Scientist Invents World's First Perfectly Healthy Pizza
- Thread starter Fanghawk
- Start date
From the country that gave us deep fried pizza I say Fuckin' hypocrits - I think I spelled that wrong...anyways...Fanghawk said:Scientist Invents World's First Perfectly Healthy Pizza
Scottish brainiacs have developed a nutritionally balanced pizza that can (and should) be eaten three times a day.
Pizza is a surprisingly complex food. It's delicious, relatively easy to make, and can be created with a near infinite variety of toppings. You may prefer other meals, but the odds are pretty low that anyone will build specialized restaurants around them that deliver right to your doorstep. The only problem is that eating copious amounts of pizza on a regular basis lends itself to an early death via heart disease or diabetes. But since nobody in their right mind was ever going to stop eating pizza to prevent little things like heart attacks, a Scottish team at Glasgow University has done a great service to humankind: they designed "nutritionally balanced" pizzas that can be consumed for every meal without putting yourself into a coma.
It all began when Professor Mike Lean of the university's human nutrition department became frustrated with the nutritional content of processed meals. "They contain as much salt as you should have in a whole day or more," Lane said. "They contain as much saturated fat as you should have in a whole day or more. The nutrients we need every day are absent from these meals. Nobody has thought about it. So I got together with [Eat Balanced Founder Donnie Maclean] to try to do this."
Using pizza as an example of "common foods eaten in huge numbers" that could be consumed at any time of day, Lean and Maclean started looking at ways to raise nutrient and vitamin content while lowering calories and carbohydrates to reasonable levels. The final product, using nutrient-rich seaweed in the dough, can actually meet most of the body's needs when eaten three times a day. "Each pizza gives a complete meal, with all the nutrients in it, for 30% of your day," Maclean explained.
But is it any good? According to 100 taste testers, the nutritional pizza is ranked as good or better than other frozen pizzas currently available on the market. United Kingdom Supermarkets are already in talks to bring the pizzas to their stores, but Lean and Maclean are moving on to develop recipes for nutritionally balanced fish and chips. Seriously.
While we'll have to wait and see whether nutritionally balanced meals will make their way to North America, please feel free to share which favorite artery-clogging meal you'd like to see a healthy version of in the comments.
Source: <a href=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18663969>BBC via <a href=http://gizmodo.com/5923097/scientist-creates-pizza-healthy-enough-to-eat-3-times-a-day-every-day?popular=true>Gizmodo
Permalink
But seriously pizza was never meant to eaten 3 times a day. It is an indulgence. Something to be eaten on the weekends when you know you've done a good weeks work and fuck it! I'm having pizza!!!
The fact that scientists are out there trying their best to make something unhealthy, healthy so they can justify living off it instead of...oh I don't know learning to eat properly...makes me think creationism is a good idea.
I think we all agree... IT'S ABOUT DAMN TIME.
The specialty of "Subtle ways to improve the little things in life" have been lacking as of late.
The specialty of "Subtle ways to improve the little things in life" have been lacking as of late.
At long last, we have found Ambrosia!
As for a less-than-healthy food I would like to see get a similar treatment... doughnuts. Doughnuts are my number-one guilty pleasure and when I eat them, I always have too many. If they could balance them nutritionally without changing the flavor for worse, my life would be complete.
As for a less-than-healthy food I would like to see get a similar treatment... doughnuts. Doughnuts are my number-one guilty pleasure and when I eat them, I always have too many. If they could balance them nutritionally without changing the flavor for worse, my life would be complete.
This is what we should have been doing all along - Not trying to make healthy food appealing, but make appealing food healthy.
Bring on healthy chocolate please.
Bring on healthy chocolate please.
I didn't say it does contain LDL. I said that small-LDL particles, the ones which actually clog arteries, are produced in the body through Glycation. A process which only occurs as a result of the body processing glucose. Wheat products just happen to send blood glucose sky rocketing in most people resulting in setting the whole process of the body producing small LDL in motion.CaptainMarvelous said:
Wheat's effect on blood glucose is almost, if not as bad as pure table sugar.
I'd be happy to provide some sources when I'm actually at home and have better access to them.
It's been a staple for a tiny fraction of human history. And since wheat rarely kills before we reproduce (since type 2 diabetes and heart disease rarely developed before puberty, or at least, used to), there's been next to no evolutionary pressure to adapt to. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that modern wheat, a product which has been extensively altered at the genetic level to the point where it's nothing like what your grandparents ate not to mention never underwent human testing prior to being put into use, has a much greater impact on blood glucose than the stuff we were eating even 75 years ago, to say nothing of 1,000 years ago or more.
Coeliac disease is on the rise as a result, as are obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. Big surprise since it's a main ingredient in a lot of the processed garbage people eat. Oh, and it also happens to stimulate appetite and is mildly addictive (possessing compounds called exorphins which act on the same parts of the brain opiates do to produce a mild high), meaning people will choose to consume more because they feel hungry sooner and they'll be after that mild high and sugar rush when they inevitably crash post meal.
But here's the thing, even if you don't buy that it causes heart disease, it's effect on blood glucose is known and measurable, and insulin's (released by the pancreas to control blood glucose spikes) role in fat storage is quite well known and documented in scientific literature. And to fail to put two and two together and realize the blood glucose spikes lead to overproduction of insulin, which leads to fat storage and pancreatic damage and the resultant type 2 diabetes would require someone to be willfully blind. Never mind the fact that when you ignore the half-assed observational studies out there which try and push an agenda they can't support by design and look at clinical and intervention studies instead, the relationships become apparent.
But if you're going to hold to the idea that dietary fat and overall blood cholesterol are the actual causes of heart disease, then I guess by that logic, Statin's should work in preventing it given that they artificially lower blood cholesterol. Except that the only group of people who've ever shown even a modest benefit from them in studies are middle aged men who already have heart disease. And even then the benefit is quite small. So if dietary fat is actually the issue, why have heart disease rates been shooting upwards for decades despite more people eating low fat diets and drugs which reduce cholesterol? I guess everyone is just ignoring the government guidelines now, yet somehow were doing a lot better before government ever got involved and people somehow knew less about diet and ate more saturated fat?
poiumty said:
Drugs
www.fda.gov/downloads/Safety/Recalls/UCM197813.pdf
http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Surveillance/AdverseDrugEffects/UCM082196
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/default.htm
http://www.mcneilproductrecall.com/new_recall
Interactions
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/health&id=5320077
http://reference.medscape.com/drug-interactionchecker
Other effects
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/27/140849083/prescription-drug-deaths-major-killer-in-the-u-s
http://www.naturalnews.com/009278.html
Prosthetic
http://www.depuy.com/asr-hip-replacement-recall
http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/pipermail/amp-l/2006-April/012751.html
Environmental
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-nuclear-power-be-expanded/inherently-dangerous-technology-cannot-be-made-inherently-safe
http://listosaur.com/science-a-technology/top-10-most-dangerous-environmental-toxins-in-the-u.s..html
Technologic
http://www.techlicious.com/blog/the-most-dangerous-tech-products/
www.fda.gov/downloads/Safety/Recalls/UCM197813.pdf
http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Surveillance/AdverseDrugEffects/UCM082196
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/default.htm
http://www.mcneilproductrecall.com/new_recall
Interactions
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/health&id=5320077
http://reference.medscape.com/drug-interactionchecker
Other effects
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/27/140849083/prescription-drug-deaths-major-killer-in-the-u-s
http://www.naturalnews.com/009278.html
Prosthetic
http://www.depuy.com/asr-hip-replacement-recall
http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/pipermail/amp-l/2006-April/012751.html
Environmental
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-nuclear-power-be-expanded/inherently-dangerous-technology-cannot-be-made-inherently-safe
http://listosaur.com/science-a-technology/top-10-most-dangerous-environmental-toxins-in-the-u.s..html
Technologic
http://www.techlicious.com/blog/the-most-dangerous-tech-products/
Or you completely inferred your own definition as to what I said. Did I say sciences should not exist? No. Did I say that they do not do good things? No. What I said was... I do not inherently and blindly trust them.
So you are entitled to go off half cocked and CAPS enraged in a personal attack armed with an incorrect assumption as to the meaning of my statement and the incorrect assumption of conservative Christian ideology. Then start wailing because someone said something that portrays those who the youth and atheists hold as high holy paragons of the modern age in a much more revealing light.
Think on a few things. Without as many "scientific advancements" as we have, we would not have the need we have to treat as many ailments as we do. Many of our ailments are caused by environmental factors such as how we generate power, how we grow our food, Construct our homes, paint our walls, how we do many things, then these ailments come up and we are given unnatural concoctions to compensate for some of those conditions and those unnatural concoctions end up causing their own problems. Many times they are viewed within "acceptable levels". Then we have new drugs that come out, that have been tested 5-10 years yet our scientists tell the world, its OK for you to take this drug that you will need to take for the rest of your life for 20,30 years or more even though we have not tested it for nearly that long and can only speculate about the long term effects. But its OK Were Scientists and Doctors, We know what is best for you.
Never mind the fact that the medical industry has absolutely no interest in "Curing" anything now. Curing things is bad for business and the goal of medicine now is not to cure anything, it is to create long term treatment and chronic need for medication
So yeah, sorry... Ive given you plenty to chew on and try to work your way through, Now, would you like to calm down and try to rationally work your way through that information and explain to me WHY we should just automatically trust these people and take them at their word?
So I reiterate... when it comes to scientists developing new things to put into our bodies, No I do not trust them. That does not mean that they are inherently wrong. That simply means that it simply cannot be taken at face value and absolutely demands further individual and independent research, something that the largest portion of people who purport science as humanities salvation rarely if ever do.
I would like such pizzas at German stores...
And also:
"[...] but Lean and Maclean are moving on to develop recipes for nutritionally balanced fish and chips."
PLEASE, PLEASE, GIVE IT TO ME NOW! I need to visit London again.
And also:
"[...] but Lean and Maclean are moving on to develop recipes for nutritionally balanced fish and chips."
PLEASE, PLEASE, GIVE IT TO ME NOW! I need to visit London again.
I thought April's Fools was not due until a few months from now.
The French got the EU to consider snails "inland fish".
That's as ridiculous as pizza being a vegetable but [read this with Jim Sterling's sarcastic voice] "Oh oh, those Americans... So obese and stupid, let's mock them because they are fat!"
The trick is that it also gets you full so you won't crave for more. If you want the ultimate fast food experience you can also water down the soda, lol.
Nobody forced you to.DVS BSTrD said:
The French got the EU to consider snails "inland fish".
That's as ridiculous as pizza being a vegetable but [read this with Jim Sterling's sarcastic voice] "Oh oh, those Americans... So obese and stupid, let's mock them because they are fat!"
Make them at home. I know that I am using actual cheese instead of orange flavored fat, I know I am not drowning the fries in salt, I let bacon cook on it's own grease, I go easy on the sauces. A little garlic and pepper and you will need less salt on the burger patties. DONE.BrionJames said:
The trick is that it also gets you full so you won't crave for more. If you want the ultimate fast food experience you can also water down the soda, lol.
