|
|
#41
11-20-2005, 08:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Your Diet and Nutrition
It causes a quick spike in insulin levels, which promotes storage of fats, can interfere with protein metabolism, and can mess up your energy level, as well as supposedly do all manner of other pernicious things. Normal food(whole wheat, brown rice, stuff that hasn't been denatured by being highly processed) is digested more slowly so it doesn't cause as quick and strong an insulin response. This is the way food is really supposed to be incorporated into our bodies according to our evolution. Highly processed foods like white bread and white flour and white rice skip our body's natural regulation of how fast food gets into our system and piledrive themselves into our system, causing our body to resort to unusual measures in order to stay stable; but those measures are in themselves unhealthy and stressful to the body.
|
|
#42
11-20-2005, 08:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Your Diet and Nutrition
[ QUOTE ]
The best book in this vein that I have read is "Nourishing Traditions" by Sally Fallon. [/ QUOTE ] -- ditto. That book and the Weston A Price Foundation in general has been a gateway to most of the research that I've read on the subject. The WAPF papers are usually survey papers. They don't just say "the latest research," they cite their sources. If you're seriously interested in diet and nutrition then you owe it to yourself check out what they have to say. You'll find it well-reasoned and supported by scientific studies.
|
|
#43
11-20-2005, 08:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Your Diet and Nutrition
Warning: long.
Summary: if you think saturated fats and cholesterol are bad because Dan Rather said so, then maybe you should check your sources. Reference to scientific literature carries greater weight with me than the "common sense" of daytime talk shows, newsrags, and the evening news. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'm not advocating bacon and eggs because soy is bad; I'm advocating staying away from soy because soy is bad. So, (1) soy is bad. As for bacon and eggs, (2) there ain't nothing necessarily wrong with saturated fat, and often there's a lot of good there, and (3) there ain't nothing wrong with dietary cholesterol. [/ QUOTE ] Uhh...right. [/ QUOTE ] The issue at hand is what's called the Lipid Hypothesis -- the theory that the cholesterol in fatty foods builds up in your arteries and causes heart disease. This is true only in a very twisted way: artheriosclerotic plaques are indeed constructed of cholesterol, but they don't build up just because you eat cholesterol. It's the body's way of repairing arterial damage, caused by toxic chemicals, lack of essential vitamins (esp C, which is a building block of cell walls), and/or pathogenic microbes. The causes of arterial damage is a current, active area of research, so there's not a lot of answers for what causes that damage. But the remaining evidence is clear: plaques form as a result of that damage, not as a result of eating bacon and eggs. The average adult liver produces 2000mg of cholesterol a day. That's the equivalent of 20 eggs. There's a huge amount of cholesterol in the brain, and pregnant women not getting enough cholesterol risk bearing children with neural defects. Cholesterol is used in the body's native production of Vitamin D and dozens of hormones, from testosterone to adrenalin. Saturated fats are excellent sources of the fat-soluble vitamins A, D, and K, anti-microbial and anti-fungal; some are essential (ie must be present in the diet for normal metabolic function); and short-chain saturated fats are premium sources for energy. Many older research papers confused natural saturated fats (cis) with hydrogenated fats (trans-fats), usually by using hydrogenated plant oils; much of the 'evil' attributed to saturated fats comes from just a couple of these studies.
|
|
#44
11-20-2005, 08:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Your Diet and Nutrition
[ QUOTE ]
Nutrition can be a lot like relgion and politics. So I will start of by admitting that I am biased. I am a survival/primitive skills instructor and make a lot of my decisions about diet (and other things) based on human evolutionary history. Things that have been around for a couple hundred years or less are highly suspect (White flour and white sugar) for me. I tend away from factory processed foods such as soy products like soymilk (already discussed by Cosmo- I agree with most if not all of what Cosmo has said) and towards naturally processed food (usually fermented) yogurt for example. It is very difficult to get raw milk products (unpasturized) but that is what I get when possible. I eat wild meat or meat raised by people I know,or sometimes settle for organic meat from the store- Almost all the products I buy are organic. When I am not lazy I like to sprout or ferment grain products as raw grains have digestion-inhibiting enzymes. NO hydrogenated oils- like Crisco or margarine The best book in this vein that I have read is "Nourishing Traditions" by Sally Fallon. It is very difficult to eat this type of diet in an urban area- you need access to wild areas and friends who raise animals/vegetables/fruit or a place to do it yourself. One of the many reasons I can't spend too much time in an urban area. [/ QUOTE ] The so-called hunter-gatherer diet makes a certain amount of sense to me. That is, eating foods that would have been available prior to the agricultural revolution. So, eggs would have been available only during nesting season. No dairy products after weaning from mother's milk. No grains. Lots of fruits, vegetables, berries, and nuts--preserved by drying when possible. Honey, but no sugar. Fermented beverages. Fish and seafood--easy to catch and always available in a water source. Occasional small portions of lean meat--hunting is harder than gathering, wild animals are generally lean, and what is caught must be shared among the whole group. Obviously no chee-tos or soda. It seems to me that given the relatively short time since the agricultural revolution with the growing and processing of grains and the domestication of animals leading to the consumption of dairy products, more and fattier meats, and more eggs, humankind must still be biologically adapted to the hunter-gatherer menu. I know that the "caveperson" diet has been recommended by some popular nutritionists, but I do not have any personal experience with it. I don't think it would hurt to try it.
|
|
#45
11-20-2005, 08:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Your Diet and Nutrition
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Nutrition can be a lot like relgion and politics. So I will start of by admitting that I am biased. I am a survival/primitive skills instructor and make a lot of my decisions about diet (and other things) based on human evolutionary history. Things that have been around for a couple hundred years or less are highly suspect (White flour and white sugar) for me. I tend away from factory processed foods such as soy products like soymilk (already discussed by Cosmo- I agree with most if not all of what Cosmo has said) and towards naturally processed food (usually fermented) yogurt for example. It is very difficult to get raw milk products (unpasturized) but that is what I get when possible. I eat wild meat or meat raised by people I know,or sometimes settle for organic meat from the store- Almost all the products I buy are organic. When I am not lazy I like to sprout or ferment grain products as raw grains have digestion-inhibiting enzymes. NO hydrogenated oils- like Crisco or margarine The best book in this vein that I have read is "Nourishing Traditions" by Sally Fallon. It is very difficult to eat this type of diet in an urban area- you need access to wild areas and friends who raise animals/vegetables/fruit or a place to do it yourself. One of the many reasons I can't spend too much time in an urban area. [/ QUOTE ] The so-called hunter-gatherer diet makes a certain amount of sense to me. That is, eating foods that would have been available prior to the agricultural revolution. So, eggs would have been available only during nesting season. No dairy products after weaning from mother's milk. No grains. Lots of fruits, vegetables, berries, and nuts--preserved by drying when possible. Honey, but no sugar. Fermented beverages. Fish and seafood--easy to catch and always available in a water source. Occasional small portions of lean meat--hunting is harder than gathering, wild animals are generally lean, and what is caught must be shared among the whole group. Obviously no chee-tos or soda. It seems to me that given the relatively short time since the agricultural revolution with the growing and processing of grains and the domestication of animals leading to the consumption of dairy products, more and fattier meats, and more eggs, humankind must still be biologically adapted to the hunter-gatherer menu. I know that the "caveperson" diet has been recommended by some popular nutritionists, but I do not have any personal experience with it. I don't think it would hurt to try it. [/ QUOTE ] How, exactly, do cheeseburgers fit into this?
|
|
#46
11-20-2005, 08:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Your Diet and Nutrition
I certainly don't adhere strictly to a hunter-gatherer (unless I am instructing our hunter/gatherer course). I like really good cheeses and yogurt too much to give those up.
I think that environment (and season) plays somewhat of a role in whether hunting or gathering provides more calories. In southwestern Utah during the summer it is easier for me to eat fish, mice, squirrel and lizard than most gathered foods- although buffalo berry is plentiful during the end of summer. I would suspect that a little later when acorns and pine nut come on they would be a big source of calories. One thing that I think is missing from the diet of most modern americans is fasting. I think as a rule we eat way too much food and a break once in a while is a good thing. I try, but don't always succed in fasting once a month for at least a day or two.
|
|
#47
11-20-2005, 08:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Your Diet and Nutrition
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Nutrition can be a lot like relgion and politics. So I will start of by admitting that I am biased. I am a survival/primitive skills instructor and make a lot of my decisions about diet (and other things) based on human evolutionary history. Things that have been around for a couple hundred years or less are highly suspect (White flour and white sugar) for me. I tend away from factory processed foods such as soy products like soymilk (already discussed by Cosmo- I agree with most if not all of what Cosmo has said) and towards naturally processed food (usually fermented) yogurt for example. It is very difficult to get raw milk products (unpasturized) but that is what I get when possible. I eat wild meat or meat raised by people I know,or sometimes settle for organic meat from the store- Almost all the products I buy are organic. When I am not lazy I like to sprout or ferment grain products as raw grains have digestion-inhibiting enzymes. NO hydrogenated oils- like Crisco or margarine The best book in this vein that I have read is "Nourishing Traditions" by Sally Fallon. It is very difficult to eat this type of diet in an urban area- you need access to wild areas and friends who raise animals/vegetables/fruit or a place to do it yourself. One of the many reasons I can't spend too much time in an urban area. [/ QUOTE ] The so-called hunter-gatherer diet makes a certain amount of sense to me. That is, eating foods that would have been available prior to the agricultural revolution. So, eggs would have been available only during nesting season. No dairy products after weaning from mother's milk. No grains. Lots of fruits, vegetables, berries, and nuts--preserved by drying when possible. Honey, but no sugar. Fermented beverages. Fish and seafood--easy to catch and always available in a water source. Occasional small portions of lean meat--hunting is harder than gathering, wild animals are generally lean, and what is caught must be shared among the whole group. Obviously no chee-tos or soda. It seems to me that given the relatively short time since the agricultural revolution with the growing and processing of grains and the domestication of animals leading to the consumption of dairy products, more and fattier meats, and more eggs, humankind must still be biologically adapted to the hunter-gatherer menu. I know that the "caveperson" diet has been recommended by some popular nutritionists, but I do not have any personal experience with it. I don't think it would hurt to try it. [/ QUOTE ] How, exactly, do cheeseburgers fit into this? [/ QUOTE ] Easy--just omit the cheese and bun, and be sure the meat is very lean. Raw onion rings and tomato slices are fine.
|
|
#48
11-20-2005, 08:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Your Diet and Nutrition
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Nutrition can be a lot like relgion and politics. So I will start of by admitting that I am biased. I am a survival/primitive skills instructor and make a lot of my decisions about diet (and other things) based on human evolutionary history. Things that have been around for a couple hundred years or less are highly suspect (White flour and white sugar) for me. I tend away from factory processed foods such as soy products like soymilk (already discussed by Cosmo- I agree with most if not all of what Cosmo has said) and towards naturally processed food (usually fermented) yogurt for example. It is very difficult to get raw milk products (unpasturized) but that is what I get when possible. I eat wild meat or meat raised by people I know,or sometimes settle for organic meat from the store- Almost all the products I buy are organic. When I am not lazy I like to sprout or ferment grain products as raw grains have digestion-inhibiting enzymes. NO hydrogenated oils- like Crisco or margarine The best book in this vein that I have read is "Nourishing Traditions" by Sally Fallon. It is very difficult to eat this type of diet in an urban area- you need access to wild areas and friends who raise animals/vegetables/fruit or a place to do it yourself. One of the many reasons I can't spend too much time in an urban area. [/ QUOTE ] The so-called hunter-gatherer diet makes a certain amount of sense to me. That is, eating foods that would have been available prior to the agricultural revolution. So, eggs would have been available only during nesting season. No dairy products after weaning from mother's milk. No grains. Lots of fruits, vegetables, berries, and nuts--preserved by drying when possible. Honey, but no sugar. Fermented beverages. Fish and seafood--easy to catch and always available in a water source. Occasional small portions of lean meat--hunting is harder than gathering, wild animals are generally lean, and what is caught must be shared among the whole group. Obviously no chee-tos or soda. It seems to me that given the relatively short time since the agricultural revolution with the growing and processing of grains and the domestication of animals leading to the consumption of dairy products, more and fattier meats, and more eggs, humankind must still be biologically adapted to the hunter-gatherer menu. I know that the "caveperson" diet has been recommended by some popular nutritionists, but I do not have any personal experience with it. I don't think it would hurt to try it. [/ QUOTE ] How, exactly, do cheeseburgers fit into this? [/ QUOTE ] Easy--just omit the cheese and bun, and be sure the meat is very lean. Raw onion rings and tomato slices are fine. [/ QUOTE ] No, no, no. I think you misunderstood me. I said cheeseburgers.
|
|
#49
11-20-2005, 09:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Your Diet and Nutrition
[ QUOTE ]
Warning: long. Summary: if you think saturated fats and cholesterol are bad because Dan Rather said so, then maybe you should check your sources. Reference to scientific literature carries greater weight with me than the "common sense" of daytime talk shows, newsrags, and the evening news. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'm not advocating bacon and eggs because soy is bad; I'm advocating staying away from soy because soy is bad. So, (1) soy is bad. As for bacon and eggs, (2) there ain't nothing necessarily wrong with saturated fat, and often there's a lot of good there, and (3) there ain't nothing wrong with dietary cholesterol. [/ QUOTE ] Uhh...right. [/ QUOTE ] The issue at hand is what's called the Lipid Hypothesis -- the theory that the cholesterol in fatty foods builds up in your arteries and causes heart disease. This is true only in a very twisted way: artheriosclerotic plaques are indeed constructed of cholesterol, but they don't build up just because you eat cholesterol. It's the body's way of repairing arterial damage, caused by toxic chemicals, lack of essential vitamins (esp C, which is a building block of cell walls), and/or pathogenic microbes. The causes of arterial damage is a current, active area of research, so there's not a lot of answers for what causes that damage. But the remaining evidence is clear: plaques form as a result of that damage, not as a result of eating bacon and eggs. The average adult liver produces 2000mg of cholesterol a day. That's the equivalent of 20 eggs. There's a huge amount of cholesterol in the brain, and pregnant women not getting enough cholesterol risk bearing children with neural defects. Cholesterol is used in the body's native production of Vitamin D and dozens of hormones, from testosterone to adrenalin. Saturated fats are excellent sources of the fat-soluble vitamins A, D, and K, anti-microbial and anti-fungal; some are essential (ie must be present in the diet for normal metabolic function); and short-chain saturated fats are premium sources for energy. Many older research papers confused natural saturated fats (cis) with hydrogenated fats (trans-fats), usually by using hydrogenated plant oils; much of the 'evil' attributed to saturated fats comes from just a couple of these studies. [/ QUOTE ] All you bacon and eggers are getting very excited about some new theories that ingested cholesterol isn't as bad as said previously. In fact, the response from bacon and eggers to these ideas has had an almost religious fervor. But these ideas are hardly agreed upon by the main force of medical opinion. And it was hardly Dan Rather who ever convinced any doctors, or probably anyone else, about the role of ingested cholesterol in arterial and cardiac disease. Bacon and eggers are happily trying to paint pictures of the state of medical science as if they were reversed. THis is rather sly and self-serving and self-congratulatory regarding their bad habits, and does them no credit. It is not in fact the cholesterol chompers whose latest theories hold sway in the medical establishment while medical authorities who recommend against the ingestion of cholesterol who are the in the minority or silly upstarts. The opposite is true. One wonderful way to regard issues is by how they are presented. When they are presented deceptively, it's a good clue that someone has an agenda and/or that the side trying to mislead is having trouble supporting its position. Generally in such cases, and certainly in this case, it's best to stick with the general agreement of the bulk of medical authority, especially since we are not talking about something trivial here, but about heart health, which is literally a life and death matter. Even if some random poster on a web poker forum says different. Er, I mean, Dan Rather. Seriously, fanatacism can go too far. Recommending eating bacon and eggs for breakfast over oatmeal for health reasons, or for any reason, is not only foolish but at the very least irresponsible and unkind. One's enthusiasm for hot new theories should in some instances be kept to oneself. Especially when danger is involved. Thank goodness doctors have to swear allegiance to the idea, "First, do no harm." Unfortunately, OOT membership has no such requirement.
|
|
#50
11-20-2005, 09:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Your Diet and Nutrition
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Warning: long. Summary: if you think saturated fats and cholesterol are bad because Dan Rather said so, then maybe you should check your sources. Reference to scientific literature carries greater weight with me than the "common sense" of daytime talk shows, newsrags, and the evening news. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'm not advocating bacon and eggs because soy is bad; I'm advocating staying away from soy because soy is bad. So, (1) soy is bad. As for bacon and eggs, (2) there ain't nothing necessarily wrong with saturated fat, and often there's a lot of good there, and (3) there ain't nothing wrong with dietary cholesterol. [/ QUOTE ] Uhh...right. [/ QUOTE ] The issue at hand is what's called the Lipid Hypothesis -- the theory that the cholesterol in fatty foods builds up in your arteries and causes heart disease. This is true only in a very twisted way: artheriosclerotic plaques are indeed constructed of cholesterol, but they don't build up just because you eat cholesterol. It's the body's way of repairing arterial damage, caused by toxic chemicals, lack of essential vitamins (esp C, which is a building block of cell walls), and/or pathogenic microbes. The causes of arterial damage is a current, active area of research, so there's not a lot of answers for what causes that damage. But the remaining evidence is clear: plaques form as a result of that damage, not as a result of eating bacon and eggs. The average adult liver produces 2000mg of cholesterol a day. That's the equivalent of 20 eggs. There's a huge amount of cholesterol in the brain, and pregnant women not getting enough cholesterol risk bearing children with neural defects. Cholesterol is used in the body's native production of Vitamin D and dozens of hormones, from testosterone to adrenalin. Saturated fats are excellent sources of the fat-soluble vitamins A, D, and K, anti-microbial and anti-fungal; some are essential (ie must be present in the diet for normal metabolic function); and short-chain saturated fats are premium sources for energy. Many older research papers confused natural saturated fats (cis) with hydrogenated fats (trans-fats), usually by using hydrogenated plant oils; much of the 'evil' attributed to saturated fats comes from just a couple of these studies. [/ QUOTE ] All you bacon and eggers are getting very excited about some new theories that ingested cholesterol isn't as bad as said previously. In fact, the response from bacon and eggers to these ideas has had an almost religious fervor. But these ideas are hardly agreed upon by the main force of medical opinion. And it was hardly Dan Rather who ever convinced any doctors, or probably anyone else, about the role of ingested cholesterol in arterial and cardiac disease. Bacon and eggers are happily trying to paint pictures of the state of medical science as if they were reversed. THis is rather sly and self-serving and self-congratulatory regarding their bad habits, and does them no credit. It is not in fact the cholesterol chompers whose latest theories hold sway in the medical establishment while medical authorities who recommend against the ingestion of cholesterol who are the in the minority or silly upstarts. The opposite is true. One wonderful way to regard issues is by how they are presented. When they are presented deceptively, it's a good clue that someone has an agenda and/or that the side trying to mislead is having trouble supporting its position. Generally in such cases, and certainly in this case, it's best to stick with the general agreement of the bulk of medical authority, especially since we are not talking about something trivial here, but about heart health, which is literally a life and death matter. Even if some random poster on a web poker forum says different. Er, I mean, Dan Rather. Seriously, fanatacism can go too far. Recommending eating bacon and eggs for breakfast over oatmeal for health reasons, or for any reason, is not only foolish but at the very least irresponsible and unkind. One's enthusiasm for hot new theories should in some instances be kept to oneself. Especially when danger is involved. Thank goodness doctors have to swear allegiance to the idea, "First, do no harm." Unfortunately, OOT membership has no such requirement. [/ QUOTE ] Bacon and Eggs are tasty. I like cooking my eggs extra runny in the grease left over after I'm done cooking the bacon. Yummy!
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
