News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Sugar Conspiracy by colordrops on Saturday April 09, 2016 @09:02PM (#11464269)
it's really hard maintaining this discussion, as your responses keep dragging in things that have nothing to do with what I said. I have nothing against science, modern agriculture, selective breeding, basic packing and cleaning techniques, etc.

And calling "rule of thumb" black and white indicates that you aren't familiar with the typical usage of the term, which is the opposite of "black and white".

If you can't conceive of the concept of processing as being a spectrum of more or less transformation of the initial food item, then there isn't any reason to further this discussion. If you think that cleaning lettuce is the same as using a bioreactor to change the chemical structure of a food, you are just plain wrong.

Re:The Sugar Conspiracy by victorhooi on Tuesday April 12, 2016 @11:02PM (#11485404)
Err, what exactly are you against?

You said:

> I'm of the exact same dietary philosophy as yourself. I derived it through reading and experimentation before paleo was even a thing, as it appears Jack Lalanne did as well. Most people who attack a simple sensible diet like this are really just exposing their own insecurities and desire to not give up the crap they injest themselves.

> a good rule of thumb is that the less processed a food is, the more likely it is to be better for you".

The things you have just named are processing - so it may make more sense if you actual clarify what exactly it is you are against?

What does it mean for a food to be "less" processed, then?