I Too Was Raised On Processed Foods..(1x57.com)
1x57.com
I Too Was Raised On Processed Foods..
http://1x57.com/2011/02/16/i-too-was-raised-on-processed-foods/?sms_ss=hackernews&at_xt=4d5c28ce9397f589%2C0
3 comments
"With all this variability in farming a single item of broccoli could either contain all you need or nothing at all." Uh, no. It's not going to contain all the protein I need.
@mmagin - you would be surprised what the real story on this is. Protein in this sense is a made up word. The original term comes from biology and refers to cell walls and the like. In the world of nutrition it has been co-opted by marketers to define quality foods. The truth is that it doesn't define quality at all.
In fact, the latest accepted research shows that the body needs 23 amino acids to survive (this is most likely what the marketers call protein). Broccoli and many other foods contain several of these amino acids. Meat also contains these amino acids.
What's been corruptedly marketed is that some meat contains around 18+ of the amino acids so they say eat meat for "protein". Of all foods, meat contains the most amino acids, but it also contains other things that reduce the value of the 18+.
They have been finding that eating vegetables/fruits/nuts is much better because they don't have the other bad things that meat does.
(with that being said I am not a vegetarian, I do eat meat, just not a lot because I like to be fit and in shape)
In fact, the latest accepted research shows that the body needs 23 amino acids to survive (this is most likely what the marketers call protein). Broccoli and many other foods contain several of these amino acids. Meat also contains these amino acids.
What's been corruptedly marketed is that some meat contains around 18+ of the amino acids so they say eat meat for "protein". Of all foods, meat contains the most amino acids, but it also contains other things that reduce the value of the 18+.
They have been finding that eating vegetables/fruits/nuts is much better because they don't have the other bad things that meat does.
(with that being said I am not a vegetarian, I do eat meat, just not a lot because I like to be fit and in shape)
> but it also contains other things that reduce the value of the 18+
What, in specific?
What, in specific?
@Derleth - thx for asking. Here is one source, the Harvard School of Public Health:
(intro)...Surprisingly little is known about protein and health...
(from the section: Protein Package)
Animal protein and vegetable protein probably have the same effects on health. It's the protein package that's likely to make a difference.
A 6-ounce broiled porterhouse steak is a great source of complete protein—38 grams worth. But it also delivers 44 grams of fat, 16 of them saturated. (2) That's almost three-fourths of the recommended daily intake for saturated fat. The same amount of salmon gives you 34 grams of protein and 18 grams of fat, 4 of them saturated. (2) A cup of cooked lentils has 18 grams of protein, but under 1 gram of fat. (2)
The bottom line is that it's important to pay attention to what comes along with the protein in your food choices.
(intro)...Surprisingly little is known about protein and health...
(from the section: Protein Package)
Animal protein and vegetable protein probably have the same effects on health. It's the protein package that's likely to make a difference.
A 6-ounce broiled porterhouse steak is a great source of complete protein—38 grams worth. But it also delivers 44 grams of fat, 16 of them saturated. (2) That's almost three-fourths of the recommended daily intake for saturated fat. The same amount of salmon gives you 34 grams of protein and 18 grams of fat, 4 of them saturated. (2) A cup of cooked lentils has 18 grams of protein, but under 1 gram of fat. (2)
The bottom line is that it's important to pay attention to what comes along with the protein in your food choices.
sorry here is a ref link for that:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-...
and one for the Mayo Clinic (which actually shows that meat isn't as bad for your heart as once thought, only 10-20% increases ur chances of heart disease, and 10-20% increases chances of diabetes) (as compared to vegetable protein which increases neither and prob decreases them):
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/red-meat/MY01329
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-...
and one for the Mayo Clinic (which actually shows that meat isn't as bad for your heart as once thought, only 10-20% increases ur chances of heart disease, and 10-20% increases chances of diabetes) (as compared to vegetable protein which increases neither and prob decreases them):
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/red-meat/MY01329
This reminds me of the post about avoiding Ramen and Pizza while getting Ramen-profitable - take care of your body to keep your mind at its best
Does this guy have any evidence or just his unsupported assertions?
@derleth - yep - I cited two popular and well accepted (in the scientific community) studies.
You might try using a distinctive color for links. I didn't even see them until I read your comment, said "bullshit" under my breath, and went back to look for them. Only then did I notice links are #000 and the text is #555.
lol, i know. They came with the theme..
I keep experimenting with the colors but can't find one that isnt obnoxious!
I keep experimenting with the colors but can't find one that isnt obnoxious!
Ok, I bolded them, not perfect but it's better.
While on that topic, can you please use bold for emphasis and underline the links? Links on the web should be underlined unless you really make a big effort to distinguish them from the text in some other way.
Bold font just doesn't cut it.
If you don't want to think about it much, just slap some nice blue and underlining on the links and be done with it. That's a standard that will be recognized by everybody.
It's better to have your links ugly than not visible (recognizable) at all.
Bold font just doesn't cut it.
If you don't want to think about it much, just slap some nice blue and underlining on the links and be done with it. That's a standard that will be recognized by everybody.
It's better to have your links ugly than not visible (recognizable) at all.
The bold helps, it calls attention to the link, but is still a little unconventional. Have you tried #007, it's a subtle dark blue, might not be too obnoxious.
@Thomas, Original - I agree completely. The boss chose the theme for other style elements. The main problem I am having is adding a element (CSS?) that styles the content links differently than the sidebar links. Since everything on the sidebar is a link making it blue would totally change the style of the page.
I need to do some research on how to make just content links underline/colored.
thx!
I need to do some research on how to make just content links underline/colored.
thx!