Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Raw Food Diet
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 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

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 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

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 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 2169 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

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 53 of 93 (424652)
09-27-2007 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Hyroglyphx
09-27-2007 10:32 AM


Re: Diet
quote:
Mercury is cumulative, like most radioactive materials.
Mercury is toxic, but it ain't radioactive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-27-2007 10:32 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by crashfrog, posted 09-28-2007 2:31 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 54 of 93 (424654)
09-27-2007 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Kitsune
09-27-2007 11:00 AM


quote:
Certainly things like exercise and lack of stress are also big factors in being free of disease. However, it often seems to be the case that when indigenous people switch over to a Westernised diet, they start developing the same diseases that are plaguing the Western world.
Well, they also tend to switch to the western diet because they live a western lifestyle, and that would include all of the stress, smoking, lack of physical exertion, etc. Kind of hard to separate them out.
I'd be surprised if there were examples of native people who had a western diet but lived the rest of their lives like their great, great, great grandparents did.
Again, I am quite sure that the paleo diet is a good diet.
quote:
It's so easy to dismiss these things because you're not satisfied that they've been proved.
Who says I'm dismissing anything?
quote:
(I have to say, BTW, it sounds like the way you eat is already a lot healthier than the way most people in the US eat. I'm assuming that's where you're from?)
Yes, I'm living in the US, and yes, I do believe that my diet is a lot better than the average American's. I rarely go to the big local "MegaMart" but when I do, I just marvel at the enormous quantities of utter crap that people fill their shopping carts (and presumably themselves) with.
There I am with my truckload of vegetables, meat and fish, with maybe a bottle of oil or vinegar, some cat food, some fruit, some cheese, and probably some granola, and nearly everyone else has the liters of Coke, hotdogs, Doritos, lousy pastry, cake mixes, instant side dishes, tons of cheap, nasty ice cream, and pounds and pounds of hamburger.
Not that I don't sometimes eat all of those things (not the cheap icecream or pastry, ever), but only every once in a while, and usually only a little bit. I don't feel good if I indulge too often, or with too much.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Kitsune, posted 09-27-2007 11:00 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Kitsune, posted 09-28-2007 6:30 AM nator has replied
 Message 59 by crashfrog, posted 09-28-2007 1:22 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 58 of 93 (424716)
09-28-2007 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Kitsune
09-28-2007 6:30 AM


Happily, I live in a part of the country that has lots of farms and where people are really into outdoor activities, fitness, and eating all-natural and locally-produced food. So, even though there are lots of crappy choices to be had at the supermarket, there are also lots of wonderful foods in all categories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Kitsune, posted 09-28-2007 6:30 AM Kitsune has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 60 of 93 (424836)
09-28-2007 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by crashfrog
09-28-2007 1:22 PM


quote:
And canned is generally so much cheaper.
If you can't do fresh, frozen is much better than canned, BTW. In some cases, frozen is actually better than fresh, nutritionally, because it was frozen within hours of picking, while fresh vegetables are often trucked around and stored for days before it gets to your market.
quote:
I'm just saying that, sure, Americans could eat better food, but they're not just making that decision because of a corn-syrup addiction, there's real economic trade-offs to eating "better" foods. It means going to the store more often for foods that simply can't be kept, it means generally getting less meal for your money, and a lot of the time that's not supportable on most people's paycheck.
Well, my response to the idea that people can't afford to buy good quality food is to call bullshit.
Dried beans and peas are incredibly cheap and also incredibly nutritious. So is brown rice and other whole grains. Carrots, parsnips, beets, sweet potatoes, cabbage, and cauliflower all keep a long time and are all very nutritious. Most kinds of green leafy vegetables like collard greens, kale, and mustard greens are the cheapest kinds of fresh things in a typical market, and they are also very nutritious.
Processed side dishes in a box, hot dogs, Coke, and pre-made pastry are all very expensive compared to everything I listed above.
quote:
Fruit? Again, it's either super-expensive or the quality just isn't worth it. The strawberries I buy usually have mold on them the day after I bring them home from the store.
I found this link to the Lincoln, NE food Co-Op. The prices of their monthly specials look pretty cheap to me, and they enphasize locally-produced food, which should help a lot with your quick spoilage problem.
Lastly, people afford what they want to afford. How many of those same people who can't "afford" quality food have cable TV, a cellular phone, and fancy rims on their car? How many of them spend thousand and thousands of dollars a year on alcohol and cigarettes? Or designer clothing and shoes?
quote:
On the other hand, I love reading you talk about food, as always.
Thanks, Froggy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by crashfrog, posted 09-28-2007 1:22 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by crashfrog, posted 09-28-2007 11:56 PM nator has replied
 Message 65 by Vacate, posted 09-30-2007 10:43 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 62 of 93 (424917)
09-29-2007 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by crashfrog
09-28-2007 11:56 PM


quote:
My aunt swears that canned tomatoes are far better for salsa because of the higher acid content and lower sweetness. She does make a tasty salsa so I find myself in agreement.
Canned tomatoes are better than fresh for nearly all cooked tomato applications, except in the height of tomato season, and even then, only if you use real tomatoes instead of what passes as tomatoes in most markets.
quote:
So there's abundant evidence that obesity is linked with poverty, and that it's the result of individuals seeking to reduce food expenditures by maximizing the energy density of their foods.
One of your links was to case studies of poor British families, and I found this:
Meat, vegetables, fruit, staples and snacks
were viewed as essential foods and bought by all
families. Some bought prepared foods such as
frozen pies and pizzas, whereas a few others
preferred to make them so that they could be
sure of the quality of the ingredients used. They
would happily eat prepared foods from shops like
Marks and Spencer but not from the cheap
supermarkets.
What this implies to me is that the poor people in Britain have better dietary habits than the poor people in America. Why this is the case, we don't have enough information to know, but I suggest that education plays a large role. It also tells me that poor people everywhere think snack foods are staples.
quote:
The other issue in relationship to poverty is time. The poor are generally working very long hours, and the long preparation times of the foodstuffs you mention - dried beans and lentils have to be soaked for hours before cooking - can be prohibitive.
1) You don't have to soak beans, actually. Lentils never need to be soaked
2) Even if you do soak, you can soak overnight when you are asleep.
3) You can cook a huge pot of beans and freeze the rest.
4) Even canned beans are really cheap.
And then there's all of those whole grains like brown rice I mentioned.
How many of those same people who can't "afford" quality food have cable TV, a cellular phone, and fancy rims on their car? How many of them spend thousand and thousands of dollars a year on alcohol and cigarettes? Or designer clothing and shoes?
quote:
Funny, I think I've heard Republicans ask the same thing about the poor. These people aren't minimizing the cost-per-unit-energy of their food in order to afford rims; they're doing it to afford the rent.
But poor people do smoke at higher rates than people who are in a higher economic category. If we consider education levels to be an indicator of economic level, the levels fall off significantly for people who graduated from high school, and drop off sharply again at the bachelor's degree level and higher.
Clearly, they are also choosing cheap, less nutritious food to be able to afford cigarettes, not just the rent.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by crashfrog, posted 09-28-2007 11:56 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 09-29-2007 12:16 PM nator has replied
 Message 78 by Kitsune, posted 10-01-2007 4:53 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 64 of 93 (425063)
09-30-2007 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by crashfrog
09-29-2007 12:16 PM


quote:
A lot of the time, substance use (and abuse) is a coping strategy for stress and sleep deprivation. I'm all for keeping in mind the dangers of smoking, but a lot of people don't do it because they like it, they do it because they're self-medicating with nicotine.
People smoke because they are addicted, and the majority of smokers started in their early to mid teens. I'm not saying that poor kids might not have stress, but it is far more likely that they start because they want to fit in with peers, and see their parents or older siblings doing it.
And, regardless of your point above, people are certainly choosing to buy cigarettes instead of better quality food. I mean, studies do show that raising taxes on cigarettes leads to a reduction of smoking rates among poorer people, so we do know that they can choose to put other things first.
Now, what you were saying before about poor people wanting to maximize the calorie density of their food. It is clear that many of them are eating much more of this calorie-dense food than they need to to meet their caloric needs, given the high rates of obesity among poor people in the US. So, I'm not sure I completely buy the idea that poor people are trying to get the most calories for the least money when they shop so that the food can stretch the longest.
Finally, I wonder how it is that we got on the subject of poor people? When I mentioned the other shopping baskets filled with junk at my local megamart, I mentioned nothing about the socioeconomic level of the people pushing those carts. I grew up in a solidly middle-class household and that's exactly what our shopping carts used to look like. Loads of crappy, crappy food.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 09-29-2007 12:16 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 09-30-2007 1:10 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 66 of 93 (425106)
09-30-2007 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Vacate
09-30-2007 10:43 AM


I work with a guy who isn't dirt poor, but he is definitately at a borderline poverty level. He has had a really hard time getting to work becasue he can't afford auto insurance anymore. The reason is because he has so many DUI's on his record. It would cost him about $4,000/year. I also learned that he spends $7,000 annually on alcohol and cigarettes.
I think it's kind of rich for him to complain about not being able to "afford" insurance when he clearly has the money. He just chooses to spend it on luxury items like cigarettes and booze. I also don't have a lot of sympathy for him if he is passed over for promotion becasue of his lack of transportation. He's choosing alcohol and cigarettes over making more money and advancing his own career.
Look, everybody wants to puch the point using the example of the poorest possible people, but I never specidfied that category.
I wasn't talking about low income people before at all, and then Crash pushed it to low income people. Now you are pushing it back to nearly destitute people.
Of course, I am not talking about people who literally run out of food at the end of the month and have to use the food bank, I am talking about people who shop at the same megagrocery as most other people around here who may or may not be more or less poor.
Many people buy junk. At the same time, they say that they can't afford better food. At the same time, they find money for cable TV and a cell phone, for cigarettes and beer.
quote:
From my experience cigarettes are one of the very few expenses that are a luxury item.
Ice cream, Doritos, soda, packaged side dishes, boxed pastry, and booze, etc. are ALL luxury items. But, I see them (in lieu of better choices) in lots of people's carts, lower income and otherwise.
That's my point.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Vacate, posted 09-30-2007 10:43 AM Vacate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by crashfrog, posted 09-30-2007 1:17 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 70 of 93 (425133)
09-30-2007 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by crashfrog
09-30-2007 1:17 PM


quote:
The foodie lifestyle is all very well and good until you realize how much of your paycheck is heading right into your mouth. It's the price you pay, literally. Some people decide that it's not worth it, or don't have the culinary aptitude to take advantage of better foods.
WTF?
The "foodie lifestyle"? Look, where are you getting that I'm advocating people become "foodies"? There's nothing "foodie" about buying nutritious, low-cost food like dried beans and brown rice compared to relatively expensive and non-nutritious Coke and Doritos.
quote:
And to return to my point, the reason you see so many carts loaded with those foodstuffs - which you implied you found incomprehensible - is because those foods minimize cost per unit energy.
The problem with food in this country is not getting enough energy, it's getting enout nutrition. Remember, obesity is a big problem among low income people in this country, which means that they aren't starving. In fact they are the opposite of starving.
As I said above, the people buying all of these cheap, calorie dense foods are also eating so much of all of it that they are obese. So, maybe, if they spent the same amount of money on more nutritious, less caloric food, they wouldn't be obsese and could avoid all of the health issues associated with obesity?
And I'm not sure I believe you when you say that my cart is so much more expensive than "their's". Fresh produce is some of the cheapest stuff you can buy in the entire supermarket if you are careful about what you get, buy in season, etc.
In fact, I just went to the online weekly specials flier for my local big supermarket to see what I could come up with for a comparison after a few minutes. Remember, this is all stuff that is on special.
5# turkey drumsticks @ $1.29/#---------$6.45
3# 93% lean ground beef @ $.93/#--------2.79
5# Jonagold apples @ $.69/#-------------3.45
3# brussels sprouts @.99/#--------------2.97
Dole bagged salad 3 for $5--------------5.00
========
Total- $20.66
Coke 6-pack,3/$10----------------------$10.00
PastaRoni side dish 10/$10--------------10.00
10 boxes Kraft Mac & Cheese for $.49/ea--4.90
========
Total-$24.90
"My" type of cart has potentially a week's worth of food for a family of four, while it is far more expensive to buy the Coke and the boxed side dishes.
Remember, I work in a grocery store. I know that when people come up to my lane, and their cart is filled mostly with vegetables and fruit in season, they are going to get a lot more food for their money than someone who clears us out of icecream, liters of Coke, and frozen entrees.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by crashfrog, posted 09-30-2007 1:17 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by crashfrog, posted 09-30-2007 5:59 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 71 of 93 (425134)
09-30-2007 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Chiroptera
09-30-2007 1:25 PM


quote:
The oranges in my neck of the woods have been terrible lately.
That's becasue citrus is out of season. Wait until December and January for good citrus.
Buy apples and pears now, because they are in season.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Chiroptera, posted 09-30-2007 1:25 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Chiroptera, posted 09-30-2007 5:20 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 73 of 93 (425138)
09-30-2007 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Chiroptera
09-30-2007 5:20 PM


quote:
Pears are hard as a rock and end up spoiling before they ripen.
How does that happen? I thought that pears always ripened before they went bad, and "going bad" is, in fact, "overripe".
I do know that pears are perfect for a rather short window of time, maybe a couple of days.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Chiroptera, posted 09-30-2007 5:20 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 75 of 93 (425143)
09-30-2007 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by crashfrog
09-30-2007 5:59 PM


quote:
I don't understand how you eat if that's more than five or six days worth of food for you and another person. Compared to ten days of mac and cheese and Rice-a-roni? (I'm figuring from "meals for two people" because that's my frame of reference, and because my recollection is that you and Zim don't have kids.)
Dude, did you see how many pounds of food I listed? You can get 3 good-sized hamburgers out of a pound of meat, and there were three pounds on my list. Five pounds of turkey legs yields around 4 pounds of meat for casseroles or sandwiches or burritos, plus you have the bones to make soup with. Zhimbo and I could easily eat for a week, probably longer on that much meat (with pantry items like rice and pasta and canned beans and tomatoes)
One box of pasta roni and one box of Kraft Mac n Cheese per person, per day is all you would eat, even allowing for maybe cereal or oatmeal in the morning? You really think that this is more food than what I listed above?
How fast can you eat 3 pounds of brussels sprouts and five pounds of apples and three bags of salad mix?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by crashfrog, posted 09-30-2007 5:59 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by crashfrog, posted 09-30-2007 6:36 PM nator has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024