I want to publish a dialogue between two friends where talking about sugar, a sincere and constructive dialogue where you can take ideas and viewpoints. Here is the full version purged from personal references.
October 21, 2009, "X" writes!
Just a small update, thanks for your participation,A hug,Xxxxxx
October 21, 2009 "Y" meets "X"!
hello ... how are you?
Look here '...
looking for news on the kitchen, I came across a study on sugar and you came to me mind you.
I told you I would not be returned to the topic ... but since you're back with a video you ... We return too ...
Bressanini know Dario?
I quote from the web:
"Dario Bressanini is assistant professor in the Department of Chemical and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Mathematical, Physical and Natural Sciences in Como.
to delight the public at the Science articles on food and science and is also author of a fine weblog, Science in the kitchen.
Scardina culinary myths like putting salt to better fit the egg whites, or seal the meat with a browning to keep the juices inside. "
personally has a scientific approach that I liked a lot.
talking about facts, numbers of procedures.
describes what is true and says what is false.
It also refers to direct what is false (or partially false, or manipulated, etc. etc.) circulating on the Internet.
the end does not claim to teach you to eat, but says things that are said and how they are called.
I like to think that knowledge of the facts is a great base on which to make decisions and considerations.
do not know about you, it bothers me to see me to reason from data / facts wrong / false or that I read that I tell.
If you like, from a reading at this link:
http://bressanini-lescienze.blogautore.espresso. repubblica.it / category / sugar /
not only speaks of the "white poison", but going backwards, is thoroughly raw sugar, fructose. ..
In the end, if you want, tell me what you think.
The aim is to make you not eat sugar, believe me.
certainly do not question the decisions of life and respect.
In my little wish to oppose a way to (mis) information (internet and things are dramatically worse).
Xxxxxx, but how fucking .. jokes tell us? (Without knowing that they are jokes). How many buffaloes
sweet? (Without knowing that they are hoaxes).
quote the video:
"of the original plant, beet, cane sugar is not nothing left, no fiber, no enzymes, no vitamin, has been reduced chemically in a carbohydrate load"
that mean?
may also be true ... indeed it is true that "only the sucrose ... but does that mean?
(for the "carbohydrate gap" you refer to a scientific, seria, a livello mondiale che lo stesso Bressanini cita nell'articolo)
Se fosse diversamente... se della canna rimanesse "tutto" (quali sarebbero le percentuali? sarebbero significative?)... per assumere fibre ti rivolgeresti allo zucchero?... per avere tante belle vitamine ti rivolgeresti allo zucchero? ... o forse per fibre, vitamine ecc ecc è meglio rivolgersi ad altri alimenti?
Dalla barbabietola e dalla canna viene estratto zucchero puro, punto, che a me serve per addolcire il tè mettendocene un cucchiaino.
E' così diabolico?
Sono un condannato a morte?
Sull'uso e abuso di un alimento possiamo parlarne (leggasi "corretta alimentazione").
Concordo with the video when he says that sugar is hidden in many foods and are likely to assume large amounts without thinking.
let's talk about food, to limit the quantity of limiting their consumption, education to food ...
But why demonize the sugar in himself?
Because today we find ourselves demonizing pretty (almost) everything?
be clear, I will not convince anyone.
's just to sound a bit' the other bell.
I could write too ...
Some little news to know more about sugar and diet.
Meditamo people ... meditate!
http://bressanini-lescienze.blogautore.espresso. repubblica.it / category / sugar /
reciprocate the embrace,
yyyyyyy
October 29, 2009 "X" answer "Y"!
yyyyyyy Hello, I knew I could count on you as a valid party food on the subject and I thank you so much for this email and I apologize, simultaneously, the delay in answering you.
The type of food choice that I made at this time and of course also involves sugar, is likely to eliminate all that, I think, I too complex and artificial.About our "friendly" white sugar, I think too overly processed and chemically at the same time too simple. At this time, for example, prefer wholemeal bread to white bread simply because it is richer in nutrients and prefer malt sugar or white cane full. A small confession: I can not do without the chocolate and it seems that only you can do with sugar. In this case I trust my friends that I sell a macrobiotic chocolate craft very much and I think "healthy" for what may be a chocolate! ^ _ ^
What I stress with my post was just the complexity of the process of refining the final product, so brilliant that, for the uninitiated, may seem "Demon."if you would, this purging mail from personal references, published this dialogue on my blog?
My grandmother always said: "Xxxxxx, do not eat sweets, you will decay the teeth!" and since I'm a devitalized tooth ... just candy!
A big hug,Xxxxxx.
October 30 "Y" meets again to "X"!
Hello,
food choice be respected absolutely.
No problem for posting on the blog.
As I told you not love the "social networking" in general, including blogs.
E 'for this reason that I responded to your blog in your writings.
A little 'I'm sorry because I think a blog alive because there are those who write and those who send feedback, comments, etc. Who says. Would this
the spirit that should animate a blog, right?
blogs (like the forum) I use them for up to draw on information I need (when I consider them reliable) but I avoid involvement in the discussions.
Yours is a special case ...
admit that every time you send me the email I give him a peek at the bottom I love you.
The "discussion" so I moved to the staff sent my comments privately.
My intention was (and is) to convey my thoughts, I like you're explaining your choices, nothing more.
The question and answer on a blog can take a different look.
Let me explain. Fila
smoothly if you comment to an article in a positive (good, well, thank you ...).
But when you do not agree may be difficult to establish a question and answer constructive remarks may appear as a sharp "is not so. I do not agree. ... You are all caz" (just because The thought otherwise) is likely to discredit the author and you risk being misunderstood.
is not my purpose.
's why I wrote you in private.
But if you think that our exchange of ideas can be useful to your business blog, go ahead, purged from good jokes and personal use it as you want, no problem ... indeed, I think may be admirable of you to also publish the "other bell ...
Chocolate. In
few can resist.
I'm not one of them.
And apparently neither you.
In fact, to my knowledge, there is chocolate without sugar. "
With the catch though ...
instead of sugar is used prodoti others (such as sugar alcohols) do I doubt that eventually produce a "better" (read: healthier).
Who does not want to give up chocolate but has health problems (eg diabetes) may in fact go to those products "alternative" (I say alternative improperly, it is still chocolate).
But the others?
How do you see for once I agree with you 100%. Xxxxxx
Bravo continues to eat the chocolate (the real one !)....
soon,
yyyyyyy.
