Wikipedia Sucks!

In the article, there is NO mention of gluconeogenesis and how it makes carbohydrates basically a optional nutrient to dig in, unlike in other language wikis where they do.

Someone pointed it out in the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carbohydrate, but you know, typical dismissal.

Typical deity praising.

Carbohydrates are central to nutrition and are found in a wide variety of natural and processed foods.

The Institute of Medicine recommends that American and Canadian adults get between 45 and 65% of dietary energy from whole-grain carbohydrates.

65% from grass seeds eh. I guess i'll dig in on bread all the way. What basis does this have?

The wikishits laughed when the Daily Mail ran a story detailing what implications climate change had for the American love of meat.

Totally made up, they claimed. Scaremongering. Ridiculous.

Not laughing now I note. Headlines from COP26 are scarily close to the Mail's quality reportage. Almost as if they decided the people needed to know what the scientists already did, but were just sitting on while Uncle Joe was safely ushered into power.

Wikipedia is bad for your health. Save the planet, eat less Wikipedia.

Most determined editor of the article: administrator Favonian. A minor figure I never bothered to study, despite seeing him (?) on noticeboards and Jimbotalk over and over. Favonian is an IT nerd and fond of European history but I see no evidence of expertise in biochemistry or nutrition.

As usual, "truth" on Wikipedia is "immutable and only supported by references", unless an administrator wants to say otherwise.

These guys promote HDL but they have this garbage.

Entry: Coconut milk

Excessive coconut milk consumption can also raise blood levels of cholesterol due to the amount of lauric acid, a saturated fat that contributes to higher blood cholesterol by increasing the levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol.