How can I filter my personal view of MetaFilter? August 31, 2008 4:48 AM   Subscribe

I'm not going to say it on the AskMe thread, because that's not the place for it, but we are getting REALLY WEIRD about food and diet. Is there a reasonable way I can filter specific posting topics or tags out of my personal view of MetaFilter?

I read the whole thread, diet question, off the cuff ED diagnosis and diet advice with this dawning sense of surreality. Grains have been a staple in the human diet for millennia. They're not a vice!

400 calories you don't need? What?

I'm starting to get the feeling I should try to mentally or somehow greasemonkey-wise just filter health posts out of my personal view of MetaFilter. This method of not interacting with the Internet has always helped keep me out of needless flamewars in the past.

Is that already technically possible and I don't know it?

The main problem I have with that method is that some health-related AskMe questions are interesting to me, and not diet-related. But whatever. I'd be okay just losing health entirely if I could avoid this surreal diet talk, seriously.

Suggestions?
posted by kalessin to Feature Requests at 4:48 AM (67 comments total)

Here's what works for me: When I see a subject I'm not interested in, I don't click on it.

Granted, it's a bit old school/lo-tech, but I find it works pretty well.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:15 AM on August 31, 2008 [17 favorites]


@PeterMcDermott,

And while I do try to do that, this one I linked to was not immediately apparent that it was about the dieting for reducing fats sort of discussion...
posted by kalessin at 5:19 AM on August 31, 2008


It seems like you actually are interested in threads on that topic. You just disagree with the answers in that thread.

Solution: post your own answer explaining why people are wrong and you're right.
posted by Jaltcoh at 5:49 AM on August 31, 2008 [5 favorites]


If my life were so amazing that this kind of thing were a problem, I'd rent billboards telling everyone about my heavenly life.

Really, you clicked a question and it wasn't what you thought, and it didn't kill you. How often does this happen? Is it really so much of a problem that it warrants new site features and this thread?
posted by Mikey-San at 5:51 AM on August 31, 2008 [4 favorites]


Jaltcoh,

I don't want to go to that amount of effort in an effort that's contrary to how I understand we're supposed to answer questions on AskMe. It's my understanding that we're not supposed to editorialize there.

Do I misunderstand AskMe policy/guidelines?
posted by kalessin at 5:57 AM on August 31, 2008


Mikey-San, I think it happens pretty frequently for me. Admittedly, I'm a pretty passionate, opinionated sort of person. Is inquiring about a feature possibility really so offensive to you?
posted by kalessin at 5:58 AM on August 31, 2008


you know what i want?
posted by pyramid termite at 6:05 AM on August 31, 2008


Respectfully disagreeing with either the OP or the people in the thread is totally fine. It's even better if you can do it in a way that sort of states your objections, states why you feel that way [whether you have evidence, personal experience, whatever] and then leaves it alone. Bad AskMe answers tend to do the following

- have some sort of high falutin' or snobby tone that anger or annoy other people and so start derails about the tone/tenor of the comment [example: "I can't believe how misinformed some of you are about one of the best foods in the world!"
- are jerkish in their statements [example: "anyone who likes oatmeal is an idiot"]
- opens a topic for discussion and starts questioning the hell out of things other people say in a way that doesn't help the OP get their question answered. This is a little tougher because while some discussion is fine, a back and forth debate sort of discussion of the sort that would be fine in MeFi is really not so good there [example: "Why does everyone think carbs are this sort of oogy boogey man? We've been eating carbs since Neanderthal times..." It's an okay thing to say, it's probably true, but it starts a carb derail which doesn't help the OP learn about oatmeal]

My trick is to assume that even though I feel strongly about my topic, I have to answer the question in a way that makes what I'm saying palatable to both the OP and other people in the thread if I want them to both believe me and possibly take my advice. So if I sound like a jerky fighty person, there's a subtle association that, in this thread's case "jerky fighty people eat oatmeal" which doesn't really help anything.

So answering is part content and part tone with the added advice to try to answer in a way that is more or less a single unit. You've stated what you wanted to say, you've explained why you feel that way, you haven't opened some can of worms with your answer, it stands on its own as a reply to the OP and a good contribution to the thread. It's particularly helpful if you can give some indication that you'v eread what toher people have to say and are adding your comment to aid in the OPs understanding of something.

"Some peopel seem to think that all grains are to be avoided, well I think they can be part of a balanced diet as long as you pay attention to the following things...." No finger pointing, no namecalling, just helpful suggestions that reply directly to the original question.

I personally love oatmeal so I think I'll wander over there now. As far as your original question, you can use MyAsk and, I think, uncheck the food/diet related tags.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:18 AM on August 31, 2008 [3 favorites]


My Ask MeFi? Related MeTa.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 6:19 AM on August 31, 2008


Cool, thanks jessamyn.

I will go out for brunch now myself and will revisit this MeTa topic later, so more discussion would be cool.
posted by kalessin at 6:27 AM on August 31, 2008


jessamyn hits the engaging-the-thread side on the head; for the avoidance side of the question, you pretty much answered your own question here:

I'm starting to get the feeling I should try to mentally or somehow greasemonkey-wise just filter health posts out of my personal view of MetaFilter.

If you're having trouble keeping in a good place tone-wise with a thread, yeah, work on that mental filter. Reading something that makes you twitch and responding by closing the window/tab and walking away is one of the more valuable skills you can hope to develop to prevent accidentally being that seemingly jerky fighty person in a thread.

Alvy points out My Ask MeFi, which is one technical approach; include all the topics except the one(s) that bother you. Likewise, you could use an RSS reader subscribed tag- or category-specific feeds that exclude any that tend to bother you. Neither is really perfect—we've built tools more to highlight content than to hide it, since the goal is to help deal with too much volume rather than with spit-takes or impulse control—but they could be worth a shot.

The mental game is where it's at, though. Learn to step away from the keyboard if you're getting hot or feeling like you need to shout someone down; if you feel like you're calm and cool and you want to say something, see jessamyn's advice above. Figure this out and you don't have to worry about missing out on health- or diet- or oatmeal- or whatever-related questions on account of mechanical filtering.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:32 AM on August 31, 2008


Craving oatmeal is INSANE and a symptom of severe derangement. Unless it's oatmeal cookies, which are pretty tasty.
posted by klangklangston at 7:32 AM on August 31, 2008 [2 favorites]


And, since we're in MeTa I just wanted to say that it's not just you re: the oatmeal thread. There are people who have already commented in that thread who are already being sort of unhelpful [the "OMG eating disorder!!" sorts of comments come to mind] but not beyond the pale. The OP phrased her question sort of strangely, people responded to that strangeness and added strageness of their own and then some people sort of dove into the fray after that point.

I wandered over there, decided there wasn't much I could add without being snippy and annoyed and wandered back over here just to say "hey I'm going outside, maybe you should too!"
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:38 AM on August 31, 2008


Craving oatmeal is INSANE and a symptom of severe derangement.

Those weird new Quaker commercials with the plastic oat guy would support your theory, Klang. I'm toying with the idea of calling you 'KK' so people can picture you looking like this guy. Cool with you?
posted by jonmc at 7:39 AM on August 31, 2008


It's not like she didn't clearly ask "am I a freak?" "Yes," and move on.
posted by kmennie at 7:41 AM on August 31, 2008


Apologies for the "OMG eating disorder" comment. I definitely could have worded that better. But honestly, I thought I was answering the OP's question, which was "Has anyone else experienced this or am I a freak?". Yes, I have experienced that, or something quite like that, and yes, it was because I was a "freak," or rather someone with an eating disorder. When someone asks whether they're a "freak," I take it as some sort of solicitation of an opinion on whether this behavior is normal or not!
posted by craichead at 7:51 AM on August 31, 2008 [2 favorites]


Jaltcoh, ... It's my understanding that we're not supposed to editorialize there. Do I misunderstand AskMe policy/guidelines?

If "editorialize" means "explain what the right answer to the question is," then yes, you misunderstand AskMe policy.
posted by Jaltcoh at 7:55 AM on August 31, 2008


Wilford Brimley says craving oatmeal means you have diabeetus.
posted by dirigibleman at 8:03 AM on August 31, 2008 [2 favorites]


In addition to calories, Oatmeal is packed with information. Such as:

Q: When did dinosaurs first become popular?
A: Over 150 years ago.

Q: How do you know if there's a dinosaur under your bed?
A: Your nose hits the ceiling!

Q: How many dinosaurs can fit in an empty box?
A: One. After that, the box isn't empty anymore!

Q: How can you tell if there's a dinosaur in the refrigerator?
A: The door won't close!

Q: How do you catch an elephant?
A: Hide in the bushes and make a noise like a peanut.

posted by metastability at 8:08 AM on August 31, 2008 [7 favorites]


I'm with klang. Oatmeal raisin cookies are better than bowling.
posted by netbros at 8:15 AM on August 31, 2008


craichead: Apologies for the "OMG eating disorder" comment.

Seemed like the best answer to me.
posted by purpleclover at 9:28 AM on August 31, 2008 [1 favorite]


You just want a script to not show health topics from AskMe? Sure, there's a technical solution: grab Mondo Meta, put "to health" in the text to filter, select footer for location, and they all go away. If you want to select some answer back in based on users and keywords, you also can get fancy with regular expressions to decide the filtering, that that can become an advanced topic. Or you could style the health topics down to really small text so they are easy to read past, but not completely invisible for the rare "good" stuff.
posted by mdevore at 9:48 AM on August 31, 2008 [1 favorite]


kalessin . . . There is a large debate going around right now whether grains are actually good for our bodies, and whether our carbohydrate-heavy diets are actually helping or hurting us.

It flies completely in the face of what a lot of Mefites preach, stick to low fat, eat lots of grains, and you lose weight solely by taking in less than you eat. But frankly, the science just does not back that assertion up. It never has. A book, Good Calories, Bad Calories, is making the rounds right now that is a pretty comprehensive overview of current nutrition science that comes to the conclusion that basically, we have been told the wrong thing about what is healthy for us for a very, very long time. The author, Gary Taubes, has a number of articles around so it's pretty easy to check his credentials and look up what the conclusions are of his book. I was slow to believe it as well, but after listening to his arguments it's pretty hard to argue with his conclusions.

Anyway, I'm guessing that's where battle_angel is coming from, and I bet she didn't expect the tenor here when she posted the question.
posted by schroedinger at 10:10 AM on August 31, 2008


If you do not have filtering capability on a question and answer site, never fear! Ignore Hack involves positioning the focus of your eyes such that they do not land on the ignoree questions; should they mistakenly land on ignoree text, do an eyemod and look away!
posted by Krrrlson at 10:12 AM on August 31, 2008 [1 favorite]


I'm with klang. Oatmeal raisin cookies are better than bowling.

That's not what klang said. He said "Craving oatmeal is INSANE and a symptom of severe derangement. Unless it's oatmeal cookies, which are pretty tasty." Note: "oatmeal cookies," not "oatmeal raisin cookies." Oatmeal raisin cookies are the tool of the devil and a craving for them is a symptom of severe derangement. People who stick raisins in perfectly good desserts should be piled on and banninated.
posted by languagehat at 10:14 AM on August 31, 2008 [7 favorites]


Chocolate covered raisins are bad?

*reserves entire wing of Hell*
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:39 AM on August 31, 2008 [1 favorite]


Oatmeal raisin cookies are the tool of the devil and a craving for them is a symptom of severe derangement.

Oh, go choke on a bucket of raisin-studded cocks. Oatmeal raisin cookies are the food of the gods. Especially when made fresh by the gods' mothers and stolen, still warm and soft, from the famed cookie sheets of Olympus. Ben & Jerry's oatmeal cookie ice cream is too painful even to contemplate because they came within an inch of the perfect dessert and then destroyed it by adding chunks of chocolate instead of raisins.
posted by felix betachat at 10:49 AM on August 31, 2008 [5 favorites]


Thanks to Alvy, jessamyn, cortex, Jaltcoh and others who had more useful perspective both on engaging with threads that are a problem for me, as well as for providing technical solutions.

I am not entirely helped by Ignore Hack and other suggestions that I just get over it. It would be a wonderful paradise of a world where I could just do or get over any mental/emotional issue I found inconvenient. Unfortunately, I don't seem to be wired that way, and I tend to worry at things that bother me.

This is great when it's a technical problem that I need to actually solve (I usually eventually get it). It's not so great when it's a social ill that's sort of tangential to where I really want to go - I end up caring about stuff I should probably not engage with at all.

Anyway, I'm sure a combination of folks' suggestions will work out well for me, so thanks all for the good suggestions.
posted by kalessin at 10:49 AM on August 31, 2008


Oatmeal raisin cookies are the tool of the devil and a craving for them is a symptom of severe derangement. People who stick raisins in perfectly good desserts should be piled on and banninated.
posted by languagehat at 6:14 PM on August 31


Oddly, languagehat is a prescriptivist when it comes to raisins.
posted by vacapinta at 10:56 AM on August 31, 2008 [6 favorites]


Yes. Yes, I am. But a generous one: all you demonic raisin-lovers can have my share of the cookies.
posted by languagehat at 11:14 AM on August 31, 2008 [1 favorite]


MetaFilter: Major deuces.
posted by loquacious at 11:24 AM on August 31, 2008


Thank you. I will hungrily accept all donations of wonderful, good for me raisins. Oatmeal I do not eat that often for fear that I will develop a white page boy hairdo, affect a broad-brimmed hat and look like the senior Barbara Bush.
posted by Cranberry at 11:29 AM on August 31, 2008


... warm and soft, from the famed cookie sheets of Olympus.

There are sheets made of oatmeal raisin cookies?

:steals neighbor's 20% off coupon, drools, searches Linens & Shite site:
posted by heyho at 11:43 AM on August 31, 2008


Craving oatmeal is INSANE and a symptom of severe derangement. Unless it's oatmeal cookies, which are pretty tasty.

i find it absolutely astounding that there are people who want another four years of the same country-destroying oatmeal craving.
posted by quonsar at 11:58 AM on August 31, 2008 [1 favorite]


Here's what works for me: When I see a subject I'm not interested in, I don't click on it.

It's the right thing to do and the tasteful way to do it. /brimley
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:08 PM on August 31, 2008


This question annoys me because the OP asked, in a roundabout way, about dealing with cravings that are causing her to eat four servings of oatmeal every day and not being satisfied with that amount, and she's getting back answers about how wonderful oatmeal is. I don't understand why those answers aren't deleted as derails, and I think they would be if oatmeal cravings didn't seem almost adorable compared to other compulsions.

FWIW, I thought "OMG eating disorder!" was a perfectly reasonable answer.
posted by backupjesus at 1:18 PM on August 31, 2008 [1 favorite]


Oatmeal raisin cookies are the tool of the devil and a craving for them is a symptom of severe derangement. People who stick raisins in perfectly good desserts should be piled on and banninated.
posted by languagehat at 6:14 PM on August 31

Oddly, languagehat is a prescriptivist when it comes to raisins.

Well yes, as far as just desserts are concerned, but I hear rumors he hasn't given over the search for a true raisin d'entre.
posted by jamjam at 1:28 PM on August 31, 2008


No true Scotsman would ever dare disparage oatmeal.
posted by Abiezer at 1:37 PM on August 31, 2008 [2 favorites]


a true raisin d'entre

A gruel and unusual pun-ishment, indeed.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:48 PM on August 31, 2008 [3 favorites]


Once when was a kid I could not find the oatmeal cookies. It turned out that my Uncle had hidden them in the tuba! That was a funny day.
posted by Karlos the Jackal at 1:52 PM on August 31, 2008 [7 favorites]


People who stick raisins in perfectly good desserts should be piled on and banninated.

Stay the FUCK away from my tapioca and raisin pudding, you Chomsky-quoting sheepfucker.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:54 PM on August 31, 2008 [2 favorites]


Hey now! I don't quote Chomsky!
posted by languagehat at 2:31 PM on August 31, 2008 [3 favorites]


No true Scotsman would ever dare disparage oatmeal.

I'm not sure a true Scotsman could afford to, unless he wants to subsist on a diet consisting solely of every part of the sheep that isn't edible.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 2:43 PM on August 31, 2008 [1 favorite]


I like to read Metafilter on Sundays, whilst nomming on precisely two strips of pancetta. Its deliciousness makes my bitter political outrage go down much easier.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:40 PM on August 31, 2008


Speaking of quacks...
posted by Class Goat at 4:51 PM on August 31, 2008


Just eat it, dummy! For your health! </Dr Steve Brule>
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:56 PM on August 31, 2008


I'm not sure a true Scotsman could afford to, unless he wants to subsist on a diet consisting solely of every part of the sheep that isn't edible.

How is that different from Scottish cuisine in the first place?
posted by grapefruitmoon at 6:19 PM on August 31, 2008


That was the joke, the suggestion that a Scottish person who eschewed oatmeal would be halving their meal options.
I never claimed it was a particularly funny joke.

posted by Alvy Ampersand at 6:42 PM on August 31, 2008


off the cuff ED diagnosis

Is it weird that I assumed you meant erectile dysfunction, and clicked on the thread expecting to see some nutjob claiming that oatmeal led to limpitude?

cause it has quite the oppposite effect on me, if you know what I'm saying, and I think you do.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 8:21 PM on August 31, 2008 [1 favorite]


I haven't posted in a MeTa thread in a while. Hey.
posted by turgid dahlia at 10:07 PM on August 31, 2008


No true Scotsman would ever dare disparage oatmeal

I was tempted to post that if she really wants to reduce her oatmeal intake, she should only ever eat it inside a haggis, or its Icelandic equivalent, slatur. (tr: slaughter.)
posted by PeterMcDermott at 10:41 PM on August 31, 2008


She needs to stop eating so much oatmeal before she gets all fat and worthless, I tell you what.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 10:46 PM on August 31, 2008


Hurf durf oatmeal eater?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:54 PM on August 31, 2008


Kalessin, I completely understand the urge to express exasperation with questions such as the one you refer to. When I saw it, I suspected that what the asker meant was:

"My diet is better, more ethical, and cleaner than just about everybody else's and to prove it, here is the list of everything I eat and some examples of foods I no longer eat or even want because (see above). I am so highly evolved and awesome now that I just want to share my virtuousness with you and then drive home the point by affecting a reluctance to eat more than two cups of oatmeal per day. But enough about me, what do YOU think of me?"

But I held my tounge. Until now.
posted by longsleeves at 12:43 AM on September 1, 2008


My diet is better, more ethical, and cleaner than just about everybody else's

I rarely read AskMe because whenever I take a look over there, all that tends to register is a whole bunch of people insisting that the questioner needs to lead a better, cleaner and more ethical life.

Seriously, people whose posts I respect and value on the blue, seem to transform into moralistic, self-righteous, new age neo-hippies when they post on the green. And because I'm exactly the sort of shouty-fighty jackass that Jess is referring to above, I just find it easier to give the place a wide berth.

I enjoy the handbag questions though. I'm always impressed by the erudition and expertise that's on offer whenever somebody asks 'Where can I get a purse like X?'
posted by PeterMcDermott at 7:05 AM on September 1, 2008


I'll be filtering out all posts marked "relationships" from now on.
posted by theyexpectresults at 7:44 AM on September 1, 2008


"Those weird new Quaker commercials with the plastic oat guy would support your theory, Klang. I'm toying with the idea of calling you 'KK' so people can picture you looking like this guy. Cool with you?

Just so long as a third doesn't slip in there.

"People who stick raisins in perfectly good desserts should be piled on and banninated."

My father's ruminations on the matter go something like this: "What are raisins anyway? Dried fruit. You know what eats dried fruit? Birds. You know what birds are? Stupid."
posted by klangklangston at 9:21 AM on September 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


longsleeves, thanks for the sanity check. At least I wasn't completely off in left field with my own reaction, whether or not I knew how to deal with it appropriately.
posted by kalessin at 9:22 AM on September 1, 2008


Horace, not at all weird. I've a friend who's constantly working on a training series on the sort of ED you thought it was, so naturally, cannot hear that acronym in any other context.

As for myself, due to a close relative being editorially involved in a book on cock and ball torture, I can no longer hear the acronym CBT (usually meaning computer based training) the non cocky way.
posted by kalessin at 9:25 AM on September 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


Grains have been a staple in the human diet for millennia. They're not a vice!

From Wikipedia: Vice is a practice or habit that is considered immoral, depraved, and/or degrading in the associated society. In more minor usage, vice can refer to a fault, a defect, an infirmity, or merely a bad habit.

Perhaps vice was a poor word choice, but considering that the poster had a craving that she felt she couldn't control, fault, defect, or merely a bad habit seems to fit somewhat. The fact that oatmeal is a relatively healthy food does not really have anything to do with whether the OP felt like she lacked control over her consumption of it, and the desire to understand that lack of control.

As for being a staple of human diet for millenia, I'm not sure what bearing that has on how optimal oatmeal consumption is. Let's say milling technology has been around since 10,000 BC, and oats have been domesticated since 4000 BC. While 6,000 years may be enough time for humans to adapt to large amounts of processed oatmeal after 190,000+ years of a more balanced diet, is there any guarantee that we would evolve in that time period to make consuming a lot of processed oatmeal optimal, while still being exposed to a wide variety of other foods? Is this universal across the wide range of humanity no matter what the body fat % goals are?

Personally, my objection with the diet/exercise/weight loss threads on AskMe isn't so much the general nuttiness, as with the people who think their specific dietary prejudices and optimizations will apply equally to everyone else regardless of circumstance. Sadly, I'm as guilty as anyone in most of these threads, but usually I just weigh in once and shut up. Also, there's an assumption that everyone's goals are to eat a generally healthy diet rather than one that is optimized for specific goals. IMHO, There are specific instances when an exercise physiologist or a bodybuilder can give you nutrition advice just as well or perhaps better than a nutrition doctor, even if the reverse is true in the general case.
posted by BrotherCaine at 4:18 AM on September 2, 2008


due to a close relative being editorially involved in a book on cock and ball torture

Sociological text? How to? Memoir? Genre novel? Travel guide? Pop-up book?
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:09 AM on September 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Er...

FYI, middle neolithic was about 200,000 BC to around 10,000 BC, so you're working with more like 12,000 years to learn to metabolize domesticated/refined grains.

By "more balanced diet" I assume you mean semi-starving, eating gathered leaves, roots and wild grains, occasionally nuts and berries per season, honey and other drive-by occasionals and occasional meat when the hunt was successful? Grains have been part of (if not a staple of) human diet for longer than we've had agriculture.

Also, there is evidence I remember reading (citations will have to wait 'til a later date) that we evolved the enzymes to eat/efficiently metabolize cooked meat within a couple thousand years of starting to eat it. Also, with the new research on laterally transferred genetic snippets, it turns out that we "evolve" a lot faster than we once thought, depending on the kind and function of the genetic transfers available to us.

But otherwise, I do agree that metabolism and diets (for health, skinniness, what have you) are so personal that it can be difficult to negotiate other people's diets as they intend them to be negotiated, and it's unlikely that we all have the same specific goals with respect to diet-related health initiatives.
posted by kalessin at 8:15 AM on September 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Divine Wino,

How to.
posted by kalessin at 8:16 AM on September 2, 2008


By "more balanced diet" I assume you mean semi-starving, eating gathered leaves, roots and wild grains, occasionally nuts and berries per season, honey and other drive-by occasionals and occasional meat when the hunt was successful?

Exactly, and I'm under no illusion that it was a golden age, I'm just saying that was the fitness criteria for many, many generations of human evolution. I'd argue that there was a lot more nuts and fruits, grubs, insects and mushrooms in that mix. Not much in the way of grains.

Also, there is evidence I remember reading (citations will have to wait 'til a later date) that we evolved the enzymes to eat/efficiently metabolize cooked meat within a couple thousand years of starting to eat it. Also, with the new research on laterally transferred genetic snippets, it turns out that we "evolve" a lot faster than we once thought, depending on the kind and function of the genetic transfers available to us.

I believe you even without a cite, but being able to process something doesn't automatically equate to it being optimal. I'd guess that if we could evolve to support the anaerobic bacteria to process cellulose it would take at least hundreds of thousands of years of eating mostly grass for us to evolve a digestive system to handle it as efficiently as cows do.

Grains have been part of (if not a staple of) human diet for longer than we've had agriculture.

True, and we're able to eat them along with just about everything else in nature but the kitchen sink. I'm not saying oatmeal is a bad choice, but I just dont think it should be championed across every AskMe on diet, especially if the asker is getting plenty of carbs from other sources. I'm no fan of Atkins diets believe me, and I probably just posted my earlier comment here because of my cursed Devil's advocate streak.
posted by BrotherCaine at 4:22 PM on September 2, 2008


Fair enough, BrotherCaine. :)
posted by kalessin at 5:38 PM on September 2, 2008


I thought the "OMG eating disorder" was the best answer in the thread. That woman seems obsessed to me.

But maybe I'm the weird one. Like kalessin that thread, along with most health/diet ones on MeFi, seems surreal to me.

The rest of that thread reads like some sort of parody or satirical work. It bothers me a little that people spend that much time and brain cycles on what they eat.

For practically all of our existence on this planet, until very recently, we humans simply ate whatever we could get our hands on. That still goes for about 50% to 75% of the population in the world today.
posted by Ynoxas at 10:26 PM on September 4, 2008


Grains have been part of (if not a staple of) human diet for longer than we've had agriculture.

Not in any significant way, they weren't. Wild grains were gathered, which led to deliberate planting, but the payoff was way too low before agriculture to make grain-gathering worthwhile in any energy-expended for energy-consumed calculus.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:43 AM on September 10, 2008


« Older NYC Meetup Between 9/9 and 9/14?   |   art or sullen craft Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments