【推荐1】For many health-conscious people, bread is a little slice of hell. Shelves of multigrain loaves—or friends passing around sourdough (酵母面包) starters and attaching the word artisanal (手工艺性的) to the ancient combination of yeast (酵母), flour and water—have led consumers to believe whole grain bread is healthier than industrial white bread. That trend has made for a lot of expensive sandwiches.

Fortunately, a new study by researchers at the Weizmann Institute of Science is here to cut through the confusion. In the study, published in Cell Metabolism, researchers randomized 20 participants to consume either processed white bread or artisanal whole wheat sourdough in order to compare the effects of each on the body.

Before the study started, all participants consumed the same amount of white and nonwhite bread for several days. Then each group ate, on average, at least 100 grams of bread—three to four slices—per day for one week. After a two-week break, the groups switched types for another bread-laden week. The total amount of calories the participants consumed remained constant the duration of the study.

The researchers were surprised by what they found. “There were no clinically significant differences between the effects of these two types of bread on whatever we measured,” said computational biologist Eran Segal, senior author of the study in a statement. Those measured included glucose levels upon waking, fat and cholesterol levels, the amounts of essential minerals in the bloodstream and several indicators of tissue damage. Segal and colleagues examined 20 variables and found not one notable difference between the white bread eaters and the artisanal bread eaters. The key finding: It wasn’t that both breads had no effect on the body. Rather, they both did equal damage. As it turns out, half the participants had a higher glycemic response to industrial white bread, and half had the higher response to artisanal sourdough bread.

The researchers also found that which bread was best for you can be predicted based on the bacteria present in your body. They found that the “profile”—the variety of bacterial species—correlated with the glycemic (血糖) response to each bread. The small size of the study means the results should be considered preliminary. The researchers hope to study these predictors more carefully as a potential way to improve nutritional recommendations, says biologist Avraham Levy, another study co-author.

In short, the study provides vital evidence that we need to stop judging each other in the supermarket bread aisle.

【推荐2】Taste is such a subjective matter that we don’t usually conduct preference tests for food. The most you can say about anyone’s preference is that it’s one person’s opinion. But because the two big cola companies-Coca-Cola and Pepsi Cola-are marketed so aggressively, we’ve wondered how big a role taste preference actually plays in brand loyalty. We set up a taste test that challenged people who identified themselves as either Coca-cola or Pepsi fans: Find your brand in a blind tasting.

We invited staff volunteers who had a strong liking for either Coca-Cola Classic or Pepsi, Diet Coke, or Diet Pepsi. These were people who thought they’d have no trouble telling their brand from the other brand.

We eventually located 19 regular cola drinkers and 27 diet cola drinkers. Then we fed them with four unidentified samples of cola one at a time, regular colas for the one group, diet versions for the other. We asked them to tell us whether each sample was Coke or Pepsi; then we analyzed the records statistically to compare the participants’ choices with what mere guesswork could have accomplished.

Getting all four samples right was a tough test, but not too tough, we thought, for people who believed they could recognize their brand. In the end, only 7 out of 19 regular cola drinkers correctly identified their brand of choice in all four trials. The diet-cola drinkers did a little worse-only 7 out of 27 identified all four samples correctly.

Both groups did better than chance would predict, but nearly half the participants in each group made the wrong choice two or more times. Two people got all four samples wrong. Overall, half the participants did about as well on the last round of tasting as on the first, so tiredness, or taste burnout, was not a factor. Our preference test results suggest that only a few Pepsi participants and Coke fans may really be able to tell their favorite brand by taste and price.

【推荐3】Parties to celebrate special events, achievements, and holidays are the perfect time for hosts to exercise their roles.     1     But for some people, invitations to events that center around food lead to fear and anxiety.

    2     And many sweet treats and salty snacks attract us because of the chemical additives and mixtures that perfect the material and taste of foods. Still, most party foods include large amounts of unhealthy fats. Fat itself should be part of a healthy diet. But the highly processed types of them can break down our health.

By now, you are probably wondering what healthy food choices should be offered at our get-togethers.     3     Vegetable salads can also be a relief to those seeking healthier choices, but it is best to leave off the dressing and provide a variety of dressing choices, including plain olive oil and Italy vinegar.

The nature of the party can often determine the cuisine, but nearly any common party dish can be recreated with healthier ingredients (食材). It's best to use whole grains when possible.     4    

And finally, be sure to let your health-conscious guests know that there are some food choices by reminding them on the invitation.     5     If you make a homemade treat or dish, supplying a note card with the ingredients is appreciated by those attempting to avoid specific ingredients.

At your next party, try this recipe for healthier, black bean brownies. Not only are these allergy-friendly, but they offer a lot of health benefits for everyone.

【推荐3】Climate experts are having a debate: they are asking whether the UK should focus more on adapting to climate change or trying to prevent it.

David Frost holds that preventing climate change is no longer an option, given the extent to which the Earth now appears certain to heat up. Despite the many policies which attempt to stop climate change, it now seems unavoidable that the world will pass the 1.5℃ or 2℃ increases in average global temperature that are likely to induce large changes in the climate.

David Frost is right in that our economies are growing so much slower than we had anticipated. Our emissions can drop if we reduce emissions per unit of GDP we create—but they can also drop if the GDP is lower. Lower growth means it is more feasible (可行的) for us to achieve targets such as Net Zero, but it also makes it less environmentally urgent to achieve those targets so soon, because we are and have been emitting a lot less carbon than we had anticipated.

The UK authority finds the debate about adaptation difficult. Partly, it is because some activists claim that adaptation is not feasible. They say that climate change will end human civilization, potentially leading to the entire extinction of the human race.

However, the mainstream view of many scientists and economists, who work on climate change, is that global warming could lead to large changes in our environment. Significant parts of the world currently heavily populated could become effectively uninhabitable while other parts currently unsuitable for high-density human habitation would become more habitable. Meanwhile, at higher temperatures both climate and weather are likely to become more volatile—including increased frequency of storms, flooding and other weather events.

These would be significant changes, but it would be perfectly feasible for humans to adapt to them. The issue is not whether adapting would be technically feasible, but whether it would be desirable either in ethical or practical terms. Are we willing to accept a materially warmer world, with humans living in different parts of it? Are we willing to accept the possible extinctions of certain species and the greater flourishing of those currently less successful and of new species yet to evolve? Are we willing to accept the consequences of a large shift in the patterns of human habitation across the world?

It is by no means clear on what basis we ought to ethnically privilege the plants and animals that flourish under today’s climate over those that would flourish under a warmer, more volatile climate. However, adaptation will be feasible and is a necessity given the extent to which warming is now unavoidable. Slower GDP growth and thus slower climate change ought to make greater efforts at adaptation more attractive.