The January 2003 issue of Scientific American
has a good collection of interesting articles.
One that might interest everyone is about
nutrition and what can be proven with scientific
evidence. This article changed some of my
misconceptions and is a breath of fresh air
in this confused world.
Before describing the article it is probably
good to look at Scientific American and ask
if they have a bias and how will that impact
what we read. This has always led to one
conclusion. Scientific American believes
that science can solve the worlds problems
and is the path to future improvements. For
me the worlds problems have little to do with
science and more to do with politics, emotions,
and how we organize our cultures. That said,
we can assume that a nutrition article will
not be impacted by SA's bias.
What the article did was take the USDA food
pyramid and compare it to what is currently
known about diet. From this they constructed
a new pyramid and set the two side by side.
Some differences are obvious. Whole grains
replaced refined grains on the base. Fats and
carbohydrates are separated into groups rather
than lumped together. All in all the two charts
were very different. The Scientific chart
looked somewhat like this:
Base:
1. Exercise interacts with diet.
2. Whole grains + vegetable oils
3. vegetables + fruits
middle:
1. legumes and nuts
2. fish, poultry , eggs
top
1. dairy
2. red meat and butter
3. whiter rice, potatoes, white flour, sweets
The top items should be eaten carefully and not in
great quality. The middle items should be part of
most meals and the base group a major part of
meals.
The final sentence in the article: "The food pyramid
should be rebuilt in a setting that is well insulated
from political and economic interests"
jeff - http://www.bctonline.com/users/jko
----
Uncopyrighted, distribute freely.
To unsubscribe email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with the message: unsubscribe your-email-address-here
To subscribe email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with the message: subscribe your-email-address-here
