![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I have this problem where I often spend too much time on certain activities, or researching certain subjects. More time than I had wanted, intended or planned for. Often, I hadn't planned to do the activity at all.
When this happens, I feel driven to continue the activity until completion, or until some point at which I am satisfied enough to stop. Usually, a part of me remembers that I had other plans, and am using up too much of my spare time for no good reason, and wants me to stop. But that's usually a small voice in the background of my mind, and not enough to actually make me stop.
.
Like this evening... I have a few boxes of old stale peanut butter crackers which I should either eat up or discard. They don't taste that great, so I haven't been eating them much. But I hate to waste "good" food. So I wonder, is it bad from a health standpoint, to eat stale peanut butter? If it is, that would be enough to convince me to throw them away.
I did a web search, and came across an old book from 1918 that says:
"When stale, peanut butter develops a decomposition substance known as acrolein, which is dangerous to children as well as adults".
I found no other sources which mention the same thing, so I don't suggest you take that statement as truth. I'm still not sure whether stale peanut butter is bad for you.
However, I was looking through the rest of the first book, and it is fascinating in a historical sense. I've spent way too much time reading through it.
The Science of Eating: How to Insure Stamina, Endurance, Vigor, Strength and Health in Infancy, Youth and Age - by Alfred W. McCann
100 years ago, there was the same concern as nowadays, about lack of nutrition in processed foods due to vitamins, minerals, and fiber having being stripped out. There was concern over high levels of glucose, sugar, and chemical additives. There was concern about cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and arthritis being caused by the substandard nutrition provided by those foods.
100 years ago was before processed foods started being fortified with vitamins and minerals.
It's interesting how the drafts for World War I and II played into this. Apparently, people in high places were concerned when large percentages of draftees were rejected due to being unfit. It's not necessarily that they were concerned about the health of people, but that they wanted to have an adequate supply of healthy men for the military.
..
The rye bread I've been eating lately lists "wheat flour" and "rye flour" as ingredients. I wondered if "wheat flour" means whole wheat flour or white flour. It means the latter; I should have realized that, since the label actually says "enriched wheat flour". But the rye flour is just listed as "rye flour".
The Hoax of "Enriched Wheat Flour"
..
4 hours later. Heck, I'm just going to throw those crackers away and be done with it.
When this happens, I feel driven to continue the activity until completion, or until some point at which I am satisfied enough to stop. Usually, a part of me remembers that I had other plans, and am using up too much of my spare time for no good reason, and wants me to stop. But that's usually a small voice in the background of my mind, and not enough to actually make me stop.
.
Like this evening... I have a few boxes of old stale peanut butter crackers which I should either eat up or discard. They don't taste that great, so I haven't been eating them much. But I hate to waste "good" food. So I wonder, is it bad from a health standpoint, to eat stale peanut butter? If it is, that would be enough to convince me to throw them away.
I did a web search, and came across an old book from 1918 that says:
"When stale, peanut butter develops a decomposition substance known as acrolein, which is dangerous to children as well as adults".
I found no other sources which mention the same thing, so I don't suggest you take that statement as truth. I'm still not sure whether stale peanut butter is bad for you.
However, I was looking through the rest of the first book, and it is fascinating in a historical sense. I've spent way too much time reading through it.
The Science of Eating: How to Insure Stamina, Endurance, Vigor, Strength and Health in Infancy, Youth and Age - by Alfred W. McCann
100 years ago, there was the same concern as nowadays, about lack of nutrition in processed foods due to vitamins, minerals, and fiber having being stripped out. There was concern over high levels of glucose, sugar, and chemical additives. There was concern about cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and arthritis being caused by the substandard nutrition provided by those foods.
100 years ago was before processed foods started being fortified with vitamins and minerals.
It's interesting how the drafts for World War I and II played into this. Apparently, people in high places were concerned when large percentages of draftees were rejected due to being unfit. It's not necessarily that they were concerned about the health of people, but that they wanted to have an adequate supply of healthy men for the military.
..
The rye bread I've been eating lately lists "wheat flour" and "rye flour" as ingredients. I wondered if "wheat flour" means whole wheat flour or white flour. It means the latter; I should have realized that, since the label actually says "enriched wheat flour". But the rye flour is just listed as "rye flour".
The Hoax of "Enriched Wheat Flour"
A “wheat flour” or “enriched wheat flour” ingredient is technically no different than white flour. Manufacturers take whole-grain wheat, strip out 11 vitamins and minerals, then add synthetic chemicals that represent only four vitamins and one mineral.
Here’s the nutritional math: Whole-grain wheat – 11 nutrients + 5 nutrients = “Enriched”
..
4 hours later. Heck, I'm just going to throw those crackers away and be done with it.
Re: Rabbit holes our favorite
Date: 2019-01-13 05:16 pm (UTC)From:An interesting exception (there are many, but this one is just particularly relevant) is retinol. It's the stuff that makes carrots orange, but also, as you might think from the name, what's in your retina. It has a double bond, where two adjacent atoms share two electrons, which prevents them from rotating with respect to each other, so it's shaped like a paperclip. When a photon hits it, the double bond absorbs it, and one of the two bonds briefly dissociates and then reassociates, allowing the molecule to straighten out. This is how we see: that conversion from folded to straight on absorption of a photon is the mechanism for vision. (The enzyme with which it is associated comes in several different flavors, that slightly distort the molecule, and that changes the energy required to make this rearrangement happen. One bunch of enzymes make it red-green sensitive, another blue-yellow sensitive, one simply provides a highly sensitive measure of whether there are photons at all and results in low-light black-and-white vision. This is happening billions of times per second, and the process of replacing all those popped molecules is the most energetically demanding thing in our bodies, so our retinas suck up a lot of oxygen from blood.)