Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2019 November 17

= November 17 =

The Yuezhi, Saka, and Wusun
Are there any genomic studies on them? déhanchements (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Don't know, but let's add some links so people know what you're talking about: Yuezhi, Saka, and Wusun. SinisterLefty (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * A Google search brought up:
 * The separate origins of the Tocharians and the Yuezhi: Results from recent advances in archaeology and genetics
 * Diverse origin of mitochondrial lineages in Iron Age Black Sea Scythians
 * 137 ancient human genomes from across the Eurasian steppes 
 * Alansplodge (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Whole grain
I wasn’t sure where to put this question but how can you tell if a food is whole grain is it hard to determine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.151.160.117  (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * (US) Read the ingredients. They will be happy to tell you if it is. One thing to be aware of is that they will say "Contains 100% whole wheat" on the front, which doesn't mean it is all whole wheat, only that a portion of it is. If the ingredients list other types of wheat, then it isn't. That said, a product made of nothing but whole grains is hard to take. That's a lot of roughage and it also won't stick together well. So, you might just look for a product which lists whole wheat (or some other whole flour) as the first ingredient, and has other types of flour, too. One product I would recommend is multigrain breads with seeds visible on the outside. There are 12 grain breads, 22 grain breads, etc. Those are both tasty and healthy, with a variety of grains and seeds that provides both nutrients and fiber. Note that all breads are likely to contain mostly wheat, since that's the cheapest grain, no matter what they say in front. SinisterLefty (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Many claims of "whole grain" are basically bullshit, there so little regulation on the use of the term that there's absolutely no meaningful health information that can be gleaned from labels based on how much whole grain they claim to have. If you like the flavor of foods marketed as "whole grain", by all means eat them.  There's nothing wrong with them compared to those that don't use that terminology, but the term has no actual meaning from a health-point-of-view.  That doesn't mean that eating actual whole grains is not more healthy, it's just that eating processed foods labeled as "contains whole grain" isn't.  See this article or this article, etc.  Part of the problem is that foods like bread and pasta get to be labeled as "whole grain" when they contained milled whole grains, and there's some considerable evidence that any of the health benefits of eating whole grains is lost when the grains are ground to make processed foods like breads and pastas.  When studies tout the health benefits of whole grains, they literally mean "eating the entire grain with minimal processing" and not "processing the whole grain and making stuff out of it".  The second article I cited makes this point, saying, and I quote, "When whole grain is milled and becomes whole-wheat flour, the digestion and absorption process is still fast. And that can induce higher insulin responses. Theoretically, that kind of product is less beneficial compared to whole grains that are minimally processed, or not processed at all." -- Jayron 32 17:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, ignore the marketing on the front of the package and flip it over to read the actual nutritional analysis, particularly fiber, sugar, and sodium content. Those sources talk primarily about the glycemic index, which is important, but getting micronutrients is also important, and a wide variety of whole grains and seeds helps with that. SinisterLefty (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * One problem, however, that does bear mentioning is that getting micronutrient is only really beneficial in context; there are lots of studies that show that vitamin pills don't do an effective job of providing measurable health benefits; getting the same micronutrients from actual food in its natural state seems best: That article notes that there is some benefit to certain vitamin supplements in certain situations, but generally speaking it is best to get our nutrients from the foods themselves in their natural state.  This also applies to supplements added to food.  Enriched or fortified foods are not significantly healthier than their un-enriched counterparts, and one is best getting those nutrients in their natural state.   -- Jayron 32 15:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * See also: cereal germ. 41.165.67.114 (talk) 06:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)