Jump to content

chips, sweets, choco, ice-cream. What is the worst food for health?


kenny1999
 Share

Recommended Posts

I truly understand that there is no one answer to this question because ingredients for different brands may vary a lot. but I mean, on average, in general, relatively speaking.

 

My guess is, chips is the best, ice-cream is the worst, choco is better than sweets. Am I correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sugar accelerates various degenerative diseases and the aging process, so usually the option with least sugar is the best.  What you want is food with a lower glycemic index - you can google charts that show glycemic index for most foods.  (Figs or bananas for example are better than refined sugar sweets, as they have more fiber to slow absorption in the gut)

And watch out for empty calories with bad side effects, like this....

https://www.cnn.com/videos/media/2022/12/02/cocaine-bear-trailer-moos-cprog-orig-bdk.cnn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

Sugar accelerates various degenerative diseases and the aging process, so usually the option with least sugar is the best.  What you want is food with a lower glycemic index - you can google charts that show glycemic index for most foods.  (Figs or bananas for example are better than refined sugar sweets, as they have more fiber to slow absorption in the gut)

And watch out for empty calories with bad side effects, like this....

https://www.cnn.com/videos/media/2022/12/02/cocaine-bear-trailer-moos-cprog-orig-bdk.cnn

If, to put it simply, avoiding sugars, how about salt? Is it another thing that should be avoided in order to achieve better health?

Edited by kenny1999
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to think more about quantity than the type of foodstuff. Sugar is a bit issue, not necessarily because of it its effect alone. It is more problematic as it is ubiquitous, especially in processed food and because we like it and therefore overeat.

In moderation, most things are not that bad (though alcohol seems one of the exceptions). I.e. if you eat ice cream every now and then, there is very unlikely to be any measurable negative effects. Do it every day, it might be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

chips, sweets, choco, ice-cream. What is the worst food for health?

The worst part is the lack of restraint..

2 hours ago, kenny1999 said:

Am I correct?

No. What matters is the amount per unit of time.

1 minute ago, CharonY said:

In moderation, most things are not that bad (though alcohol seems one of the exceptions).

 

Ancient people who drank alcohol were healthier than poor non-alcohol drinkers, i.e. to make beer you have to boil it ( >= "fresh" water from a polluted river, boiling kills some microbes), wine is just fermented juice (>= fresh water from a polluted river).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Ancient people who drank alcohol were healthier than poor non-alcohol drinkers, i.e. to make beer you have to boil it ( >= "fresh" water from a polluted river, boiling kills some microbes), wine is just fermented juice (>= fresh water from a polluted river).

That is actually a myth. Some sociologist (I think could also be a historian, though I doubt it) proposed that an it went wild, whereas historically there is little evidence of that.

Greeks, for example put wine into their water for taste reasons and they also believed that it would "purify" it (as water would taste less stale). But obviously the alcohol content at that point would be too low to have any antimicrobial effects. But it is possible that misreading of that phrase could have started the myth.

It could also be that it was (as you stated) based on beer. I heard a similar argument, but of note, part of the process is heating the wort. But rather obviously folks were already aware of the effects of cooking. Early writings in Sanskrit and Egyptian (where also the oldest beer brewing occurred) specified boiling or heating to make water drinkable.

Sources in the middle ages have stated that beer was healthier than water, but at that point boiling was fairly common. It is likely due to the fact that beer was considered more nutritious and therefore healthier.

I.e. there is little evidence that alcohol drinking folks were healthier, aside from getting more nutrients from beer (but not because of the alcohol).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CharonY said:

That is actually a myth. Some sociologist (I think) proposed that an it went wild, whereas historically there is little evidence of that. Romans, for example put wine into their water for taste reasons and they also believed that it would purify it (as water would taste less stale). But obviously the alcohol content at that point would be too low to have any antimicrobial effects.

Then, according to your claim, their "alcoholic orgies" are a myth, since there were no drunken.. ? and battles between X and Y, with one being poisoned by alcohol, are also myths.. ?

The Romans made pipes using lead, which is a poison. Wine has no lead (because it is squeezed fruits) unless it is added to sweeten..

Just don't use "fresh water from lead pipes" and you're healthier..

Just don't use "fresh water from polluted river" (see Ganges now, that's how ancient river looked in the past prior invention of sewage treatment plants) and you're healthier..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was editing my post so some things may be redundant now. But the myth is basically that folks were either drinking dirty water or alcoholic beverages and that the latter is healthier because of lower microbial content.

Fact is that boiling water has been fairly common once pottery was developed. And folks were also well aware of seeking out clean sources to begin with.

Folks of course drank alcoholic beverages, same as today, and while some may thought it had health benefits, it was not related to polluted water issues. Mostly it improved taste and in case of beer, also provided nutrients, which could be considered a benefit in the past.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I.e. there is little evidence that alcohol drinking folks were healthier, aside from getting more nutrients from beer (but not because of the alcohol).

You picked up the wrong part of my claim - I claimed that their "fresh river water is polluted" because people living slightly above them in the river dump all the garbage, shit and piss into it, making it polluted. Wine does not have river water inside - thus more healthier.

That's why the Romans started making aqueducts.. to deliver "fresher" water to the city.. (but they used lead)..

The Romans were only part of the ancient world, the rest used (and use now) water from rivers (because they have no choice).

River water without a wastewater treatment plant is contaminated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was not discussing the water source argument, but the claim that 

40 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Ancient people who drank alcohol were healthier than poor non-alcohol drinkers, i

I.e. focusing on the alcohol part. Which, as I argued hat little merit in itself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I was not discussing the water source argument, but the claim that [..]

I.e. focusing on the alcohol part. Which, as I argued hat little merit in itself. 

 

Funny... The poor ancients couldn't buy a "PET bottle of mountain water".

My posts had nothing about the alcohol part - they were all about the regular water source. Wine is juice. Beer is boiled water (so the microbes died).

ps. Obviously ancients had no idea about it.

23 minutes ago, CharonY said:

But the myth is basically that folks were either drinking dirty water or alcoholic beverages and that the latter is healthier because of lower microbial content.

 Do you think drinking dirty water is healthier than drinking alcohol?

Edited by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, kenny1999 said:

If, to put it simply, avoiding sugars, how about salt? Is it another thing that should be avoided in order to achieve better health?

Too much salt can give you high blood pressure so yes. But no need to avoid it completely: if you do that everything will taste horribly bland.

The best advice I can give you is to avoid ready meals of any sort, and especially highly processed ones with a long list of incomprehensible ingredients. Manufacturers tend to use various tricks to make their stuff seem appetising, which may involve various sugars (including high fructose corn syrup, which can make people put on weight at frightening speed), too much salt and various hydrogenated fats, plus other doubtful ingredients. Almost everyone I know who who subsists on ready meals is horribly fat and/or unhealthy seeming. Cook - properly - for yourself: it's good for you, improves your quality of life and the modest time you spend doing it is a good way to unwind.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The worst food for health is anything that is high in saturated fats, trans fats, refined sugars and processed foods. These junk foods are notorious for being unhealthy and can cause a variety of health problems, from obesity to heart disease. Eating too much of these unhealthy foods can also lead to other serious issues such as an increased risk of diabetes or stroke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.