Comments on: So Now Kale is Bad For You? https://www.bornfitness.com/now-kale-bad/ The Rules of Fitness REBORN Sat, 23 Dec 2017 19:40:35 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 By: Suzie https://www.bornfitness.com/now-kale-bad/#comment-3432 Sat, 23 Dec 2017 19:40:35 +0000 https://www.bornfitness.com/?p=2491#comment-3432 I was curious, so I went and googled the article you referenced. And I do think you missed the point. The writer was saying that we need to think about food in terms of overall diet, not just assuming some foods are healthy (therefore you can eat as much as you want, however you want) and some aren’t.

I’ve seen a lot of ‘healthy’ smoothie bowls that are probably 1200 calories+ and full of sugar, even if it is coming from dried fruit rather than cereal. And as you say in this post, it’s possible to eat desert every day and still lose weight if your overall calorie intake is below a certain threshold.

I just think you have more in common with the article writer than you might think (though I agree the headline is misleading).

]]> By: Ann Hupe https://www.bornfitness.com/now-kale-bad/#comment-1310 Thu, 30 Nov 2017 08:46:05 +0000 https://www.bornfitness.com/?p=2491#comment-1310 I totally agree with “too much of a good thing is still bad for you” philosophy. I also believe that one should be very careful of what you think is healthy for you but isn’t. My biggest pet peeve? Soy. Everyone says soy is good for you. Tofu is good for you. Uh… not necessarily. If you research on how Asians eat the common soy bean, they have to either sprout it or ferment it to remove anti-nutrients that actually will hurt you. So what happens here in the States? “Did you sprout the soybeans before making them into tofu?” Pause. “Wha?” Do you know how much soy bean protein is added to so many processed foods without removal of anti-nutrients?? Now we find out that soy products reduce the life expectancy of the chicken. What do we force-feed chickens? Soybeans. We need to pay attention to cultural treatment of ingredients we did not have in our diet. Worse, now we know that bread made from good ol’ wheat has the same problem! So how does this hypothesis holds? Because we changed the way we make bread. Prior to one hundred years ago, we made bread with both yeast and bacteria in the form of sourdough starter, biga, and other preferments. Now we make it with just yeast, ignoring the important role of lactobacilli in ridding the wheat of its anti-nutrients. What if people who do not test out positive for Celiac’s Disease but claim that they must be gluten-intolerant are actually susceptible to anti-nutrients?

Something else to think about. We eat a TON of sugar now, still much more so than two hundred years ago. Now we just discovered that fructose, found in table sugar, honey, etc., gets preferentially converted to fat that doesn’t get metabolized very easily. No wonder high-fructose-corn-syrup-sweetened drinks contribute to childhood obesity.

My only question is this: Are there any more alternatives other than stop eating ANYTHING sweet? (This includes fresh fruit). *shrug* I don’t know. I’m a biochemist and a physician, and I don’t know. Any suggestions?

]]>