Re: rectifying

I was implying it clumps in our intestines, thus promoting the nice eliminations. Whether that word is helpful or not the action of many foods pull intestinal bacteria out in eliminatin and should be understood and kept in mind by anyone challanged in that area.

I agree w you that bran is a very real food source, I dont think I said or implied that it was not, no need to get into the chemistry of it, thats not new, unusual or hidden knowledge.

One point may be that it isnt that easily digested by humans especially with the way we usually choose to eat all our grains, and taking into account all the processed food ailments it might be more benficial to look elswhere for those positive attributes. It might be important to keep in mind that just because a food item has beneficial qualities , has certain health revivifiying aspects, and will keep a healthy human alive, it doesnt mean that we cant have some caveats w re to its placement in diet choices, again not withstanding your diatribe on its actions, tho I hold that if we chewed the grain or heart of the grain and mixed it completely with the appropriate digestive enzyme we would get not only what you describe, of which you go into detail,but actually far more of the available oses( and the elimination would accordingly get better not because of its clumping ability). You might agree that actually only a portional percentage of the bran is actually changed because of its makeup and the choice we use in intaking it.

So w re to the oses molecules, again if you think I implied that to eat only these , I didnt mean too. It is obvious that we only use glucose drip in dire circumstances. The value of the fiber is partly as you mention, of course,tho not the only nor the first choice of intestinal bacteria ect, but also it slows digestion so we dont have the circumstances you attributed to the post. This is why juice fasting isnt quite the best of course and we all should be aware of the reality here.

Its funny again, I was probably the only one here on CZ mentioning, as inoften as I do, that the oses' were being maligned incorrectly untill you also started educating others here, being that its such a big missunderstanding. Tho they could just have done more than read Duffy's book or believe what someone told them before blaming processed Sugar for so many things. But dont think by that I am proposing using processed sugar, only saying that we all need to do research into all our options and choices so we can choose wisely vs roboticly.

However I think you may want to reconsider the differences you tried to make w re to my lubricant molecule analogy which I had tried to say wasnst quite right but it had a certain feel to it at the time and I was trying to lighten the mood.
The oses molecules make up all the carbs so the size of the molecules are the same, its the compound which is a different size, making it either difficult to break into as in the starches or better yet celulose or easier as in fruits or too easy to assimulate as you mention w straight sugars. The difference being that the new lubricants are actually smaller molecules than the petroleum molecule. Many use the popcorn ball analogy when teaching about the oses makeup of carbs. But I know you know this just wanted to straighten it out for anyone who actually gets this far.

So again I dont think w really dissagree all that much. Perhaps I wasnt specific enough. Perhaps my choices are a bit different. The chemistry is the evidence tho the human petri dish being so affected by time( generations) and unhealthy choices, that it can really take a lot of imperfect tending and still be quite strong, tho the proof of healthy aged specimens is a very interesting part of the mix.

Yeah we all need glucose, our choice of which fiber we find it in may be different but we agree straight up isnt one of them.






















Tweet