of seafood.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3065
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby ElectricMonk » Sun Jun 18, 2017 5:51 pm

My 18th century nutritional guide book tells me Mercury is good for me.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11306
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Major Malfunction » Sun Jun 18, 2017 6:09 pm

Munch away on my corpse, my friend. But take note of my disclaimer...

I may also contain milk, soy, and added MSG.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10176
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jun 18, 2017 6:45 pm

How are your nuts?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11306
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Major Malfunction » Sun Jun 18, 2017 6:51 pm

Salty.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10176
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jun 18, 2017 7:30 pm

Does dry roasting hurt at all?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11306
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Major Malfunction » Sun Jun 18, 2017 7:38 pm

It causes some shrinkage.

Contents may settle in the package during transport.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Jun 18, 2017 8:01 pm

To MM

responding to your earlier post.

Cellulose cannot be treated as a 'Sugar. For example, it is insoluble in water. A very important practical difference.

Eskimos have been found to be prone to heart disease. The old idea they were not is something of a myth. Seal blubber is not actually a healthy food.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Jun 18, 2017 8:02 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I do render or save all fats that come off food and save it: chicken, beef, or pork.
My daughter and I do this too! I thought we were the only ones. We freeze ours in ice cube trays, then pop out the cubes and wrap, then bag them. Free flavor.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:"Living Cheap" is my new hobby. Provides endless new activities.
That it does. Our freezer and pantry contain the seeds and fruits of that hobby. For example, we have a bag for bread ends (double bag, air removed) which, when full, provides bread crumbs, croutons, and stuffing for free. A smaller bags holds cheese ends and rinds. My daughter has made a number of extracts, bitters, and salts from fruit and veg peels/zest, herb stems, and other things that would normally be thrown away, but that still have flavor.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10176
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jun 18, 2017 8:10 pm

LN--freaky. I put the fat in old yogurt cups labeled to type. Ice cubes of the stock for use as one would...ice cubes seem to rule my world these days. With my VitaMix, I get instant ice cream and with more liquid a smoothie. My favorite use is to make popsicles. Any older fruit and vegetables that are no longer "table presentable" go into the blender then liquid goes into used cottage cheese containers. Freeze--then scrap the surface with a spoon for popsicles. Works great. As they are all fruit or vegetable no added sugars...they can be eaten once a day with abandon.

I fill a milk carton with meat and vegetable scraps and blend those too--to add to chili beans as a thickner.

I'm about as close to zero waste as you can get...... if eating it counts.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11306
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Major Malfunction » Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:08 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Cellulose cannot be treated as a 'Sugar. For example, it is insoluble in water. A very important practical difference.

Maltose, dextrose, fructose, sucrose, glucose, lactose, cellulose. Seeing a theme here?
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:33 pm

They are all saccharides, but not all are sugars. Polysaccharides are not normally referred to as sugars.. Cellulose in particular is not a sugar in nutritional terms. It is indigestible in the human gut, and cannot contribute to energy production, or to weight gain.

You do not refer to a house as a brick, even if it is made of bricks.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11306
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Major Malfunction » Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:49 pm

Lactose is mostly produced by adult mammals, and yet mostly indigestible by adult mammals.

Can you explain that?
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19632
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby scrmbldggs » Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:02 am

They grew out of it?
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19632
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby scrmbldggs » Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:08 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:MM: excellent post. Thanks.

Omega 3==I'll google, but it sounds like that is a saturated fat? Famously available in Fish Oil.......if you can avoid the mercury? I buy whole Flax seeds and grind them up a weeks worth at a time to sprinkle on anything I feel like. Then I read that Omega 3 is still "a fat" and should be avoided...all part of one's total caloric intake?

Pros and Cons to all we do..........but we are what we eat. Just like cows in a feed lot.

To Fish and Flax a Pro ands Canola.
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11306
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Major Malfunction » Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:30 am

scrmbldggs wrote:They grew out of it?

The ability to produce the enzyme lactase usually switches off on mammals after the infant stage.

In the mutant humans that can digest lactose in adulthood, the gene "leaks". So there's always some lactase floating about. And if there's lactose, it causes a positive feedback system in the cells to produce more lactase.

If you don't happen to have that mutation, lactose goes right through you, undigested, just like cellulose.

And you have the shits.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19632
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby scrmbldggs » Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:34 am

No sits here. I'm a mute and human, yay!
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11306
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby Major Malfunction » Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:59 am

You're always my sugarbunny-sweetheart, honeydove.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19632
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Coconut BAD!

Postby scrmbldggs » Mon Jun 19, 2017 2:54 am

:rain:
Hi, Io the lurker.


Return to “Healthcare”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests