About whole grains and cardiovascular disease. Whole grains help with control of blood glucose as they provide fiber. So they help with diabetes and gut microbiome.
The comparisons they do are against refined grains diet. I’d assume both are low on saturated fats and other significant factors in heart disease.
Also not all grains are the same. Oats have higher β-Glucans and give protection against heart disease.
Richard Oberdiecksays:
The comment “We are using much less land than we used to” is a bit misleading though, as I would have intuitively assumed that this is in absolute terms and not per capita. This leads me to ask: did land use increase in absolute terms in the last 50 years?
The comment is immediately followed by the following sentence:
People in 2014 used about a third of the land, compared with people from 1961, on a per capita basis.
Maynard Handleysays:
US population has also INCREASED around 44% since the late 1970s…
per capita improvements are of little value if they are not matched by a flat or declining total population. And the social conversation seems to consist primarily of
• population will “naturally” decrease because reasons (which appear to be related, if you push, to the cost [money and opportunity] of raising children). This is why the state and society don’t need to to worry about population growth
along with
• it is so expensive and difficult to raise children, and that is why [insert social policy] is needed to reduce this cost and difficulty.
The mutual incoherence in all these viewpoints seems unlikely to lead to optimal (or even positive) outcomes.
About whole grains and cardiovascular disease. Whole grains help with control of blood glucose as they provide fiber. So they help with diabetes and gut microbiome.
The comparisons they do are against refined grains diet. I’d assume both are low on saturated fats and other significant factors in heart disease.
Also not all grains are the same. Oats have higher β-Glucans and give protection against heart disease.
The comment “We are using much less land than we used to” is a bit misleading though, as I would have intuitively assumed that this is in absolute terms and not per capita. This leads me to ask: did land use increase in absolute terms in the last 50 years?
The comment is immediately followed by the following sentence:
US population has also INCREASED around 44% since the late 1970s…
per capita improvements are of little value if they are not matched by a flat or declining total population. And the social conversation seems to consist primarily of
• population will “naturally” decrease because reasons (which appear to be related, if you push, to the cost [money and opportunity] of raising children). This is why the state and society don’t need to to worry about population growth
along with
• it is so expensive and difficult to raise children, and that is why [insert social policy] is needed to reduce this cost and difficulty.
The mutual incoherence in all these viewpoints seems unlikely to lead to optimal (or even positive) outcomes.