Health and nutrition is arguably one of the most volatile, convoluted and, yes, dogmatic areas of scholarship.
I say this because our supermarket aisles are lined with misleading and deceptive conduct, or at very least, an inconclusive choice of 'healthy options'.
But hey, that's what makes this so interesting!
Recently, I'd debated the concept of restricted caloric intake versus eating a desired amount of healthy, unprocessed food.
On the one side, my friend stressed that weight loss can be achieved as long as your calories are in deficit, regardless of where you obtain these calories.
I however, told him that if a dietician told a client they could remain looking good, as long as they consume a set amount of calories, despite any nutritional, health or well-being factors, they will soon face a judge in a Civil court.
In my opinion, this approach is so incredibly stupid, it borders on negligence for anyone in a position of professional influence over another.
Today's Daily Quota is the article he linked to me. As you can imagine, I don't particularly agree with this article. However, I remain open minded and await a response from others that might want to have their input.
This study was conducted on a small sample space, and each person was fed three different meals - one fast food burger and fried, one completely organic burger and fried (cooked in certified organic canola oil etc), and the other was a turkey breast sandwich. Each consisted of the same caloric content.
Basically, a simple constant-variable analysis. Their hormone levels were tested and it was discovered that no immediate volatility was seen amongst test subjects.
Could it be, then, that fast food and unprocessed food can have the same effect, as long as they hold the same caloric content?
Have a read yourself, make up your own mind. Is quantity more important that quality? Is a Daily Quota about J-Lo the same as a Daily Quota about Plato?
Whether you agree or not, it's still very much food for thought.
READ IT HERE
I say this because our supermarket aisles are lined with misleading and deceptive conduct, or at very least, an inconclusive choice of 'healthy options'.
But hey, that's what makes this so interesting!
Recently, I'd debated the concept of restricted caloric intake versus eating a desired amount of healthy, unprocessed food.
On the one side, my friend stressed that weight loss can be achieved as long as your calories are in deficit, regardless of where you obtain these calories.
I however, told him that if a dietician told a client they could remain looking good, as long as they consume a set amount of calories, despite any nutritional, health or well-being factors, they will soon face a judge in a Civil court.
In my opinion, this approach is so incredibly stupid, it borders on negligence for anyone in a position of professional influence over another.Today's Daily Quota is the article he linked to me. As you can imagine, I don't particularly agree with this article. However, I remain open minded and await a response from others that might want to have their input.
This study was conducted on a small sample space, and each person was fed three different meals - one fast food burger and fried, one completely organic burger and fried (cooked in certified organic canola oil etc), and the other was a turkey breast sandwich. Each consisted of the same caloric content.
Basically, a simple constant-variable analysis. Their hormone levels were tested and it was discovered that no immediate volatility was seen amongst test subjects.
Could it be, then, that fast food and unprocessed food can have the same effect, as long as they hold the same caloric content?
Have a read yourself, make up your own mind. Is quantity more important that quality? Is a Daily Quota about J-Lo the same as a Daily Quota about Plato?
Whether you agree or not, it's still very much food for thought.
READ IT HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment