I suppose you'd have to say what you mean by "healthy" <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/smiley.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=""> They're surely better than a lot of cereals..no sugar, preservatives, etc. Puffed wheat is actually my favorite.
No, they are not healthy. You are much better off with a hot cereal like oatmeal or grits. As far as cold cereals, Familia is ideal. It is basically oats, nuts, dried apples and raisins. I can get the facts about why puffed foods are not healthy, just let me know if you want them.
I'd love those facts, too. I can't imagine what happens to them to make them not healthy. Or did you mean that they're neutral? Nothing specifically healthy, but not bad for you? How would you compare them to brown rice, or potato chips?
Ok, take a look at this webpage: <a href="http://drbenkim.com/articles/acrylamide-food.htm" target="_blank">http://drbenkim.com/articles/acrylamide-food.htm</a>. It pretty much explains it. BTW, Dr. Ben Kim is a fabulous nutritionist and has plenty of other great articles on his website.
No, they aren't healthy. I read of some studies quoted in one of Harvey Diamond's book that showed them to be pretty unhealthy. I know we don't believe in animal studies, but mice fed puffed grains died in two weeks, which was faster than those fed a diet of sugar. You would think puffed grains would be better than sugar, but apparently not. I don't remember all the details of the study.
Looking at that link, I'm not sure what he means by soft bread. And I'm assuming he means pizza dough? I wonder if home made is the same as storebought.<br><br><br><br>
I can't find anything about puffed foods on that page, though. I did a Find on this page search for puffed, and nothing. Popcorn is there, and a lot of common foods that I also eat.
Elena, there are puffed cereals on that list. From that article you should have gotten that puffed foods contain acrylamides, which are cancer causing.<br><br><br><br>
Sorry about the bad news <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/hug.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":hug:">
Ehh, I'm not ready to jump on the paranoia wagon yet. What is considered a large dose? I need numbers, at least a range, not a table with numbers that mean nothing beside them. How much do you have to eat, how often? And considering how common these foods are, why don't we all have neurological disorders and/or cancer? And what kind of cancer did the animals get?<br><br><br><br>
Plus, this guy is trying to sell stuff. He has an agenda. I'm not discrediting him completely based on that, but it makes him suspicious.<br><br><br><br>
I'd also trust it more if this was posted in a medical journal. It's not a good idea to just believe things that you read on the internet, you know?
What is considered large doses? That's like asking what large doses of red meat is. Just try to avoid those foods as much as possible. You don't have to eat any of those foods, they have been correlated with cancer after all.<br><br><br><br>
Elena, we have a cancer epidemic never before seen in our country and neurological disorders are really on the rise. More children have ADHD now than ever before. Same goes for depression and anxiety disorders. This cannot be contributed solely to these foods, however, but you cannot say that neurological disorders and cancer are not prevailant in our society.<br><br><br><br>
I have also read medical journals on the internet that prove the same thing this guy is saying. I will get them if you'd like.
Agreed with those saying that these are not the <i>most</i> healthful choice..you could get more fiber, etc. by choosing a different cereal.<br><br><br><br>
The verdict on acrylamides is far from set though. Remember the big brouhaha after the "potato chip" study a couple of years ago?
I'd still like to see numbers, if they're available. It's hard to read that table properly when you don't know if 100 means really bad, or average, or what, and how much people with neurological disorders caused by these foods had.<br><br><br><br>
By the way, I live in Canada, not the US. I actually haven't heard of half of the cereals on that list. We have different standards (note: not necessarily better, just different), for example there's a lot less high-fructose corn syrup going around. We do still have that awful Count Chocula and Trix, though, which I agree should not be a regular part of anyone's diet. I noticed that Rice Krispies wasn't there, and that's puffed rice. That's the only cereal I eat regularly.<br><br><br><br>
Sure, if you can find the articles in medical journals online, I'd like to see them. I mostly wanted to know if this particular doctor has this article in a medical journal.
Dr. Ben Kim is located in Canada as well. And that list is not perfect and will not have all cereals on it. I will look at the numbers to see what you are talking about. I will also post the studies later today when I can find them.
To clarify, I'll explain again; beside each product, there is a number. It could be 32, 104, 523, 209, etc. He explains that it's parts per billion, but not the significance. I'm assuming that each one is for one serving, but he doesn't say when it becomes dangerous. For example, if you have 1 serving a day of something that is a 200, is that dangerous? Or if you have 3 servings a day of something that is 50, is that dangerous? The numbers just don't mean much to me, especially when most of them seem to be under 200, then there are a few that are in the 400s/500s. If the answer is to use moderation, how do we know what a good level of moderation is? Should we just not eat the ones that are above 300?
A forum community dedicated to vegetarian, vegans, and vegetable enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about agriculture, preparation, cooking, recipes, scales, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!