Activated Barley instead of high calorie food?

[weary]

Here's what WebMd says about Barley:

Barley is a cereal grain high in soluble fiber. Barley comes in many forms, including:

Sprouted barley
Pearl barley
Barley oil extract
Barley flour
Why do people take barley?

People take barley to try to lower:

Cholesterol
Blood pressure
Blood sugar
People also take barley to try to promote weight loss or help prevent some types of cancer.

Barley is likely effective for reducing total cholesterol and LDL "bad" cholesterol levels. It may also lower triglycerides and increase HDL "good" cholesterol levels. How much barley lowers cholesterol may depend upon how many grams you eat. The effect may also be less when barley is highly processed.

Barley may also lower blood pressure in people who do not have high blood pressure but have high cholesterol.

Dietary fiber in diet, such as in barley, may help prevent stomach cancer or extend survival in those with the disease. However, it doesn't seem to protect against colorectal cancer.

Researchers have not yet proven barley's effectiveness for other purposes. However, barley may help control appetite by stabilizing blood sugar and by slowing the emptying of your stomach.

Optimal doses of barley as a food or supplement have not been established for any condition.

However, to try to lower cholesterol, people have used one of these daily doses:

3 grams of barley oil extract
30 grams of barley bran flour
0.4 to 6 grams of soluble barley fiber
3 to 12 grams of pearled barley, or barley flour, flakes, or powder

[jeffmeh]

1) All calories are not created equal when processed by the body. Take a look at http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-.../dp/1400033462. Paleo and primal diets tend to be consistent with these premises.
2) How does the Bovis scale reconcile with resonating strings in 10 or 11-dimensional space, what happens to the swinging pendulum when it enters those hidden dimensions, and does that alter the meaning of clock-wise?
3) My latest 5 gallons of beer has likely fermented out, and I feel strangely compelled to take a sample.

[JAK]

I prefer a primaevel diet myself, with mead.

Mead wasn't available in North America though. No bees. I'll bet they were pretty pissed off after walking all that way across the ice bridge.

[Dogwood]

There is no doubt that freash, whole foods are better for you then the highly processed stuff most of us eat these days...

What's freash? Just messing with you.

OK, we got you to realize/admit this so far. Now, have you explored the possibilities of WHY this is generally so, without giving a knee jerk preconceived preconditioned current textbook answer? Could it be that not every calorie is assimilated or is used by the human body in the same way? MAYBE, the overly simplistic concept that a calorie is a calorie does not take into account some vitally import things and has prevented us from gaining a better understanding of nutrition? Do we really understand the complexities of food and how different foods affect the human body when we take the scientific concept/definition of what a calorie is out of context with ALL that a food is or the mechanisms by which it is converted into usable energy for the body? Perhaps, in some sense, the way we have been thinking about these things has been misleading or incomplete! Perhaps, even with all the advancements, modern nutritional science is missing some vitally important things when it assumes a food is just the sum of its presently understood ingredients. MAYBE, the sum of the ingredients listed on the package leads to more than the the sum of the now known ingredients on the package.

I know that's a lot of MAYBES but if we aren't willing to question our current understandings of how things work we will never evolve to a higher level scientifically and as a species. Isn't it true that our past scientific knowledge that was once held as so dear, in some cases, is no longer valid? Isn't science, in all its disciplines, evolving/changing just like most things?

"Unified Hiker Theory" - I like that.

My point is, what a few "scientists" say about a new and revolutionary product or how one calorie is different from another is highly suspect, especially when it comes from a web page that is trying to sell you something.

Good pt. Even though the internet didn't exist when Einstein started offering his ideas on Unified Field Theory and General and Special Relativity you might also want to know he was met with some violent opposition by the consensus of the entrenched scientific community(physicists, chemists, engineers, etc) of his time, at first, too. Then, his ideas were gradually more accepted by the scientific community as they started thinking about and questioning his ideas with an open mind being willing to question their own long held as true scientific knowledge. DO YOU NOT THINK this even happens in today's societies? DO YOU NOT THINK that some of what we hold as undeniably true today will, perhaps in the not too distant future, seem foolish?

It was only a short time ago when the western medical community thought of some disciplines or branches of medicine as quackery or too belief oriented as opposed to "real provable science." We are now finding, maybe not totally understanding it YET though, that some alternative, homeopathic, and integrative based therapies, as well as BELIEFS, have merit AND play VITALLY IMPORT ROLES. Some of this information and knowledge is being intentionally surpressed by those who have a different agenda, often associated with a profit or power motive. YES, this can also occur in the so called health food industry too! As other posters have stated this may be what's occurring, at least to some extent, in the marketing of this product, and of which I also mentioned by stating I'm skeptical about the veracity of ALL the marketing of this product. PLEASE, let's get this clear, I never wholly endorsed this product or all that's stated in the marketing of it! If you are going to bash my opinions with your own, which is fair game, at least do it by taking my various posts on this thread in context with one another and PLEASE know what I said and didn't say.

[Wise Old Owl]

LOL. I find it more than a little ironic that posters will find ways to dismiss something such as the possible benefits of foods high on the Bovis Scale when they don't even make an attempt at understanding the science and principles behind these ratings. Talk about not being open to new ways of thinking regarding nutrition and efficient usable energy in consumables that some might say are revolutionary. Talk about being about close minded.


I tend to approach info from a skeptic's stand point. I for one am not so gullible or uninitiated in regard to marketing

Perhaps, most of what I'm saying is falling on deaf ears or this isn't the place to share these ideas but none the less I'm still going to go forward. This product doesn't specifically go into great detail concerning these thoughts that I'm about to examine but they can dovetail nicely with the product. I too had a hard time accepting the fact that different foods, as well as objects, have different vibrational energies or vibrational frequencies and these energies affect us in different ways - some more positively, some more negatively. In the case of food, living or typically the least processed least refined most close to natural or organic foods have higher energies or vibrational frequencies associated with them than highly processed highly refined unnatural foods. For example, a freshly picked organic fruit or vegetable has more energy or higher vibrational frequency than say a like sized/wt slice of basically dead chocolate layer cake or Twinkie which has an indefinite shelf life. Interestingly enough, many things, and not only food, we as humans are more drawn to quite possibly because they have higher energies or vibrational frequencies. We have just been conditioned to move away from opting for these higher energy foods or objects because some have other agendas not in line with our natural instincts that draw us to these higher energies or simply don't understand this or CHOOSE TO NOT EVEN TRY TO UNDERSTAND THIS! Since I'm a Landscape Architect and Horticulturalist I often wondered why humans were so drawn to rose flowers. To my surprise I found that roses have some of the highest vibrational frequencies or energies of all flowers! HMM? Different parts of the human body have different energies too. More vital areas tend to have higher energies. I was also astonished that most diseases of the human body start occurring at particular energy or vibrational frequency levels! Even some western trained MDs already know, understand, and apply therapies along these lines. Am I getting the juices flowing thinking about possible consequences if we all started thinking about things like this, committing to research along these lines, applying what we've learned(or perhaps forgotten!), and return to our natural tendencies? I had originally dismissed notions like this as pseudo science or New Agey to garner serious scientific merit. I've had to re-examine some of my long held nutritional beliefs in light of some of this research. And, some of this research has been around for quite awhile. it's just not commonly discussed or only marginally investigated here in the U.S.

You could not find a simpler way to answer this? Strange we are not arguing with you... But would you buy this product to even try it?

What are the units for the Bogus scale ?

It's a blend of metric and imperial with a smidgen of Klingon.

This is sprout-able barley and is about $23 per pound is insane.

You guys can be brutal.

Yup

$50 for 32 oz--i don't think so.....

Its insane...

1) All calories are not created equal when processed by the body. Take a look at http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-.../dp/1400033462. Paleo and primal diets tend to be consistent with these premises.
2) How does the Bovis scale reconcile with resonating strings in 10 or 11-dimensional space, what happens to the swinging pendulum when it enters those hidden dimensions, and does that alter the meaning of clock-wise?

Honest! very simple - back your statements up with real data and scientific evidence... after watching a few Nova's on PBS ... surprise us. Accept the challenge from the group here.

[Rocket Jones]

Therein lies the problem. A calorie is a very specific measurement of the stored energy of a given food. If our bodies perfectly processed the energy in that food, then relating calories to the bodies use of the fuel would make perfect sense. Instead we use calories as an approximation of the unattainable maximum efficiency from consuming a food. Nutrition works the same way. Our bodies do not always make full use of every bit of nutrition in a given food.

Maybe nitpicky semantics, but if you can't agree on basic definitions, then marketing claims like these are so vague as to be useless. Even worse, the average consumer sees the word calorie and believes that it precisely describes what your body gets from the food. That's deliberately taking advantage of a common misunderstanding of the concept. Call it marketing, spin, misleading, whatever... it all amounts to the same thing.

[T.S.Kobzol]

Yes. A calorie=calorie and inch=inch but one inch of cbewing gum <> one inch of guano

Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk 2

[Wise Old Owl]

RJ and TSK you seriously nailed the Nova video article... thank you!

[Snowleopard]

Barley is a pretty healthy food and has a lot of soluble fiber, which helps to lower cholesterol. For a thru-hiker, oats are a lot more convenient (i.e., rolled oat = oatmeal). I guess you can get rolled barley which ought to cook up similarly to non-instant rolled oats. Barley is a couple dollars a pound, Bob's Redmill rolled barley cereal is about $3 a pound.

This activated barley stuff is $60 for 2 lb including shipping, which outrageous.

[Odd Man Out]

Barley is a pretty healthy food and has a lot of soluble fiber, which helps to lower cholesterol. For a thru-hiker, oats are a lot more convenient (i.e., rolled oat = oatmeal). I guess you can get rolled barley which ought to cook up similarly to non-instant rolled oats. Barley is a couple dollars a pound, Bob's Redmill rolled barley cereal is about $3 a pound.

This activated barley stuff is $60 for 2 lb including shipping, which outrageous.

Check out the home brewing stores. You can get rolled or malted barley for less than 1$/lb if you buy in bulk. 1 lb bags for maybe $1.50 or less.

[Dogwood]

You could not find a simpler way to answer(say?) this? Strange we are not arguing with you... But would you buy this product to even try it? - WOO

Fair enough questions WOO. First, I know I can be wordy in my opinions. It's the way I sometimes express myself. You express yourself differently. I'm still open to what you say though. I'm trying to address things more fully in my own way. Sorry if you got lost in what I said in my last post.

Second, maybe you don't notice how obvious it is but it sure seems to me like some debate is occurring.

Third, even in my shortest least wordy post on this thread, post # 13, you have obviously missed my answer to your last question when I said this: "Personally I wouldn't pay this retail price for sprouted barley(I think that price is outrageously unwarranted!) but I get where the marketing and research may have merit. I would simply buy fresh sprouted DRIED beans(they are sometimes available in bulk from heath food stores like Whole Foods) or freshly sprout beans/seeds etc while on trail to enhance my trail nutrition, which I already sometimes do."

...the average consumer sees the word calorie and believes that it precisely describes what your body gets from the food. That's deliberately taking advantage of a common misunderstanding of the concept. Call it marketing, spin, misleading, whatever... it all amounts to the same thing. - Rocket Jones

Ahh, thank you for mentioning this observation RJ.

The angstrom is simply a globally recognized scientific measurement of length. Kinda wonder how one poster got the symbol for it to be posted.

[Odd Man Out]

The angstrom is simply a globally recognized scientific measurement of length. Kinda wonder how one poster got the symbol for it to be posted.

Copy/Paste (ctrl-C/ctrl-V) from your post #20. ÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅ
If you copy and paste from the Wikipedia page, you can get the umlaut too. öööööööööö


BTW, the Ångström might be globally recognized, but it is not technically a correct unit of length to use in scientific discussions. The nanometer (10 Å) and picometer (0.01 Å) are the closest acceptable SI units. But even though not officially correct, this, and several other units, are still widely used due to convenience or tradition (you can't teach an old scientist new units). Ångstroms are most commonly used today to describe the length of inter-atomic bonds as most covalent bonds are in the range of 1 Å and hydrogen bonds are about 2 Å. The calorie is also widely used, despite being unitas non grata. We should be using Joules (or kJ), so please go back through this thread and divide all Calorie numbers by 4.184 to get kilojoules (since a Calorie is really a kilocalorie - ug).

Units are important. The Mars Climate Orbiter had to be renamed the "Mars Climate Crashes Into The Planet", because the engineers who developed the rockets gave its impulse specification in pound-seconds, but when these data were entered into the navigation computers (programed to use the correct units of Newton-seconds), the spacecraft was flown right into the planet instead of going into orbit (328 million dollar oops).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter

[Dogwood]

I figured the most likely way to post those things was Copy/Paste. As I said on another recent thread I suspected you were employed in a scientific field which is why I asked if you were/are a NASA engineer with your use of the BUMMER acronym. I almost became a Civil Engineer deciding to change my major in my 4 th yr of engineering school. In some of my engineering classes while discussing quantum mechanics, materials engineering, electrical system design, and chemistry we often used both the the Angstrom and Nanometer units.

[Odd Man Out]

Chemistry Professor