Discussion:
the best single food
Add Reply
Lazypierrot
2018-09-12 23:55:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Hello,

I would like to know the meaning of "the best single food" in the following passage;


A strong case could be made that almonds are, nutritionally, the best single food a person could eat.


Especially, I wonder what is meant by "single food".


Cordially,

LP
Horace LaBadie
2018-09-13 01:02:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <ae6925a3-2cf6-44dc-b6b2-***@googlegroups.com>,
Lazypierrot <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I would like to know the meaning of "the best single food" in the following
> passage;
>
>
> A strong case could be made that almonds are, nutritionally, the best single
> food a person could eat.
>
>
> Especially, I wonder what is meant by "single food".
>
>
> Cordially,
>
> LP


Almonds are the best food, without any competition. The one food that,
eaten alone, is best.

The single best food would be the more common way of phrasing it.
Richard Tobin
2018-09-13 12:13:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <hlabadie-***@aioe.org>,
Horace LaBadie <***@nospam.com> wrote:

>> A strong case could be made that almonds are, nutritionally, the best single
>> food a person could eat.

>> Especially, I wonder what is meant by "single food".

>Almonds are the best food, without any competition.

No.

>The one food that, eaten alone, is best.

Closer.

It means that of single foods - i.e. not combinations, like bacon and
eggs - almonds are best from a nutritional point of view. It's
nonsense, of course, which is why they weasel out with "a string case
could be made".

>The single best food would be the more common way of phrasing it.

That's a much more ambiguoud phrasing.

-- Richard
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-09-13 13:11:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, 13 September 2018 13:15:03 UTC+1, Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <hlabadie-***@aioe.org>,
> Horace LaBadie <***@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >> A strong case could be made that almonds are, nutritionally, the best single
> >> food a person could eat.
>
> >> Especially, I wonder what is meant by "single food".
>
> >Almonds are the best food, without any competition.
>
> No.
>
> >The one food that, eaten alone, is best.
>
> Closer.
>
> It means that of single foods - i.e. not combinations, like bacon and
> eggs - almonds are best from a nutritional point of view.

No it doesn't. I mean really, not even close. It clearly means that almonds
contain the greater part of all necessary nutrients for human survival. If you
were able to choose a desert island to be stranded on from a selection,
all of which had a single food source, it would probably be best to choose
the one with the almonds.

>It's
> nonsense, of course, which is why they weasel out with "a string case
> could be made".

Yes it is nonsense. No that's not why the qualification is added.
>
> >The single best food would be the more common way of phrasing it.
>
> That's a much more ambiguoud phrasing.
>

Only in your interpretatiod.
Peter Percival
2018-09-13 13:23:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> On Thursday, 13 September 2018 13:15:03 UTC+1, Richard Tobin wrote:
>> In article <hlabadie-***@aioe.org>,
>> Horace LaBadie <***@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> A strong case could be made that almonds are, nutritionally, the best single
>>>> food a person could eat.
>>
>>>> Especially, I wonder what is meant by "single food".
>>
>>> Almonds are the best food, without any competition.
>>
>> No.
>>
>>> The one food that, eaten alone, is best.
>>
>> Closer.
>>
>> It means that of single foods - i.e. not combinations, like bacon and
>> eggs - almonds are best from a nutritional point of view.
>
> No it doesn't. I mean really, not even close. It clearly means that almonds
> contain the greater part of all necessary nutrients for human survival. If you
> were able to choose a desert island to be stranded on from a selection,
> all of which had a single food source, it would probably be best to choose
> the one with the almonds.
>
>> It's
>> nonsense, of course, which is why they weasel out with "a string case
>> could be made".
>
> Yes it is nonsense. No that's not why the qualification is added.
>>
>>> The single best food would be the more common way of phrasing it.
>>
>> That's a much more ambiguoud phrasing.
>>
>
> Only in your interpretatiod.

If there is more than one interpretation, then there is ambiguity.

>
Cheryl
2018-09-13 13:26:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-13 10:41 AM, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> On Thursday, 13 September 2018 13:15:03 UTC+1, Richard Tobin wrote:
>> In article <hlabadie-***@aioe.org>,
>> Horace LaBadie <***@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> A strong case could be made that almonds are, nutritionally, the best single
>>>> food a person could eat.
>>
>>>> Especially, I wonder what is meant by "single food".
>>
>>> Almonds are the best food, without any competition.
>>
>> No.
>>
>>> The one food that, eaten alone, is best.
>>
>> Closer.
>>
>> It means that of single foods - i.e. not combinations, like bacon and
>> eggs - almonds are best from a nutritional point of view.
>
> No it doesn't. I mean really, not even close. It clearly means that almonds
> contain the greater part of all necessary nutrients for human survival. If you
> were able to choose a desert island to be stranded on from a selection,
> all of which had a single food source, it would probably be best to choose
> the one with the almonds.

I'm with Richard. It means that almonds are, nutritionally, the best
single food. It does not claim that even the best single food has all or
even most of the nutrients necessary for human nutrition, just that
almonds have a wider range of or larger amounts of the nutrients humans
need than other single foods. Almonds could be (and probably are)
totally inadequate to keep someone alive on a desert island with no
other source of food.

The original sentence is silly - it's easy to believe that almonds
contain more of the nutrients needed for human survival than, say,
lettuce. But do they really mean that they have more nutrients than
similar nuts?


--
Cheryl
Richard Yates
2018-09-13 13:32:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 10:56:25 -0230, Cheryl <***@mun.ca> wrote:

>On 2018-09-13 10:41 AM, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
>> On Thursday, 13 September 2018 13:15:03 UTC+1, Richard Tobin wrote:
>>> In article <hlabadie-***@aioe.org>,
>>> Horace LaBadie <***@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> A strong case could be made that almonds are, nutritionally, the best single
>>>>> food a person could eat.
>>>
>>>>> Especially, I wonder what is meant by "single food".
>>>
>>>> Almonds are the best food, without any competition.
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>>> The one food that, eaten alone, is best.
>>>
>>> Closer.
>>>
>>> It means that of single foods - i.e. not combinations, like bacon and
>>> eggs - almonds are best from a nutritional point of view.
>>
>> No it doesn't. I mean really, not even close. It clearly means that almonds
>> contain the greater part of all necessary nutrients for human survival. If you
>> were able to choose a desert island to be stranded on from a selection,
>> all of which had a single food source, it would probably be best to choose
>> the one with the almonds.
>
>I'm with Richard. It means that almonds are, nutritionally, the best
>single food. It does not claim that even the best single food has all or
>even most of the nutrients necessary for human nutrition, just that
>almonds have a wider range of or larger amounts of the nutrients humans
>need than other single foods. Almonds could be (and probably are)
>totally inadequate to keep someone alive on a desert island with no
>other source of food.
>
>The original sentence is silly - it's easy to believe that almonds
>contain more of the nutrients needed for human survival than, say,
>lettuce. But do they really mean that they have more nutrients than
>similar nuts?

Nitpick and possible side thread: Almonds are not nuts. They are the
seed of the almond fruit.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-09-13 14:08:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, 13 September 2018 14:33:00 UTC+1, Richard Yates wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 10:56:25 -0230, Cheryl <***@mun.ca> wrote:
>
> >On 2018-09-13 10:41 AM, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> >> On Thursday, 13 September 2018 13:15:03 UTC+1, Richard Tobin wrote:
> >>> In article <hlabadie-***@aioe.org>,
> >>> Horace LaBadie <***@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> A strong case could be made that almonds are, nutritionally, the best single
> >>>>> food a person could eat.
> >>>
> >>>>> Especially, I wonder what is meant by "single food".
> >>>
> >>>> Almonds are the best food, without any competition.
> >>>
> >>> No.
> >>>
> >>>> The one food that, eaten alone, is best.
> >>>
> >>> Closer.
> >>>
> >>> It means that of single foods - i.e. not combinations, like bacon and
> >>> eggs - almonds are best from a nutritional point of view.
> >>
> >> No it doesn't. I mean really, not even close. It clearly means that almonds
> >> contain the greater part of all necessary nutrients for human survival. If you
> >> were able to choose a desert island to be stranded on from a selection,
> >> all of which had a single food source, it would probably be best to choose
> >> the one with the almonds.
> >
> >I'm with Richard. It means that almonds are, nutritionally, the best
> >single food. It does not claim that even the best single food has all or
> >even most of the nutrients necessary for human nutrition, just that
> >almonds have a wider range of or larger amounts of the nutrients humans
> >need than other single foods. Almonds could be (and probably are)
> >totally inadequate to keep someone alive on a desert island with no
> >other source of food.
> >
> >The original sentence is silly - it's easy to believe that almonds
> >contain more of the nutrients needed for human survival than, say,
> >lettuce. But do they really mean that they have more nutrients than
> >similar nuts?
>
> Nitpick and possible side thread: Almonds are not nuts. They are the
> seed of the almond fruit.

Well there's a distinction without a difference. All nuts are the seed
of a fruit. The difference is that true nuts are indehiscent (no, you
look it up!) which almonds aren't. However, that is a purely botanical
distinction and unless one is fond of being thought crazy, having to
claim that walnuts and Brazil nuts, for example, are not nuts, it is best
not brought up in polite society!
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-09-13 19:08:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 06:32:59 -0700, Richard Yates
<***@yatesguitar.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 10:56:25 -0230, Cheryl <***@mun.ca> wrote:
>
>>On 2018-09-13 10:41 AM, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 13 September 2018 13:15:03 UTC+1, Richard Tobin wrote:
>>>> In article <hlabadie-***@aioe.org>,
>>>> Horace LaBadie <***@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> A strong case could be made that almonds are, nutritionally, the best single
>>>>>> food a person could eat.
>>>>
>>>>>> Especially, I wonder what is meant by "single food".
>>>>
>>>>> Almonds are the best food, without any competition.
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>>> The one food that, eaten alone, is best.
>>>>
>>>> Closer.
>>>>
>>>> It means that of single foods - i.e. not combinations, like bacon and
>>>> eggs - almonds are best from a nutritional point of view.
>>>
>>> No it doesn't. I mean really, not even close. It clearly means that almonds
>>> contain the greater part of all necessary nutrients for human survival. If you
>>> were able to choose a desert island to be stranded on from a selection,
>>> all of which had a single food source, it would probably be best to choose
>>> the one with the almonds.
>>
>>I'm with Richard. It means that almonds are, nutritionally, the best
>>single food. It does not claim that even the best single food has all or
>>even most of the nutrients necessary for human nutrition, just that
>>almonds have a wider range of or larger amounts of the nutrients humans
>>need than other single foods. Almonds could be (and probably are)
>>totally inadequate to keep someone alive on a desert island with no
>>other source of food.
>>
>>The original sentence is silly - it's easy to believe that almonds
>>contain more of the nutrients needed for human survival than, say,
>>lettuce. But do they really mean that they have more nutrients than
>>similar nuts?
>
>Nitpick and possible side thread: Almonds are not nuts. They are the
>seed of the almond fruit.

I suppose that next you'll be telling us that peanuts are not nuts. ;-)

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
s***@gmail.com
2018-09-13 19:50:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, September 13 [-ish], PeterWD wrote:
> On Thu, Richard Yates <***@yatesguitar.com> wrote:

[after the main discussion of almond pros and cons]

> >Nitpick and possible side thread: Almonds are not nuts. They are the
> >seed of the almond fruit.
>
> I suppose that next you'll be telling us that peanuts are not nuts. ;-)

I done seed what you did do there.

/dps
Richard Yates
2018-09-13 21:28:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 20:08:07 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
<***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 06:32:59 -0700, Richard Yates
><***@yatesguitar.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 10:56:25 -0230, Cheryl <***@mun.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2018-09-13 10:41 AM, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, 13 September 2018 13:15:03 UTC+1, Richard Tobin wrote:
>>>>> In article <hlabadie-***@aioe.org>,
>>>>> Horace LaBadie <***@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> A strong case could be made that almonds are, nutritionally, the best single
>>>>>>> food a person could eat.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Especially, I wonder what is meant by "single food".
>>>>>
>>>>>> Almonds are the best food, without any competition.
>>>>>
>>>>> No.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The one food that, eaten alone, is best.
>>>>>
>>>>> Closer.
>>>>>
>>>>> It means that of single foods - i.e. not combinations, like bacon and
>>>>> eggs - almonds are best from a nutritional point of view.
>>>>
>>>> No it doesn't. I mean really, not even close. It clearly means that almonds
>>>> contain the greater part of all necessary nutrients for human survival. If you
>>>> were able to choose a desert island to be stranded on from a selection,
>>>> all of which had a single food source, it would probably be best to choose
>>>> the one with the almonds.
>>>
>>>I'm with Richard. It means that almonds are, nutritionally, the best
>>>single food. It does not claim that even the best single food has all or
>>>even most of the nutrients necessary for human nutrition, just that
>>>almonds have a wider range of or larger amounts of the nutrients humans
>>>need than other single foods. Almonds could be (and probably are)
>>>totally inadequate to keep someone alive on a desert island with no
>>>other source of food.
>>>
>>>The original sentence is silly - it's easy to believe that almonds
>>>contain more of the nutrients needed for human survival than, say,
>>>lettuce. But do they really mean that they have more nutrients than
>>>similar nuts?
>>
>>Nitpick and possible side thread: Almonds are not nuts. They are the
>>seed of the almond fruit.
>
>I suppose that next you'll be telling us that peanuts are not nuts. ;-)

Now *that's* the best single food.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-09-13 21:38:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, 13 September 2018 22:28:39 UTC+1, Richard Yates wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 20:08:07 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
> <***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 06:32:59 -0700, Richard Yates
> ><***@yatesguitar.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 10:56:25 -0230, Cheryl <***@mun.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 2018-09-13 10:41 AM, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, 13 September 2018 13:15:03 UTC+1, Richard Tobin wrote:
> >>>>> In article <hlabadie-***@aioe.org>,
> >>>>> Horace LaBadie <***@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> A strong case could be made that almonds are, nutritionally, the best single
> >>>>>>> food a person could eat.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Especially, I wonder what is meant by "single food".
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Almonds are the best food, without any competition.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The one food that, eaten alone, is best.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Closer.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It means that of single foods - i.e. not combinations, like bacon and
> >>>>> eggs - almonds are best from a nutritional point of view.
> >>>>
> >>>> No it doesn't. I mean really, not even close. It clearly means that almonds
> >>>> contain the greater part of all necessary nutrients for human survival. If you
> >>>> were able to choose a desert island to be stranded on from a selection,
> >>>> all of which had a single food source, it would probably be best to choose
> >>>> the one with the almonds.
> >>>
> >>>I'm with Richard. It means that almonds are, nutritionally, the best
> >>>single food. It does not claim that even the best single food has all or
> >>>even most of the nutrients necessary for human nutrition, just that
> >>>almonds have a wider range of or larger amounts of the nutrients humans
> >>>need than other single foods. Almonds could be (and probably are)
> >>>totally inadequate to keep someone alive on a desert island with no
> >>>other source of food.
> >>>
> >>>The original sentence is silly - it's easy to believe that almonds
> >>>contain more of the nutrients needed for human survival than, say,
> >>>lettuce. But do they really mean that they have more nutrients than
> >>>similar nuts?
> >>
> >>Nitpick and possible side thread: Almonds are not nuts. They are the
> >>seed of the almond fruit.
> >
> >I suppose that next you'll be telling us that peanuts are not nuts. ;-)
>
> Now *that's* the best single food.

Not for the estimated 6 people per 1000 who have a potentially fatal
allergy, it ain't!

ObAUE; nobody ever seems to mind *this* double negative!
Mack A. Damia
2018-09-13 13:51:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 10:56:25 -0230, Cheryl <***@mun.ca> wrote:

>On 2018-09-13 10:41 AM, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
>> On Thursday, 13 September 2018 13:15:03 UTC+1, Richard Tobin wrote:
>>> In article <hlabadie-***@aioe.org>,
>>> Horace LaBadie <***@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> A strong case could be made that almonds are, nutritionally, the best single
>>>>> food a person could eat.
>>>
>>>>> Especially, I wonder what is meant by "single food".
>>>
>>>> Almonds are the best food, without any competition.
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>>> The one food that, eaten alone, is best.
>>>
>>> Closer.
>>>
>>> It means that of single foods - i.e. not combinations, like bacon and
>>> eggs - almonds are best from a nutritional point of view.
>>
>> No it doesn't. I mean really, not even close. It clearly means that almonds
>> contain the greater part of all necessary nutrients for human survival. If you
>> were able to choose a desert island to be stranded on from a selection,
>> all of which had a single food source, it would probably be best to choose
>> the one with the almonds.
>
>I'm with Richard. It means that almonds are, nutritionally, the best
>single food. It does not claim that even the best single food has all or
>even most of the nutrients necessary for human nutrition, just that
>almonds have a wider range of or larger amounts of the nutrients humans
>need than other single foods. Almonds could be (and probably are)
>totally inadequate to keep someone alive on a desert island with no
>other source of food.

Aside from the form of which you are discussing, I heard that oysters
are the perfect food, and they might be plentiful on a desert island.

>The original sentence is silly - it's easy to believe that almonds
>contain more of the nutrients needed for human survival than, say,
>lettuce. But do they really mean that they have more nutrients than
>similar nuts?
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-13 14:56:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 9:11:45 AM UTC-4, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:

> It clearly means that almonds
> contain the greater part of all necessary nutrients for human survival. If you
> were able to choose a desert island to be stranded on from a selection,
> all of which had a single food source, it would probably be best to choose
> the one with the almonds.

But the crunching would interfere with your listening to the Discs.
Richard Tobin
2018-09-13 15:00:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <425896fc-ca64-44b2-a580-***@googlegroups.com>,
Madrigal Gurneyhalt <***@googlemail.com> wrote:

>> >> A strong case could be made that almonds are, nutritionally, the
>> >> best single food a person could eat.

>> It means that of single foods - i.e. not combinations, like bacon and
>> eggs - almonds are best from a nutritional point of view.

>No it doesn't. I mean really, not even close. It clearly means that almonds
>contain the greater part of all necessary nutrients for human survival.

I looked up the original article. See if this is consistent with
your view:

This week another large study added to the body of known
cardiovascular benefits of eating almonds. Every ounce eaten daily
was associated with a 3.5 percent decreased risk of heart disease
ten years later. Almonds are already known to help with weight loss
and satiety, help prevent diabetes, and potentially ameliorate
arthritis, inhibit cancer-cell growth, and decrease Alzheimer's
risk. A strong case could be made that almonds are, nutritionally,
the best single food a person could eat.

-- Richard
Default User
2018-09-13 17:31:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Richard Tobin wrote:

> In article <425896fc-ca64-44b2-a580-***@googlegroups.com>,
> Madrigal Gurneyhalt <***@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> A strong case could be made that almonds are, nutritionally, the
> >> >> best single food a person could eat.
>
> >> It means that of single foods - i.e. not combinations, like bacon
> and >> eggs - almonds are best from a nutritional point of view.
>
> > No it doesn't. I mean really, not even close. It clearly means that
> > almonds contain the greater part of all necessary nutrients for
> > human survival.
>
> I looked up the original article. See if this is consistent with
> your view:
>
> This week another large study added to the body of known
> cardiovascular benefits of eating almonds. Every ounce eaten daily
> was associated with a 3.5 percent decreased risk of heart disease
> ten years later. Almonds are already known to help with weight loss
> and satiety, help prevent diabetes, and potentially ameliorate
> arthritis, inhibit cancer-cell growth, and decrease Alzheimer's
> risk. A strong case could be made that almonds are, nutritionally,
> the best single food a person could eat.

So 30 ounces of almonds a day and you need never worry about heart
disease! Of course that would be close to 5000 calories per day just in
almonds.


Brian
CDB
2018-09-13 13:23:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/13/2018 8:13 AM, Richard Tobin wrote:
> Horace LaBadie <***@nospam.com> wrote:

>>> A strong case could be made that almonds are, nutritionally, the
>>> best single food a person could eat.

>>> Especially, I wonder what is meant by "single food".

>> Almonds are the best food, without any competition.

> No.

>> The one food that, eaten alone, is best.

> Closer.

> It means that of single foods - i.e. not combinations, like bacon and
> eggs - almonds are best from a nutritional point of view. It's
> nonsense, of course, which is why they weasel out with "a string case
> could be made".

>> The single best food would be the more common way of phrasing it.

> That's a much more ambiguoud phrasing.

We could bound o'er the waves in the Pequ-od
Or glide off in the Pussycat's peasqu-od,
But to fill our whole hold
With old nuts, I've been told,
Would be not only odd but ambigu-od.
RHDraney
2018-09-13 13:57:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/13/2018 5:13 AM, Richard Tobin wrote:
>
> It means that of single foods - i.e. not combinations, like bacon and
> eggs - almonds are best from a nutritional point of view. It's
> nonsense, of course, which is why they weasel out with "a string case
> could be made".

A string case is unsuitable for almonds...they'd keep falling through
the mesh....r
s***@gmail.com
2018-09-13 19:47:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 6:02:38 PM UTC-7, Horace LaBadie wrote:
> Lazypierrot <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Hello,
> >
> > I would like to know the meaning of "the best single food" in the following
> > passage;
> >
> >
> > A strong case could be made that almonds are, nutritionally, the best single
> > food a person could eat.
> >
> >
> > Especially, I wonder what is meant by "single food".
> >
>
> Almonds are the best food, without any competition. The one food that,
> eaten alone, is best.
>
> The single best food would be the more common way of phrasing it.

I agree, but I suspect that the author was also trying to emphasize
the idea that if you had to survive on a single variety of food,
the allemonde, er, almond ... that's the best one [1]

"Single best" is [supposedly] saying there is no peer to this choice,
everything else is an "also ran".


/dps "[1] yeah, one --> single, again"
Peter Moylan
2018-09-14 06:46:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 14/09/18 05:47, ***@gmail.com wrote:

> I agree, but I suspect that the author was also trying to emphasize
> the idea that if you had to survive on a single variety of food, the
> allemonde, er, almond ... that's the best one [1]

Perhaps that's what the author meant, but it's unlikely to be true. You
couldn't survive on almonds alone.

Looking at the rest of the paragraph, a more likely interpretation is
"If you listed your foods in priority order, then perhaps almonds should
be at the top of the list".

The rest of the paragraph was supplied in the middle of the thread by
someone who was not the OP. (But I'm not going to go through many posts
to figure out who it was.) At that point the answer to the question
became clearer. Yet another illustration that context is usually needed
to decipher an isolated sentence.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-13 01:05:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 7:55:45 PM UTC-4, Lazypierrot wrote:

> I would like to know the meaning of "the best single food" in the following passage;
>
> A strong case could be made that almonds are, nutritionally, the best single food a person could eat.
>
> Especially, I wonder what is meant by "single food".

Nothing.

If you want to eat only one food out of all the foods in the world, the
very best one is almonds.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-09-13 11:20:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, 13 September 2018 02:06:00 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 7:55:45 PM UTC-4, Lazypierrot wrote:
>
> > I would like to know the meaning of "the best single food" in the following passage;
> >
> > A strong case could be made that almonds are, nutritionally, the best single food a person could eat.
> >
> > Especially, I wonder what is meant by "single food".
>
> Nothing.
>
> If you want to eat only one food out of all the foods in the world, the
> very best one is almonds.

At least until the cyanide kicks in!
Colonel Edmund J. Burke
2018-09-13 13:19:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/12/2018 6:05 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> If you want to eat only one food out of all the foods in the world, the
> very best one is almonds.
>

Some girls would say eating cock is better. That makes you fulla shit.
Colonel Edmund J. Burke
2018-09-13 13:18:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/12/2018 4:55 PM, Lazypierrot wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to know the meaning of "the best single food" in the following passage;
>
>
> A strong case could be made that almonds are, nutritionally, the best single food a person could eat.
>
>
> Especially, I wonder what is meant by "single food".
>
>
> Cordially,
>
> LP
>

Dear Lazy Parrot,

Seems to me the meaning is crystal clear.
However, the "single" is just unneeded verbiage...in much the same way that the infamous whore or usenet (Miss Recktum) needs an anal-strength condom.
Jerry Friedman
2018-09-13 22:18:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 5:55:45 PM UTC-6, Lazypierrot wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to know the meaning of "the best single food" in the following passage;
>
>
> A strong case could be made that almonds are, nutritionally, the best single food a person could eat.
>
>
> Especially, I wonder what is meant by "single food".

It means that almonds are the food that would make the greatest
nutritional improvement by being added to a diet that contains
few or none of them. There is no suggestion of a diet consisting
of almonds alone.

--
Jerry Friedman
Loading...