Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2021 August 15

= August 15 =

Hygienic question
I wasn't sure where to put this or where to ask this question but for shower gel it says it has a lower pH value than the traditional soap, which is also known to feel less drying to the skin. Does this mean it is less drying to the skin? And what does this mean "Some people have likened the effect to feeling less squeaky clean, however." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shower_gel 2001:8003:7432:4500:4140:CDE2:8A30:C521 (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * People who are used to their skin having somewhat dried out after a soap wash may associate that dry feeling with being clean. A good shower gel tends indeed to have a less strong drying effect for the same cleaning action, so it is (marginally) better for the skin. I'm not sure how this is related to their pH value. Modern commercial toilet soaps are much less harsh than they used to be, and should not be a problem unless people wash excessively (as some sufferers from mysophobia do) or have an extremely sensitive skin. Excessive use of the best shower gel will also cause eczema or other skin problems. If dry skin after washing is a problem, one can use a moisturizer. --Lambiam 22:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Soap is basically "fat + alkali". If the soap is too alkaline (high pH), then it will also saponify the fats and oils in your skin, i.e. it will turn the oils in your skin into soap themselves, and this has the effect of leaving some people's skin feeling overdried.  Soaps with a lower pH don't saponify your skin's oils as much, meaning your skin is less likely to dry out.  -- Jayron 32 12:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Potatoes
I made an article question on here awhile back about potatoes not many were sure what I meant or what I was asking but now I have bit more information. I want to know what this reference means when they're saying to "bag the potatoes" and recommend to "Choose other vegetables that are packed with more nutrients and more slowly digested carbs." What do they mean by this when they say to "bag potatoes" what do they mean by this "Choose other vegetables that are packed with more nutrients and more slowly digested carbs."?2001:8003:7432:4500:A4A3:385:A647:CAFA (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * One (of many) definitions of "bag": to give up, forgo, or abandon especially for something more desirable or attainable.  The 2nd part is self-explanatory:  eat something better instead.  2603:6081:1C00:1187:CCAA:B747:6F3D:D81B (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Using data from the SR Legacy data base of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, compare boiled potatoes (with skin), boliled white beans and boiled common cabbage, each in a quantity delivering 100 kilocalories:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Vegetable !! Protein (g) !! Fiber (g)
 * + 100 kCal gives:
 * Potatoes || 2.15 || 2.30
 * White beans || 7.00 || 4.53
 * Cabbage || 5.52 || 8.26
 * }
 * Clearly, for the amount of calories, potatoes are low in both protein content and in fiber. For many other nutrients they also score relatively low. No single foodstuff is ideal, though; for example, beans and cabbage lack vitamin B-12. While it is unwise to stuff oneself with potatoes (or pasta or white bread, for that matter), one should not use too much of any foodstuff, but eat varied meals, including leafy vegetables and (moderate amounts of) fruits and nuts. Potatoes are fine in moderate amounts, but gorging on them is not healthy. --Lambiam 22:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * For those reasons, potatoes and some other starchy root vegetables are usually excluded from national 5 A Day campaigns. Alansplodge (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Potatoes are among the foods that have a lot of empty calories, which is to say they provide food energy without providing other important nutrients, such as proteins, dietary fiber, vitamins, or minerals. Potatoes are not as bad as eating raw sugar or pure lard, but they aren't the best choice one could make.  The statement the OP quotes is reminding people that, instead of potatoes, they should instead choose to budget their daily calories eating foods that have more nutrients.  -- Jayron 32 12:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Potatoes do have those nutrients, especially if you keep the skins on, but they are not as concentrated as in other root vegetables and they have a high starch content which is easily converted to blood sugar, which if not burned-off, eventually turns to body fat.  Alansplodge (talk) 08:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Potatoes do have some nutrients, but other foods have more nutrient density, and in the limited caloric budget you should be allowing yourself in a day, you should fill as much of that budget with foods that maximize nutrient density. Food choices are all about picking from amongst the wide plethora of available foods, and deciding to eat those which are likely to produce the best health outcomes.  You'll note that, when I said, "Potatoes are not as bad as eating raw sugar or pure lard, but they aren't the best choice one could make." what I actually meant by that was "Potatoes are not as bad as eating raw sugar or pure lard, but they aren't the best choice one could make."  I hope that makes things clearer.  It is not that potatoes contain no nutrients, but on a calorie-to-calorie basis, other foods that you could be eating contain more.  -- Jayron 32 12:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I suspect that those who devised these campaigns assumed that people would be eating potatoes already - see staple food. Alansplodge (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. In pre-industrial societies where most people live on a Subsistence economy, calories are the primary concern.  Getting enough Vitamin B12, for example, is less of an issue than not dying of starvation, and staple crops provide an important source of calorie-dense foods.  In modern post-industrial societies, where we have an embarrassment of riches food-wise, excess calories are a problem for many people's health outcomes.  The needs of the modern, middle-class white-collar worker are vastly different than the late medieval Irish peasant.  -- Jayron 32 14:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Potatoes do have some nutrients, but other foods have more nutrient density, and in the limited caloric budget you should be allowing yourself in a day, you should fill as much of that budget with foods that maximize nutrient density. Food choices are all about picking from amongst the wide plethora of available foods, and deciding to eat those which are likely to produce the best health outcomes.  You'll note that, when I said, "Potatoes are not as bad as eating raw sugar or pure lard, but they aren't the best choice one could make." what I actually meant by that was "Potatoes are not as bad as eating raw sugar or pure lard, but they aren't the best choice one could make."  I hope that makes things clearer.  It is not that potatoes contain no nutrients, but on a calorie-to-calorie basis, other foods that you could be eating contain more.  -- Jayron 32 12:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I suspect that those who devised these campaigns assumed that people would be eating potatoes already - see staple food. Alansplodge (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. In pre-industrial societies where most people live on a Subsistence economy, calories are the primary concern.  Getting enough Vitamin B12, for example, is less of an issue than not dying of starvation, and staple crops provide an important source of calorie-dense foods.  In modern post-industrial societies, where we have an embarrassment of riches food-wise, excess calories are a problem for many people's health outcomes.  The needs of the modern, middle-class white-collar worker are vastly different than the late medieval Irish peasant.  -- Jayron 32 14:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)