opened under the banner of "Nutrition and Health" under the banner of科普书, most are related to some food taboos, food of grams of the reference area. After numerous duplicate, these so-called "taboo" people gradually. People to comply with awe at the time of these taboos, taboos often forget where the source and reason. In fact, if careful scrutiny, the vast majority of the so-called taboos are no practical significance, theoretically untenable, and some even are quite absurd.
how many food taboos心明眼亮before? Introduce here a set of test diet taboo "effects of weapons." After its test questions, and many will be proved unfounded rumors, food life is a lot less worries, more than a fraction freely. In this process, but also learn to scientific ways of thinking and experience to do independent thinking pleasure!
questioned one: the initiator of such taboos are Who? Whether professionals?
a lot of that from non-professionals or fashion, lifestyle magazine writer. These people probably in order to earn money for the primary purpose may not have any strict scientific attitude and accurate expertise. Author information is not signed, must make a question mark, not the entire letter. Those work units that the author and title of the article is more credible, but we should note that隔行如隔山, no all-knowing experts, know and no. A medical expert, not necessarily knowledge of food has a deeper understanding; a food experts, the disease may not have an accurate grasp of knowledge.
the most reliable sources of information are authoritative academic journals. The information on the mass media, including book Living with the information on it is probably not reliable, not accurate. To remember, the media's nature is to attract eyeballs. They often lack the scientific sense, not those who refuse to say sensational, and even take the initiative to add fuel to the flames.
questioned 2: This taboo what is the justification? Illogical吗? Logical吗?
every way, must have solid scientific data as a foundation, there must be a convincing theoretical basis. Just say "the two grams of" or "not edible" and even said that "harm", it is probably just bluffing but not necessarily believed true worth.
it a good listen to the theory, brain to think about it. Paradoxical if it is right, and there is a breach of the common sense or logic there is obvious vulnerability, then no matter how sound "profound", it should not immediately trust.
For example, cucumber and tomatoes should not eat together, are why? Theory are: cucumber in a tomato enzyme will destroy the vitamin C. Then there is how powerful this enzyme? Whether the cucumber itself can all destroy vitamin C? In fact, notes on food composition table, cucumber itself contains vitamin C, the content is 8 mg / 100 grams, can be measured out. Now that this enzyme-linked cucumber itself that vitamin C can not be completely destroyed, how can vitamin C of tomato destroy it? Manifestly ill-founded logic.
in fact, a lot of fruits and vegetables contain "vitamin C Oxidase", but this enzyme only in the cells are damaged when released, and they will heat inactivation, in the very acidic strong activity of the stomach which will be stifled.
again from a different angle: If the cucumber and tomato is not eaten together, you can and other vegetables, fruits to eat with it? The answer is obviously negative, because other vegetables and fruits, without exception, contain vitamin C. Having said that, cucumbers are not placed on three meals a day which should not ate it? On a wider scale, those containing "vitamin C oxidase" whether all of the vegetables should not of ate three meals a day at it? Obviously, this is a very absurd conclusion.
being the case, but also believe that such a taboo to do?
No comments:
Post a Comment