Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Raw Food Diet
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 16 of 93 (424378)
09-26-2007 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Max Power
09-26-2007 10:33 AM


There are several vegetables who's nutrients are actually rendered more bioavailable after cooking or some kind of processing; carrots after steaming and cabbage after fermentation are two that come to mind immediately.
Also, enzymes found in plants DO NOT help us digest anything. Those enzymes are for the plant's metabolic processes, not our's. We produce all the digestive enzymes we need ourselves.
Also, enzymes are proteins, so any we ingest are denatured in the stomach's hydrochloric acid-based digestive juices just like any other protein.
Primates have been cooking food for AT LEAST 250,000, and some experts estimate up to 1.6 million years.
It is also a cultural universal; there is no culture on earth that does not cook it's food.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Max Power, posted 09-26-2007 10:33 AM Max Power has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 17 of 93 (424384)
09-26-2007 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Kitsune
09-26-2007 5:12 PM


Can I ask what your source is for this info?
It's pretty common knowledge among the agroscience community, so I've most recently heard it directly out of the mouths of experts who have worked in fields like agronomy, plant breeding, and IPM (integrated pest management) for decades.
A quick google search shows me the following papers:
Organic agriculture: does it enhance or reduce the nutritional value of plant foods?
Organic food: nutritious food or food for thought? A review of the evidence
Nutritional quality of organic food: shades of grey or shades of green?
This isn't peer-reviewed, but it's the article I had in mind most recently when I was reading about the subject:
Organic food exposed
In particular:
quote:
However, some of the compounds present at higher levels in organic food are actually natural pesticides. According to Bruce Ames, a variety of insect-resistant celery had to be taken off the U.S. market in the late 1980s because its psoralen levels were eight times higher than normal and caused a rash in people who handled it. There was a similar story with a naturally pest-resistant potato variety that ended up being acutely toxic because of its high levels of solanine and chaconine - natural toxins that block nerve transmission and cause cancer in rats. Organic farmers who rely on 'naturally resistant' plant varieties may also be producing plants with high levels of 'natural' toxins. And in this case, 'natural' is not likely to mean better. Think of Abraham Lincoln's poor mother, who died after drinking the milk of a free-range cow that had grazed on a snakeroot plant.
Regardless of how it is grown, the nutritional content of fruit and vegetables is more likely to be affected by freshness or varietal differences. One study reported by Magkos tried to narrow things down by growing the same variety of plums in adjacent fields, with one using organic and the other conventional methods: the conventionally grown plums contained 38 per cent more of the potentially beneficial polyphenol compounds than the organically grown ones did.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Kitsune, posted 09-26-2007 5:12 PM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Dr Jack, posted 09-27-2007 5:31 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 22 by Kitsune, posted 09-27-2007 6:52 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 18 of 93 (424385)
09-26-2007 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Max Power
09-26-2007 10:33 AM


I would suggest you scholar.google "raw food diet" and "depression".
The first 2 hits are:
You'll ruin your teeth.
You'll be deficient in B12.
You won't have any luck with your friend, however. He sounds like a True Believer.
The long-lived mice thing is true, tho. A 30% deficit in caloric intake has been proven to extend life. Works with monkeys too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Max Power, posted 09-26-2007 10:33 AM Max Power has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 19 of 93 (424440)
09-26-2007 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Chiroptera
09-26-2007 6:15 PM


Try again.
Fruit - Wikipedia
Caryopsis - Wikipedia
Corn, or rather, the yellow kernels you eat, are Caryops (usage?).
The fruit wall and seed are practically fused together as a single unit.But it is a fruit.
Don't you just hate botanists?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Chiroptera, posted 09-26-2007 6:15 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 20 of 93 (424464)
09-27-2007 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Modulous
09-26-2007 12:16 PM


Re: Food for thought
Crash raised a better point - but I'd like to raise an auxiliary one. Our ancestors could produce their own Vitamin C. Once our ancestors were able to secure for themselves a steady supply of Vitamin C elsewhere (ie diet), then the gene was no longer needed. There was no selective pressure for the gene to function and the broken gene fixated in the population (indeed - using the body's resources to manufacturer Vitamin C might have been slightly more costly than just eating fruit - who knows?).
I'm pretty sure we share our defect in the gene for Vitamin C production with Chimpanzees, implying that the defect occured before the human-chimp split.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Modulous, posted 09-26-2007 12:16 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-27-2007 9:45 AM Dr Jack has replied
 Message 38 by Modulous, posted 09-27-2007 10:58 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 21 of 93 (424465)
09-27-2007 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by crashfrog
09-26-2007 7:20 PM


Yeah most of the reasons for buying organic vegetables are bunk. There's no reason to think they're better for you, the taste differences are marginal at best and this nonsense about 'naturalness' is just hippy-shit.
However, I buy organic vegetables anyway. Why? Because organic farming produces a more biodiverse landscape than traditional farming.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 09-26-2007 7:20 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 22 of 93 (424470)
09-27-2007 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by crashfrog
09-26-2007 7:20 PM


Thanks for these links Crashfrog. My interest in organic food is mainly because of its nutritional superiority over non-organic. I think that when I eat an organic carrot, I'm getting more nutrients. I pay for these things even though it hurts because I want to nourish myself and my family. If any convincing evidence surfaces that shows that organic foods do not have more vitamins and minerals than non-organic, I'll listen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 09-26-2007 7:20 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 23 of 93 (424472)
09-27-2007 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by kuresu
09-26-2007 5:36 PM


there's convincing evidence that we evolved as omnivores
Well, duh. There's actually no doubt. We are omnivores.
Double-duh. But there are people who don't think so. They say there's no proof that humans HAVE to eat meat. Know any vegetarians? Personally I think that if we evolved to eat a certain diet, that is the diet our bodies are programmed to have and it's taking a risk to deviate from that too far.
I have a feeling that you have more fruit than you think, and less veggies than you realize. It's amazing the number of people who don't realize that a tomato is a fruit. Nuts are fruits.
Mostof what you would call a vegetable is actually a fruit. A rule of thumb--if it has a seed inside (this includes corn and all other grains) it's a fruit. The technical rule is anything that's a ripened ovary is a fruit.
That's interesting, I've never heard nuts described as fruits. I knew tomatoes are.
I don't eat corn because it's a grain, and I stay away from grains these days.
My favourite veg are broccoli, cauliflower, carrots, cucumbers (um, maybe those are fruit come to think of it), and celery. I eat large portions with every meal, including breakfast. If I don't then my body complains. I use other veg too but those tend to be my staples.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by kuresu, posted 09-26-2007 5:36 PM kuresu has not replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 24 of 93 (424475)
09-27-2007 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Jazzns
09-26-2007 5:50 PM


Broadly speaking, the diet I follow can be classified as a wholefoods diet. These have a number of general things in common. If grains are eaten, they need to be whole grains. No processed foods, no sugar. Lots of fresh fruit and veg.
The Paleolithic Diet aims to duplicate a version of what our ancestors may have eaten. It's based on archaeological evidence, among other things, and is (or should) be subject to change if new discoveries are made. The idea being, as I said above, that the healthiest way to eat is the way we evolved to eat. Our bodies just haven't evolved to cope with things like sugar, white flour, Cornflakes, donuts, etc etc. The consumption of these products over the years can be a contributing factor to disease. It also means that if you are eating these things, you are by default eating fewer foods that are more nutritionally-dense, such as fruit and veg.
Grains, legumes and potatoes contain protease and amylase inhibitors, which serve to hold them in suspended animation and which act as pesticides. These can affect the stomach enzyme pepsin, and the small intestine protease enzymes trypsin and chymotripsin. When grains, lentils and potatoes are cooked, most of the enzyme blockers are destroyed, but not all.
Grains, lentils and potatoes also contain lectins, which are known to cause a host of problems in the body.
Finally, they are bad for anyone with blood sugar issues. That is anyone who is insulin-resistant, not just diabetics.
The Paleo Diet also excludes all dairy products, as these are a relatively recent addition to the human diet as well. I feel better when I avoid any unfermented dairy products, probably because of the lactose they contain, but I'm fine with butter, yogurt and cheese.
I don't follow the diet strictly. First of all, it's possible to eat a variety of different things and be healthy. Secondly, it's based on educated guesses about what our ancestors ate, and I'm not aware that anyone can say 100% for certain what e.g. homo erectus was eating for dinner in Asia, Africa and anywhere else. Finally, indigenous cultures surviving in the world today that follow their ancestral diets tend not to get the host of diseases we associate with the modern Western world: heart disease, diabetes, cancer, depression, and so on. And their diets don't match the Paleo diet 100%.
So really, I think there's a lot of room for just saying, "Here are the nutritional guidelines, and I'm going to experiment with what works for me." What works for me is avoiding grains, legumes and potatoes completely, and eating fermented dairy products. I also like to cook with Tamari soy sauce and a bit of wine. What I do overall seems to work well, but I've tailored it according to what my body seems to need.
If your friend listens to his own body, I think he's going to find that it ends up feeling pretty poorly. I wonder what set him off with such a regime in the first place?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Jazzns, posted 09-26-2007 5:50 PM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by nator, posted 09-27-2007 8:25 AM Kitsune has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 25 of 93 (424480)
09-27-2007 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Kitsune
09-27-2007 7:27 AM


quote:
The Paleolithic Diet aims to duplicate a version of what our ancestors may have eaten.
Well, our ancestors didn't have broccoli or cauliflower, as those are modern hybrids only a few hundred years old.
You say you avoid all starchy things, including potatoes, but if you want to consume what we evolved to eat, you should know that humans in tropical regions in America have been consuming and cultivating sweet potatoes for at least 5000 years. Sweet potatoes are distantly related to "real" potatoes like the russet. They are hugely nutritous and were, and are, a staple of the diet to people in those parts of the world.
Corn has been in cultivation around twice as long as sweet potatoes, BTW.
quote:
Finally, indigenous cultures surviving in the world today that follow their ancestral diets tend not to get the host of diseases we associate with the modern Western world: heart disease, diabetes, cancer, depression, and so on.
Of course, they also tend to be far, far more physically active, eat an awful lot less than Westerners, and do not tend to chain smoke cigarettes, and do not have high levels of daily stress. All of those things contribute to your list of maladies, with smoking and stress being the biggest problems, I think.
OTOH, primitive people tend to die at significantly younger ages so they don't live long enough to get things like cancer. The Yanomamo, for example, only live to around 50 years.
Let me be clear that I think it is good to eat less refined and processed food and more fruits and vegetables. However, the idea of the "paleolithic" diet and that shouldn't eat what we haven't "evolved" to eat is open to an enormous amount of interpretation.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Kitsune, posted 09-27-2007 7:27 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Kitsune, posted 09-27-2007 11:00 AM nator has replied

  
Max Power
Member (Idle past 6007 days)
Posts: 32
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Joined: 06-03-2005


Message 26 of 93 (424497)
09-27-2007 9:34 AM


Ideal Diet
First, I want to thank everyone for your input. I will get back to some of the specifics in the organic issue shortly (as I would like to do more research first). Also, LindaLou, I appreciate you giving your perspective despite the consensus seems to be in disagreement. If nothing else, it keeps the debate going and there is more information for me to sift through, thank you. Molbiogirl, I appreciate the hint with scholar.google that is most helpful.
I have a second question and since this is in the Coffee House I assume it wont be an issue.
What do you believe to be the ideal diet? Is there an ideal diet? Is it the scientific consensus that the pyramid is still king? What about people who are vegetarian for reasons other than health? Would you say follow the pyramid but eat more nuts and other forms of protein and fat?

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-27-2007 9:55 AM Max Power has not replied
 Message 29 by nator, posted 09-27-2007 10:19 AM Max Power has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 27 of 93 (424501)
09-27-2007 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Dr Jack
09-27-2007 5:20 AM


Re: Food for thought
i'll refer you to my post 14.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Dr Jack, posted 09-27-2007 5:20 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Dr Jack, posted 09-27-2007 10:57 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 28 of 93 (424508)
09-27-2007 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Max Power
09-27-2007 9:34 AM


Re: Ideal Diet
i think the ideal diet is whatever the hell i want. my body is pretty good at telling me what it needs and if i pay attention to it, i do pretty well.
the Truth (tm) about what we "evolved to eat" or what the "paleolithic diet" was is whatever they could get their hands on that wouldn't kill them. these were people who had to work for everything. EVERYTHING. they didn't get a snack if they didn't go into the forest and fight a bear for the blackberry bramble. they didn't get dinner or housing or clothing for the winter if the didn't go off on a crazy buffalo chase.
you know how everyone talks about native peoples using everything? it's not cause they cared about the environment, it's because food and products were so scarce that you HAD to use everything. the reason people in this country are so unhealthy is that we no longer do any real work, but we still eat like we do. period.

i'm not going to capitalize my posts, get better eyes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Max Power, posted 09-27-2007 9:34 AM Max Power has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by nator, posted 09-27-2007 10:23 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 29 of 93 (424512)
09-27-2007 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Max Power
09-27-2007 9:34 AM


Re: Ideal Diet
Nobody really knows what the "ideal diet" is.
The real, useful study of nutrition is quite new, since we needed the fields of molecular biology, genetics, and biochemistry to build on.
There is certainly no "ideal diet" for all people, particularly regarding caloric content. Other issues like insulin resistance, sensitivity to sodium, etc., also have a genetic component.
In my own life, I more or less follow a Mediterranean way of eating; lots of olive oil, vegetables, fish, and whole grains, fruits, poultry, nuts occasional red meat, cheese and yogurt, and red wine and chocolate.
I do try to limit my consumption of processed and refined foods, but as long as it is a "real food", I think it is silly to cut out things like potatoes and corn from one's diet entirely. Limiting them is one thing, but they are perfectly wholesome, nutritious foods that can be enjoyed without problems.
Haveing lots and lots of food "rules" seems obsessive and unhealthy to me.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Max Power, posted 09-27-2007 9:34 AM Max Power has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 30 of 93 (424513)
09-27-2007 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by macaroniandcheese
09-27-2007 9:55 AM


Re: Ideal Diet
Well, that's not really true of people in rainforests. While they still have to go hunt it and gather it, food is pretty easy to come by, year round, in the rain forest.
That's true of several other groups of ancient peoples in other places, too.
Hunter/gatherer societies actually had more liesure time than we do today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-27-2007 9:55 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Chiroptera, posted 09-27-2007 10:28 AM nator has not replied
 Message 33 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-27-2007 10:34 AM nator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024