Blog

Is it okay to eat 100% whole-grain bread?

Bread gets a lot of bad rep lately, and most of the time it’s for a good reason.  Most bread you pick up randomly in stores is basically like eating spoonfuls of sugar.  The glycemic index is high (meaning it burns quickly), the nutrient content is low, and it’s typically not very well balanced macro-nutritionally either (that is: the protein:fats:carbs is not optimal).  Even if you get the good whole-grain bread, it is usually very calorically (and physically) dense, which wouldn’t be as bad of a thing if the bread was well-balanced macro-nutritionally (that is: with more protein).

That being said, there is a such thing as low-glycemic, well-balanced (both macro- and micro-nutritional) bread.  The American Diabetic Association says that any bread made with 100% stone-ground whole grains has a low-glycemic index of under 56.

My 7-grain bread is very high in protein and made with 100% stone-ground wheat by Carolina Ground Mills.  I also add other nutritional 100% whole grains which are hard to get otherwise, like flaxseed, buckwheat, and sorghum.  I also make my bread very light and fluffy, so the caloric density is not very high either.

Bread, if done right, can actually provide a very healthy source for nutrients that are otherwise hard to get.  With a low-glycemic index for sustainable slow-burning carbohydrates, plenty of protein, no unhealthy oils, and lots of nutrients, some bread is a great option to add to a nutritious and delicious diet.

Saturated Fat is Bad, Mmk

Inkedcreative-breakups-6J_1525_LI

Recently the American Heart Association doubled down on its claim that saturated fat is bad for you.  Its target this time: coconut oil.  The AHA has been attacking saturated fat for the last ~50 years, and won’t give up just yet.

In its recent offense, the AHA claims that coconut oil has saturated fat: a dramatic and surprising conclusion.  The director Frank Sacks wonders why everyone thinks it’s good for you, when coconut oil is made up of almost entirely….fat.

While we can all appreciate his insight, perhaps he should take a step back.  Maybe he’s heard of the non-sequitur logical fallacy (or more formally, affirming the consequent).  For the layman, it goes as this: a=b, b=c, therefore a=c.  While this may be true in mathematics, in the complex world, this is not always the case, and conclusions about ‘a’ cannot be made based on conclusions about ‘b’.

In fact, since the original attack against saturated fat in the 1970s, mounting evidence has been provided that while, yes, saturated fat can possibly (but not always) increase LDL cholesterol, there is not a proven link to saturated fat and heart disease.

On the other hand, the AHA has been relatively silent until fairly recently about table sugar (more specifically, fructose), which has been consistently linked to heart disease, diabetes, and obesity, otherwise known as the metabolic syndrome.  They don’t however, attack apples and oranges (thankfully).

The motives behind the AHAs continued slaughts against saturated fat after 50 years of contrary research remains unclear.  It may possibly just be an extreme case of denial or possibly something more sinister, but it is quite clear that the research behind the risks of saturated fat are unsubstantial.

http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=PH1997011100

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009912004001201

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/004947559702700409

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814605006412

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751499107000431

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/42/2/190.short

To D.Volv is to evolv

In socio-political theory, to devolve is to localize markets from a large centralized organization closer to the individual.  Devolution gives the individual more control over their resource management and holds markets, both traditional and political, more accountable.

Devolution, or decentralization, is the difference between a diverse marketplace with lots to choose from and a monopolized marketplace with little choice.  If you have more choices, you generally have better control over what diversifications you wish to subsidize.  Whereas, in a monopolized environment, you only have two choices, yay or nay, and in the political realm, there is only one choice, yay.

Because an individual has more choices when markets are devolved, the market is better held accountable.  If one business doesn’t suit your needs, you can move to the next one.  When a majority of people do not fund businesses that have specific practices, the business suffers financially and is more incentivized to change those practices than if the market was monopolized.

Though large centralized organizations can sometimes be beneficial in voluntary exchanges, decentralization is often better for most people.  So by all means, shop local, or D.Volv your marketplaces if it best suits your needs.  Sometimes, that’s what is necessary to progress to a more efficient and effective way of evolving the needs of the people.