I'm not sure if there's any merit to this way of considering my diet, but it feels like the most sensible approach towards deciding what I should or shouldn't eat.
You wouldn't notice the affects of a diet that is devoid of iron for several weeks... you especially wouldn't notice the affects after individual meals. Once you become iron deficient and anemic, you'll start "feeling good" from sugary foods and stimulants that offset the exhaustion from low red blood cells. You wouldn't even feel better from eating iron rich meals until about a week.
There's a similar story for every other vitamin.
It doesn't automatically create a good diet, but it's better than nothing. And at least we can both agree that it's effective, which is more than you can say for some of the nutrition advice out there.
Unless there is a case where feeling weird is actually a good thing, but I can only come up with fairly extreme examples where that would be the case, which comes closer to medicine than nutrition.
Off-hand I can’t think of any food that produces an immediate and significant bad feeling unless it’s rotten, spoiled or otherwise intolerable.
[1] Most people do. White bread has a high glycemic index.
That doesn't sound too amazing to me.
[1] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/318931.php
[2] https://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/features/is-smoking-...
[3] https://www.dentalhealth.org/tell-me-about/topic/sundry/smok...
[4] http://time.com/4408977/erectile-dysfunction-quit-smoking/
No to mucus
Maybe to reduced smell (doesn't seem significantly worse in practice than anyone else)
Maybe to teeth, but I also drink a lot of coffee, and its not very substantially yellow
Erectile dysfunction != smaller penis, and afaik, none of the (actually) described effects in the article apply to me, at least enough to have noticed.
Also that last article is the only one I checked, and is citing studies composed of 40 (2016 study), and 65 (2012), participants. The first is about fertility, and nothing to do with ED or penis size.
And the second study compares 20 successful quitters against 40 not, with apparently 13 people starting with ED, (distribution after the study left unspecified), and only claims that the quitters had larger erections than the smokers. (Not comparing before/after quitting on the same individual; just which group had the larger dicks at the end (their state at the beginning left unspecified).
And the ED part is just bad reporting (despite being the article's title), intentionally referring to results that are "statistically insignificant". (13 people with ED; quitters/non-quitter count unspecified; both groups saw similar improvement during the study).
I'm assuming you didn't read the studies themselves, so I won't bother
I'm also going to assume the rest of your articles are of similar quality
In which case, you should probably improve your sources before making claims
> Results underscore the possibility that cigarette use may deleteriously affect erectile function peripherally, in part, by disrupting cardiac autonomic function.
It's not the gold standard of proof, but it seems not too far fetched.
Some people are more susceptible than others, and even then the telltale (as in other than "worse on ergometer") medical issues tend to start after years (sometimes many) of smoking. Based on stats it is about 20 years of delay in specific cancers. Then they are hard to reverse.
Sample of 1 is not compelling.
Yes, the problem is that I read it.
It indeed attributed the possibility, but at least from the article alone, the supporting evidence is incredibly weak. at the end of the study, a group of 20 people who quit had larger erections than a group of 40 who didn't.
Were they larger before the study too? Unstated.
Were they significantly larger? By how much? Unstated.
Were all of them larger, or did a few just skew the average? Unstated.
Was the quitting group larger than before they quit? Unstated.
All we have is that, in the end, the quitters had the larger, presumably average, erections. On a sample size of 20, and 40.
And of course, knowing that the article's headline is bullshit (claimed on results the writer himself acknowledges as statistically insignificant), it's probably likely that any other interpretation the author so freely takes is also bullshit.
That article isn't the gold standard of proof; its not even bronze. It goes very close to blatantly lying with its headline, and I think its safe to assume that out of everyone involved in determining those results, only the article's author would be so confident about it (at least, as much as he is).
If you're going to cite things, then use things worth citing. In the worst case, read the study itself. But don't go around feeding others such low quality summaries.
If you are going to scientifically remove all the fiber from a food item, then boost its calorie content even higher with added sugars and oils, don't be surprised when people gain weight.
Fiber is a huge hunger modifier. It's hard to overeat 'bulky' lower calorie foods. The fiber takes longer to digest, and doesn't complete the digestion process until the small intestine giving the feeling of fullness longer than something made out of simple carbohydrates.
But hey, letting Conagra sell bright colored sugar at the lowest subsidized possible price is the American way!
I avoid any sugared sodas these days, because I find if I am dehydrated and I drink a canned lemonade etc. I get a headache immediately afterward, with no lessening of my thirst. Plain water or coconut water works best for me.
Chocolate contains stimulants theobromine and caffeine. I am not a coffee drinker, nor regular consumer any other stimulant, making me rather sensitive to the effects. If I eat chocolate, particularly dark chocolate, I reliably experience a mild stimulant high.
There's not really a difference between foods containing these molecules and oral drugs containing the same molecules.
And sure, chocolate gives a bit of a stimulant high. That's part of why we like it. This is something else. It unfortunately comes with certain kinds of chocolate.
IT is not known to be a headache trigger though, but there are known sensitive individuals.
Same with Ramen. I even experience muscle aching at times after eating it. It's a shame because I find it so tasty!