Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-15-2019 2:22 PM
35 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: lopezeast0211, Theodoric
Post Volume:
Total: 856,788 Year: 11,824/19,786 Month: 1,605/2,641 Week: 114/708 Day: 48/66 Hour: 2/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67Next
Author Topic:   Raw Food Diet
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 93 (424849)
09-28-2007 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by nator
09-28-2007 9:53 PM


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.

It depends on application and vegetable, in my opinion. For instance I've found it impossible to make stir-fry with frozen vegetables, but canned bamboo and water chestnuts work just fine. On the other hand steamed brussel sprouts seem to work just fine from the freezer.

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.

Well, my response to the idea that people can't afford to buy good quality food is to call bullshit.

You can if you like, I guess, but there's a number of studies out there that make a conclusive link between poverty and poor diet, particularly as it relates to cost per energy density, and one study found that the healthy diet comprised nearly half of the sample population's food budget, compared to less than a third for the "least healthy" diet (based on WHO nutritional guidelines.)

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.

Dried beans and peas are incredibly cheap and also incredibly nutritious. So is brown rice and other whole grains.

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.

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.

Thanks for the link, I'll check it out. Although it's difficult to justify driving all the way across town, with gas 3.50 a gallon here, just to shop at a grocery store. But, I'll see if they can't meet some of my needs.

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?

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.

And I must just be driving past all the third-shift data entry ladies in Manolo Blahnks too fast to notice, I guess.

Sorry, a little fun at your expense. But seriously, you're coming off a little tone-deaf, here. Kind of like the rich dog guy in Lucky Ducky:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by nator, posted 09-28-2007 9:53 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by nator, posted 09-29-2007 7:59 AM crashfrog has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 361 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 responded

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

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 93 (424946)
09-29-2007 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by nator
09-29-2007 7:59 AM


But poor people do smoke at higher rates than people who are in a higher economic category.

Sure. 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.

Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by nator, posted 09-29-2007 7:59 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by nator, posted 09-30-2007 7:40 AM crashfrog has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 361 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 responded

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

    
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2792 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 65 of 93 (425086)
09-30-2007 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by nator
09-28-2007 9:53 PM


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?

Wow! Its possible that you know a different breed of low income people, but the poor friends that I know certainly don't fit what you are describing. My friend rolls smokes (cheaper), drives a rust bucket, lives with his mom (matched pair - they both cant afford rent), never worn designer anything, no cell, saved for two years to get a tv and cable. Yea he smokes - and I don't blame him, I simply give him credit for not drinking.

If a low income person is able to quit smoking this does not automatically mean more money for food. Pay of debts, replace the junk matress on the floor for a real bed, change that oil you keep meaning to do but cant ever afford, tires are bald, clothes are ratty, and it would be nice to get a pizza instead of McDonalds for once - the list is endless. Being at the bottom can also mean not really caring anymore. You could quit smoking, but why bother?

I see it as a trap and its not easy to get out of when its generally populated by the least educated.

I am not saying you are wrong, but its much easier to provide a solution when you arent living at the bottom of the barrel.

From message 62 writes:

Clearly, they are also choosing cheap, less nutritious food to be able to afford cigarettes, not just the rent.

This is true. Much the same as you would cut back eating steak and lobster to save for that vacation. From my experience cigarettes are one of the very few expenses that are a luxury item.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by nator, posted 09-28-2007 9:53 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by nator, posted 09-30-2007 12:35 PM Vacate has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 361 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 yet responded

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

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 93 (425108)
09-30-2007 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by nator
09-30-2007 7:40 AM


Finally, I wonder how it is that we got on the subject of poor people?

To tell you the truth I'm not sure, since according to the research, minimizing cost per unit energy is a shopping strategy employed at nearly every economic level short of "very affluent."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by nator, posted 09-30-2007 7:40 AM nator has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 93 (425109)
09-30-2007 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by nator
09-30-2007 12:35 PM


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.

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.

Even if people are doing it to have rims and cigarettes, that's the shopping strategy that they're pursuing. It's an effective and common strategy. So it's not incomprehensible at all. Those people are going home with more food at less cost than you were. Apparently they think the money is better spend on something else. Admittedly, it's hard to argue; even a pair of rims lasts a lot longer, and provides more enjoyment (to a car guy, at least) over time than one good meal.

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.

It's not the choice you would make, and I'm more inclined to lean in your direction, but I can see the utility of their strategy, too. I'm still surprised that it's incomprehensible to you. I'd eat barbecue from the plastic bowl for three months straight if it meant I could save up enough scratch for a new motherboard.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by nator, posted 09-30-2007 12:35 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by nator, posted 09-30-2007 5:00 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6688
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 69 of 93 (425110)
09-30-2007 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by crashfrog
09-28-2007 1:22 PM


That's part of the problem. I mean, I live here in Nebraska, one of the biggest beef states in the country, and it still costs an arm and a leg to buy anything but 90/10 ground beef....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.

The oranges in my neck of the woods have been terrible lately. So I tried to buy tangelos. Looked pretty good, but I just opened one up -- green and moldy on the inside.

Fortunately, someone left a bag of jelly beans in the staff room. I guess I'll go and pick out all the orange ones.


In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by crashfrog, posted 09-28-2007 1:22 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by nator, posted 09-30-2007 5:01 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 361 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 responded

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

    
nator
Member (Idle past 361 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 responded

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

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6688
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 72 of 93 (425136)
09-30-2007 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by nator
09-30-2007 5:01 PM


Apples around here are so-so. Pears are hard as a rock and end up spoiling before they ripen. In Oregon, I had access to good D'Anjou pears (there was a whole foods store next door to where I lived that tried to find local suppliers), but fruit around here is so-so at best. They all have to shipped in from across the country, I reckon.

Except for the Braeburn apples. The Braeburn apples are really good right now. I wonder whether there's a Braeburn apple orchard nearby (perhaps in Texas or Kansas)?

Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.


In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by nator, posted 09-30-2007 5:01 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by nator, posted 09-30-2007 5:32 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 361 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 yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 93 (425142)
09-30-2007 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by nator
09-30-2007 5:00 PM


The problem with food in this country is not getting enough energy, it's getting enout nutrition.

Nutrition doesn't make you not hungry. People are minimizing their cost per unit energy because they're trying to not be hungry, not because they're making an effort to eat balanced meals.

I mean, obviously. If they were eating off the food pyramid, they'd wind up with a shopping cart that looks like yours. But that's not their goal at all. Their goal is to be full based on a minimum expenditure.

And I'm not sure I believe you when you say that my cart is so much more expensive than "their's".

Don't take my word for it, read the research. The consensus of sociology is that you maximize the unit energy of your food shopping with the highly processed foodstuffs you're complaining about.

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

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.)

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.

Well, I eat, and I do the shopping and the cooking, and all I know is that I can't buy fresh vegetables unless I'm going to use them within three days, and if I expect to get seven days worth of meals out of one trip to the store without breaking the bank or losing stuff due to spoilage, I'm carrying out a fair bit of ground beef and hamburger helper.

And Coke is delicious. I can't defend soda, I know, but I make no apologies for drinking it. The water everywhere I've lived is vile. In fact there's little less I'd rather put in my mouth than the bitter, flat, metallic taste of pure water. Even from the bottles it's awful. Even the nanopure/DD water - pure enough to use for genetic research - it's just not at all refreshing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by nator, posted 09-30-2007 5:00 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by nator, posted 09-30-2007 6:11 PM crashfrog has responded
 Message 77 by Kitsune, posted 10-01-2007 4:45 AM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 83 by Jazzns, posted 10-01-2007 2:09 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 361 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 responded

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

    
Prev1234
5
67Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019