Looking for thoughts on a book: Re al Fo od

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
19
81
Re al Fo od

Sorry for the spaces, I'm kind of hoping Google won't pick up on it, should a certain someone go searching; though Google probably isn't that easily fooled.

Anyhow, a shall we say, "relative," is on a health/"health" food kick, and is on my case to read this book.
Related article
I was introduced to raw milk. Dear god it was awful. It was almost lightly chewy, and tasted like a blend of cheddar cheese and milk.


Immediate issues I see:
...much of what we have learned about nutrition in the past generation or so is either misinformed or dead wrong, and almost all of the food invented in the last century, and especially since the Second World War, is worse than almost all of the food that we've been eating since we developed agriculture.

I don't have the book handy with me, but I recall from the book jacket that she isn't a scientist, or anything close to it. Amazon says that she is a "successful manager of urban green markets," so she's got a vested interest in this subject; this book could be little more than a big advertising gig for her.



the only sensible path for eating, the one that maintains and even improves health, the one that maintains stable weight and avoids obesity, happens to be the one that we all crave: not modern food, but traditional food, and not industrial food, but real food.
The market has evidently spoken on this one: Industrial food seems to be a thriving market. "Real food" is a boring, time-consuming, pain in the ass to prepare, so we buy processed foods.

I don't put much sentimental value in food; it's not some artful thing to be lovingly crafted, it's just a fuel source.

Granted, some of the stuff looks legit, like recommending butter over margarine - natural fats over processed/plasticized artificial hydrogenated/partially hydrogenated oils.

But she sounds more like a political entrepreneur and businesswoman than a scientist.

Might anyone else have (rational) thoughts on this?



Those spewing professions of communist eco-KOOK hippies ZOMG need not apply.

 

DarrelSPowers

Senior member
Jul 9, 2008
781
1
0
I think the whole "raw food" movement is complete bullshit. Its basically the polar opposite of the fatties who eat unhealthy 4 meals a day.

I'll get my diet advice from a real nutritionist, not some pesudo-science pushing hippie.
 

torpid

Lifer
Sep 14, 2003
11,631
11
76
I've had unhomogenized (but still pasteurized) milk and it is really delicious. If you had chunks it's because it went bad or because whoever served it to you didn't adequately shake the milk in order to get a proper emulsion. I don't know that it is any better for you, but I definitely prefer the taste of lower somatic cell count, unhomogenized milk from a local farm.

This book seems to be similar in theme to "In Defense of Food" by Pollan. I think the premise is fairly valid, but there are obviously many exceptions.

I definitely think some foods are substantially better when home-grown or farm fresh. I'm talking just in terms of taste and for cooking here. Eggs, milk, certain vegetables, certain fruit, cheese. Fresh eggs are really great. The yolk is a much deeper color and doesn't separate as easily. Much easier to bake with them.
 

Iron Woode

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 10, 1999
31,081
12,590
136
no one disputes the value of eating fresh food.

however, the claims by various health food store employees and their followers are suspect to say the least. Their answer to diseases like cancer, aids, diabetes etc is to consume more vitamin D and such. They then claim the "experts" are all wrong and they have all the answers.

The truth is they are just in it for money and notoriety, like TV talk shows and such.

oh yeah: pasteurized milk > raw milk

 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
19
81
Originally posted by: torpid
I've had unhomogenized (but still pasteurized) milk and it is really delicious. If you had chunks it's because it went bad or because whoever served it to you didn't adequately shake the milk in order to get a proper emulsion. I don't know that it is any better for you, but I definitely prefer the taste of lower somatic cell count, unhomogenized milk from a local farm.

This book seems to be similar in theme to "In Defense of Food" by Pollan. I think the premise is fairly valid, but there are obviously many exceptions.

I definitely think some foods are substantially better when home-grown or farm fresh. I'm talking just in terms of taste and for cooking here. Eggs, milk, certain vegetables, certain fruit, cheese. Fresh eggs are really great. The yolk is a much deeper color and doesn't separate as easily. Much easier to bake with them.
There weren't any chunks in it, and I was told that it was good by two other people in the house. It was "thick," kind of like half-and-half is, but minus the good taste.

I did grow up on farm-fresh produce, since we lived in rural farmland, and there were produce stands here and there. I've had supermarket produce, and it's just not good. Too much of the stuff is bred to grow big and colorful, but it's bland. Strawberries especially, locally grown ones are smaller, but are extremely sweet. Store-bought ones are huge, but taste very watered-down.



Flipping through this book, it looks like it uses a lot of ... the word escapes me now. Stories of some important person who said something that supports the cause. Dammit, it's a single word, and I can't remember it.
The sources cited sound like more of the same: "Heart Revolution," "The Danish Revolution," "What Really Goes into the Food on Your Plate," "The Miracle of Milk."

And of course, oh teh noes!!! Corn syrup is out to get us!!!!
I don't care for corn syrup because I don't especially like the corn industry itself, but that's as far as it goes.
"If you take only one piece of advice from the Stone Age diet, stop eating all forms of industrial corn. It's far better to eat this delicious native vegetable in the traditional way: boiled with butter or in whole corn grits - ideally soaked first."
Yup, Stone Age diet, because life spans were simply excellent back then; it cites a few small studies with some dubious conclusions. Ok, fine, in the wild, we'd evolve to eat foods which were going to be beneficial. It also mentions that as cities formed, and farming took over from hunting and gathering, general health declined. My guess: Concentrating people close together means diseases could spread more easily, such as through poor or nonexistent sewage systems.

I also think that this book's writing style is going to make me somewhat sick.


It sounds like a minefield of good information, BS, and that word I can't remember. Yes, industrial farms leave a huge environmental footprint, and they do use a lot of chemicals. Are they inherently bad and unethical? No. A local farmer can just as easily be unethical, as can an executive in charge of a multi-million dollar farming operation.


As for the increase in cancer and such, I'll mention my "luxury disease" theory again: Now that we don't die of simple things like an infected cut, or something relatively trivial, we live longer, and thus have the "luxury" of dying of many other things.
In addition, we have better diagnostics. Long ago, if someone was dying of pancreatic cancer, they'd probably be bled a few times, and maybe a priest would attempt to exorcise the demons from the person. That counts as a "death," not a "cancer death." People didn't get seizures because of misfiring neurons, they were being possessed by otherworldly spirits.
Simultaneous occurrence doesn't automatically equal a correlation.

Sounds like this author is in the same circles as that other woman who posted an article that McDonald's cheeseburgers are "not food," or something to that effect, though perhaps a small step above.


 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,234
1,718
126
Some stuff like "processed foods aren't the best for you" is pretty much well known common information. Other stuff like "don't cook food because cooked food is bad for you" is a complete fabrication.

Veggies are ok raw, but meat is much better cooked. It doesn't have to be well done, but at least medium rare.
Also, meat is better than veggies.
 

Iron Woode

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 10, 1999
31,081
12,590
136
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Originally posted by: torpid
I've had unhomogenized (but still pasteurized) milk and it is really delicious. If you had chunks it's because it went bad or because whoever served it to you didn't adequately shake the milk in order to get a proper emulsion. I don't know that it is any better for you, but I definitely prefer the taste of lower somatic cell count, unhomogenized milk from a local farm.

This book seems to be similar in theme to "In Defense of Food" by Pollan. I think the premise is fairly valid, but there are obviously many exceptions.

I definitely think some foods are substantially better when home-grown or farm fresh. I'm talking just in terms of taste and for cooking here. Eggs, milk, certain vegetables, certain fruit, cheese. Fresh eggs are really great. The yolk is a much deeper color and doesn't separate as easily. Much easier to bake with them.
There weren't any chunks in it, and I was told that it was good by two other people in the house. It was "thick," kind of like half-and-half is, but minus the good taste.

I did grow up on farm-fresh produce, since we lived in rural farmland, and there were produce stands here and there. I've had supermarket produce, and it's just not good. Too much of the stuff is bred to grow big and colorful, but it's bland. Strawberries especially, locally grown ones are smaller, but are extremely sweet. Store-bought ones are huge, but taste very watered-down.



Flipping through this book, it looks like it uses a lot of ... the word escapes me now. Stories of some important person who said something that supports the cause. Dammit, it's a single word, and I can't remember it.
The sources cited sound like more of the same: "Heart Revolution," "The Danish Revolution," "What Really Goes into the Food on Your Plate," "The Miracle of Milk."

And of course, oh teh noes!!! Corn syrup is out to get us!!!!
I don't care for corn syrup because I don't especially like the corn industry itself, but that's as far as it goes.
"If you take only one piece of advice from the Stone Age diet, stop eating all forms of industrial corn. It's far better to eat this delicious native vegetable in the traditional way: boiled with butter or in whole corn grits - ideally soaked first."
Yup, Stone Age diet, because life spans were simply excellent back then; it cites a few small studies with some dubious conclusions. Ok, fine, in the wild, we'd evolve to eat foods which were going to be beneficial. It also mentions that as cities formed, and farming took over from hunting and gathering, general health declined. My guess: Concentrating people close together means diseases could spread more easily, such as through poor or nonexistent sewage systems.

I also think that this book's writing style is going to make me somewhat sick.


It sounds like a minefield of good information, BS, and that word I can't remember. Yes, industrial farms leave a huge environmental footprint, and they do use a lot of chemicals. Are they inherently bad and unethical? No. A local farmer can just as easily be unethical, as can an executive in charge of a multi-million dollar farming operation.


As for the increase in cancer and such, I'll mention my "luxury disease" theory again: Now that we don't die of simple things like an infected cut, or something relatively trivial, we live longer, and thus have the "luxury" of dying of many other things.
In addition, we have better diagnostics. Long ago, if someone was dying of pancreatic cancer, they'd probably be bled a few times, and maybe a priest would attempt to exorcise the demons from the person. That counts as a "death," not a "cancer death." People didn't get seizures because of misfiring neurons, they were being possessed by otherworldly spirits.
Simultaneous occurrence doesn't automatically equal a correlation.

Sounds like this author is in the same circles as that other woman who posted an article that McDonald's cheeseburgers are "not food," or something to that effect, though perhaps a small step above.
seems the word you are looking for is anecdotal.

Stone age diet. LOL.

That consisted of Mammoth and what ever other animal you managed to kill along with some seeds and fruits you found while hunting for game.

Oh yeah, and dieing at the ripe old age of 30 from one of a dozen diseases or injuries.

Yup, they sure had it good back then.
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
19
81
"Anecdotal," I think that's the word I'm after.


And so much for trying to fool Google, it's already spotted the thread.



Edit: There, let's see it figure that one out. :p


I kind of see what she's trying to get at with the Stone Age thing - have us eat the foods we evolved alongside. The question of course is, can we do better?


What I don't get is, we have pet foods that appear to be reasonably ok for them. We've got pet critters like mice and cats and such that live way beyond their natural lifespans.
Too bad it's all like, unethical and stuff to lock up a bunch of people and feed them only certain things to see what happens. Their snackrifices will allow us to produce the perfect Human Food.
It could even come in various flavors, such as bacon and Oreo.

Oh well....:(