Wheat and oatmeal have a lot of anti nutrients to prevent you from digesting them. White rice less so. Scottish use to ferment their oats. At that point its super easy to digest. I ate a similar fermented corn in China. You can soak your oats over night too that helps. And eat sour doe bread.
Comment on I have lost faith in almost *EVERY* vaccine
PureBloodMasculine@wolfballs.com 2 years agoI don’t eat corn, wheat , or soy
Pretty much all grains destroy my stomach these days. I started noticing I cant eat oatmeal then wheat then most corn products... rice is a little better...I wonder if its all the chems.
masterofballs@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
Spotted_Lady@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
Natural corn is not all that nutritious anyway. That is why chemically treating it in lye was done many years ago and to the current day. That is how you get hominy and grits. Corn is treated in sodium hydroxide to dissolve the layers that humans cannot digest. And I imagine after that, it would maybe be soaked in vinegar to remove any residual lye, and maybe baking soda to remove residual vinegar, or however.
masterofballs@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
Natural corn is not all that nutritious anyway
No plant is. Plants are my food's food.
Spotted_Lady@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
Yeah, but some natural plants are more nutritious than others. Soybeans are more complete, but you don't want the phytoestrogens and similar. Peanuts, and nuts in general are better than a lot of things.
My point is that treated (or popped) corn is more nutritious than boiling corn right off the cob.
Spotted_Lady@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
No, I think it is worse than "chemicals." Chemicals are sprayed on the plants. They have done worse. They've modified the genomes. See, to make it "RoundUp resistant," they added some of the DNA of a noxious weed that RoundUp cannot kill. So most of the grains are not what they say they are. They are new plants that are like the grains in question.
You can't wash DNA off.
PureBloodMasculine@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
Good point
iamtanmay@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
Gene modification tech is not bad on its own. Humankind has been doing it via hybridisation since the start of agriculture.
However, unchecked corporate greed combined with this tech, like any other powerful tech, is destructive to everyone.
I feel that maybe the solution to all these problems lies in reforming patents. If we had a good way to reward inventions, while making it open source, companies could not black box things for consumers.
It maybe a better alternative than regulation, which just gets corrupted by BigCorp over time, and is a blocker to new innovation.
Spotted_Lady@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
It is just that gene splicing is far more invasive than selective breeding.
And I agree that corporate greed is a bad thing and might be what will cause excellent germ lines to be lost forever. I hate that whole thing about pollen drift causing farmers to lose their land because big ag will use that as an excuse to steal their land from them.
iamtanmay@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
'Invasive' isn't the word I would choose. Rather 'efficient'/'powerful'/'dangerous'. The analogy would be coal vs nuclear. Efficiency/danger are 6 orders of magnitude apart (3M kilos coal per kilo U235).
Gene splicing should be measured in how fast it can create change. What would take a farmer several years naturally can be done in days in a lab. I would guess 3 to 5 orders of magnitude more efficient artificially (Practically its slower. Every trial needs to be grown many times to get reliable results)
Is this good or bad ? Depends on who pulls the trigger.
Humans worst enemy has always been humans.
As technology accelerates exponentially to singularity, its certain we will get wiped out. By malice or mistake.
Just look at WIV created Cov19. Breakthrough upon viral breakthrough, from small GOF additions to humanised mouse lungs, till voila !
Curtains