Tue, Jan-24-17, 09:21
|
|
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
|
|
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
|
|
Yes. Stephan Guyunet has a post defending sugar--sort of. Basically looking at "sweet spot" studies where at a certain level of sugar, animals will eat the most, and increasing or decreasing sugar from this point will decrease food intake. Those of us interested in how people could be healthier read studies like this to see how things can be made better--industry reads them to see how profits can be increased. Besides evil genius, there's the sort of natural selection at work in the free market. Bet you can't have just one--foods that can't make this claim, disappear from the shelves.
With the wheat--tiny bits of wheat or gluten can make big differences in consistency and flavour, even for people without an actual gluten intolerance. Take a piece of toast--even a little browning, involving a fraction of the surface of the bread makes a massive difference in taste. Same with sugar, the "sweet spot" is obviously very malleable when browning reactions come into the picture.
|