Nutrition stuffs
So fairly big changes for me recently, as I've really jumped off the vegan wagon, and am trying different meats. So far I've tried wild boar roast (boar's not really wild, but raised in large pens, it seems probably like heritage turkeys, who are actually still capable of breeding without artifical insemination, necessary for commercial breeds), pork sausage and bacon (delicious!), and bison liver. I've also started having eggs almost every day. I feel mostly good, though I need to make sure I have other food around, because mid-day, when I'm not at home to cook for myself, I get hungry and thrown off, and end up eating store or restaurant-bought food, which is not ideal.
After spending a few days on the Weston A Price Foundation page, I was convinced and decided to give something else a try after years of veganism, and a few weeks of veganism + fish. I've even given some thought to eating dairy, though I'm mixed about that. Ran suggests ghee (clarified butter) as a way to get the nutrients in butter without the potentially hard to handle and allergenic parts of milk. I'm thinking about that, but I still have a hard time with the idea of cheese or yogurt. It just seems weird to me, not to mention a fairly recent tradition (the buzz word for the WAP folks).
I ordered Nourishing Traditions, and am waiting its arrival. I suspect that the Price folks are right on with a lot, and really have a good sense of what proper nutrition on the ground for indigenous groups is. But the diets do seem a bit narrow, and very dairy-based. It's certainly plausible to me that pasteurization is awful for milk and causes all sorts of problems, but it's also highly plausible to me that it's "nature's most perfect food," but only for baby cows, not adult humans.
One of their articles, Guts and Grease, on Native American diets, takes to task the 'politically correct' view that indigenous diets were very lean, pointing out that fat, especially animal fat, was highly valued and sought after, ultimately comprising a high percentage of calories consumed. They also make a concession I appreciate, which is that dairy is a good substitute in the modern age for the relatively inaccessible guts and grease of wild animals typical of hunter-gatherer Amerindian diets. If that's their position (dairy is good, but only as a substitute and not as a first choice for optimal health), then I'd be much more sympathetic to them. As it is, I still think they're right on and take a lot of their information seriously, but remain critical. (That's probably a good thing, though- better not to align oneself to any set of ideas so much as take what's useful in all of them).
I'm also still considering the healthfulness of grains. I know they're relatively new in our diets, but souring and sprouting them seems to increase their nutritional content and counteract the phytic acid, one of the anti-nutrients present that are bad for us. I read through Jason's post here, including a long series of exchanges with Shane. It seems to me that, though Jason's mostly right on, he hasn't exactly disproven Shane's arguments on the edges. I think that it's possible that grains are incorporable into a healthy diet for some people, maybe. Should they be the centerpiece of almost everyone's diet? Almost certainly not. But I think he glosses over the fact that one of humanity's most noteworthy traits is our adaptability. Should everyone live in the Artic like the Inuit? Should everyone live off of primarily mongongo nuts like the !Kung? Probably not, but some people can and do. Likewise, I'll reserve judgment about grains ultimate valuelessness. Doesn't Quinn say 'There's no one right way to live." Likewise, I doubt there are hard and fast rules necessarily excluding grains or even dairy. Maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure. But Jason did seem a big ideologically driven in that exchange, which turned me off somewhat.
Back to Price- I'm disappointed they don't emphasize a more varied diet and more fruit and vegetable consumption, at least leafy greens and other accessible non-agriculture-requiring veggies (i.e. potatos and other roots). They also make a point to criticize the pesticide use in industrial fruits and veggies, which is great, but I didn't think they were similarly critical of industrial meats.
The Nourishing Traditions book, also, according to one reviewer, contains its share of doublethink, too. For example: Fallon says: don't eat white flour, because it's only 400 years old, but then defends feeding livestock to each other as an acceptable practice, because it's been done for almost 100 years.
Anyway, the take home lesson for me is: attune yourself to your body, determine what you need and get it. In the meanwhile, avoid poisons like high fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated oils, and try to emphasize whole organic/pasture-raised/wild foods. That seems damn sound to me.
After spending a few days on the Weston A Price Foundation page, I was convinced and decided to give something else a try after years of veganism, and a few weeks of veganism + fish. I've even given some thought to eating dairy, though I'm mixed about that. Ran suggests ghee (clarified butter) as a way to get the nutrients in butter without the potentially hard to handle and allergenic parts of milk. I'm thinking about that, but I still have a hard time with the idea of cheese or yogurt. It just seems weird to me, not to mention a fairly recent tradition (the buzz word for the WAP folks).
I ordered Nourishing Traditions, and am waiting its arrival. I suspect that the Price folks are right on with a lot, and really have a good sense of what proper nutrition on the ground for indigenous groups is. But the diets do seem a bit narrow, and very dairy-based. It's certainly plausible to me that pasteurization is awful for milk and causes all sorts of problems, but it's also highly plausible to me that it's "nature's most perfect food," but only for baby cows, not adult humans.
One of their articles, Guts and Grease, on Native American diets, takes to task the 'politically correct' view that indigenous diets were very lean, pointing out that fat, especially animal fat, was highly valued and sought after, ultimately comprising a high percentage of calories consumed. They also make a concession I appreciate, which is that dairy is a good substitute in the modern age for the relatively inaccessible guts and grease of wild animals typical of hunter-gatherer Amerindian diets. If that's their position (dairy is good, but only as a substitute and not as a first choice for optimal health), then I'd be much more sympathetic to them. As it is, I still think they're right on and take a lot of their information seriously, but remain critical. (That's probably a good thing, though- better not to align oneself to any set of ideas so much as take what's useful in all of them).
I'm also still considering the healthfulness of grains. I know they're relatively new in our diets, but souring and sprouting them seems to increase their nutritional content and counteract the phytic acid, one of the anti-nutrients present that are bad for us. I read through Jason's post here, including a long series of exchanges with Shane. It seems to me that, though Jason's mostly right on, he hasn't exactly disproven Shane's arguments on the edges. I think that it's possible that grains are incorporable into a healthy diet for some people, maybe. Should they be the centerpiece of almost everyone's diet? Almost certainly not. But I think he glosses over the fact that one of humanity's most noteworthy traits is our adaptability. Should everyone live in the Artic like the Inuit? Should everyone live off of primarily mongongo nuts like the !Kung? Probably not, but some people can and do. Likewise, I'll reserve judgment about grains ultimate valuelessness. Doesn't Quinn say 'There's no one right way to live." Likewise, I doubt there are hard and fast rules necessarily excluding grains or even dairy. Maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure. But Jason did seem a big ideologically driven in that exchange, which turned me off somewhat.
Back to Price- I'm disappointed they don't emphasize a more varied diet and more fruit and vegetable consumption, at least leafy greens and other accessible non-agriculture-requiring veggies (i.e. potatos and other roots). They also make a point to criticize the pesticide use in industrial fruits and veggies, which is great, but I didn't think they were similarly critical of industrial meats.
The Nourishing Traditions book, also, according to one reviewer, contains its share of doublethink, too. For example: Fallon says: don't eat white flour, because it's only 400 years old, but then defends feeding livestock to each other as an acceptable practice, because it's been done for almost 100 years.
Anyway, the take home lesson for me is: attune yourself to your body, determine what you need and get it. In the meanwhile, avoid poisons like high fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated oils, and try to emphasize whole organic/pasture-raised/wild foods. That seems damn sound to me.
posted by Archangel at 8:02 AM
11 Comments:
I have to say thank you for your viewpoint here regarding the price principles coupled with your perspective regarding vegan lifestyle. I look forward to hearing of your new experiences if you choose to post them once in a while.
While I am not radical on either side, I agree, there is not enough emphasis on the greens and vegetable foods that were a large part of indigenous cultures. There is a natural blend of diet direction, we as a society have not found that balance. Mainly you are right on target with eliminating the elements that are poisonous. Quality of life would return to many with just that step.
I found in my resesarch that Martha R. Jones, PhD (bibliography) can be found at price pottenger nutrition foundation (www.ppnf.org)for $5 and I am anxiously awaiting my copy, explored this concern further through her study of acid/alkaline balance.
Appreciate your insights. Thanks again :-) ~j
This is such important stuff. Over the short course of all of our lifetimes, nutrition theories have come and gone. We (the regular slobs of the world) are nothing more than economic targets in the sights of publishers and aspiring list-topping authors. When I think about this topic, I try to first look to nature for the answer. What is the standard or habit found in nature? Again, that is just the starting point. From there, as you said, we need to listen to our bodies. It is hard to be a walking laboratory, but it has to happen. In my dreams I am living in a nation that cares so much for its citizens that they all get free health care which includes nutritional screening and all relevant tests. I can't imagine the benefit that would bring to the quality of our lives.
J,
Thanks for visiting and commenting!
I suspect that there's something there to alkalinity and acidity in the diet, but it's too far off my radar now. Maybe one day I'll get to a place where I can incorporate that information, but for now I'm happy where I'm at.
(I have to say, though, that I definitely feel good when I avoid grains, and having them makes me feel sluggish and weighed down, but they're so accessible when other things aren't. Just have to keep that in mind).
I also agree with you that, addictions aside, people will generally lean toward an appropriate balance of what they need , and am sympathetic to instinctovore type food philosophies.
Anyway, thanks again for stopping by!
Frank,
So true! The places we get our food from in the US are primarily food industries who have vested interests in separating us from our money, whatever the cost to us. It's so reasonable, in that framework, to get people addicted to awful unhealthy foods, damned be the consequences, so long as we can keep them alive enough and hooked enough to keep buying it. And hey, even better if they get so sickly that they have to enter the world of industrial medicine, where they receive drugs that don't work (even their on admit it: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1208-02.htm)
And did you see Ran's recent link: http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g252/joshtk76/iatp.jpg
It's no surprise people are more and more out of it. The one upside I can see is that it seems to me that as the assault on our humanity becomes more and more intense, more and more people are able to break loose a bit, and hopefully beginning setting up lifeboats for when this mess comes down.
Good luck with your nutritional journeys, Frank!
Archangel,
I, too, am exploring other options and am finding it a paradox. On one level, I'm feeling better having implemented Fallon's work, on another, I am still sensitive to how we treat our animals: "read" poorly. Yeah, they're happy, grass fed, organic until they're sent off to the mill. It's a hard one still.
My hat is off to Fallon though for going against the "low/no fat" mentality that has taken over for the last 25 years. It takes guts to say "eat butter." [unpasturised, grass fed cow butter]
I'm new at this scene as well. But, rather taken with it. My mind is clearer...that's a certainty.
If you like Fallon, you may want to check out The Four Fold Path to Healing by Thomas Cowan, MD. Superb book and will rock your world just like Nourishing Traditions rocked mine...it has a different perspective and a welcomed one, imho. He's good. His practice is in San Francisco and I look forward to a second visit.
BTW, I saw them speak at a conference in Vancouver last Spring. They're both on top of the data, present well, and know their stuff. They've been into it so long that I think, though, they often forget how difficult it is to make a major paradigm shift to a natural way of life. I could be wrong.
Sad state of affairs when you think of it, eh? Enjoying our food? Wow...Novel concept. Be totally satisfied w/ no need to snack before dinner. Amazing.
I posted Fallon recently and said, in closing, "I feel like I've broken out of [low fat philosophy] jail and left the jail food behind as well." :-)
Thank you for posting. I look forward to hearing more. There are discussion boards specifically geared toward this way of life if you are interested.
Best,
Karen from California
Hi Karen,
Thanks for visiting! I looked briefly at Cowan's book, and that's definitely something I' suspect I'll be interested in at some point. I do think healing is more than nutrition, though for me that's the first and biggest step.
And yeah- enjoying food- dat's crazy! Michael Pollan of 'Omnivore's Dilemma' points out that when it comes to food, the most satisfying is often the best for us and the world. He was talking about specifically hunted and pasture-raised beyond organic food. I suspect that that's true on an even deeper level! That is, once we move away from the unhealth of this whole mess, we'll start to really value life and enjoy ourselves a lot more. I've said before and I think it's true: the world is providing us with messages in every sphere, personal, social and global, that we're not doing the right thing. And I think once we start listening to those messages and come back home, healing will commence and joy will flow more freely.
Anyway, thanks again Karen!
I'm not impressed with the Weston A. Price folks. As you mentioned, they are too heavy with dairy. Are they serious? Cows milk is for baby cows. Why would cows milk be the perfect food for humans? That makes no sense. Cows weren't created for our use. That's absolutely ridiculous.
I, for one, love grains. When I eat grains, I stave off hunger for a relatively long time. I don't feel sluggish. In fact, I feel buoyant and light.
I'm torn about the meat-eating thing. I was a vegetarian for about 8 years. I'm not necessarily against hunting for food (but I'm definitely against factory farming). But I think Man The Hunter has been blown out of proportion. Certainly humans weren't ALWAYS hunters. Most primate are herbivores and even the ones that eat meat don't eat that much of it. Humans aren't carnivores. We don't have sharp teeth and claws. If we started hunting it was b/c we saw other animals eating animals, and we also had to wait until we developed weapons. We certainly don't have the physiology to eat meat as the bulk of our diet.
One thing primitivists seem to forget is that all the tribes they look to for guidance in how to live are tribes that exist now or within the recent past. No one knows what primitive humans were like thousands of years ago. Back when there was plenty of edible vegetation (where do we think the fruits, vegetables, and grains we eat today came from? Obviously, they existed in some wild form).
Just because Eskimos eat blubber and hardly any vegetables, does that mean it's the ideal human diet?
"While I am not radical on either side, I agree, there is not enough emphasis on the greens and vegetable foods that were a large part of indigenous cultures."
I thought this when I originally went over to WAPF eating, but most indigenous cultures ate lots of wild plants, which were a whole lot different to our modern vegetables. I do think there could be more focus on herbal healing and greens, although they do mention fermented dark green veggies quite a bit, like in kimchi.
As a general note, I went from veganism to WAPF kinda-stuff and I'm so glad I did. It's really helped me more than I could imagine. Another great book I would recommend is Wild Fermentation by Sandor Ellix Katz so you can get in on all the amazing benefits and fun of fermented foods.
Hi Marcy,
Thanks for visiting!
I've been thinking a lot about it, and for now, no dairy, though I will consider clarified buttr that Ran recommends, especially if the winter CSA I joined offers butter. I just feel like having a good quality fat is really useful for cooking, which I'm doing more and more of, and to great effect.
I also think it's weird and definitely not paleo or h/g, but I feel like I'm already making so many concessions that one more in the interest of health experimention maybe nto be so bad. I also like teh side benefit of eating animal foods because it allows me to seem less stand-offish to people, and maybe makes them more interested in hearing why I think pasture-raised, grass-fed, etc etc animal foods are preferable. I mean, of course factory farms are awful and even farms to a large extent are awful. But, I do what I can from where I am, and hopefully achieve better health so that I'm in a better position to do worthwhile things and to maybe make it through the possible lean times ahead. We'll see.
And I think you're really right that analysis of h/g diets based on those living in the most marginal sections of the world in the recent past is not necessarily indicative of what foragers ate always. I was definitely thrown back when Jason at Anthropik talked about forager diets being predominantly meat, as it flew in the face of more modest estimates I'd heard before in the range of 10-30% meat. He talks about the shift to the term gatherer-hunter, based largely on the San and their uncommon fixation of mongongo nuts, and that a cross-cultural study indicated that h/g diets were almost always more than 50% meat. Maybe, but as you mention- we don't know. Maybe h/g's on non-marginal lands ate more vegetation, and really were more g/h's.
In any event, I do jive with the WAP folks's emphasis on quality fats. I think those are really important, and I also think that grains are often difficult for me. I'm sticking to sprouted and soured ones for now.
And again, thanks for visiting!
--
Dan,
Same boat, amigo. Vegan--> WAP, though I think you mentioned you're into the dairy stuffs more than me.
I also agree that wild plants are very different than what we have today, but maybe it's not that big of a deal? Domestic meat is quite different from wild eat too, but in lots of ways the differences are less important than the similarities...maybe?
I dunno- it's tough. When I start thinking about the marginal cases, I find myself directionless at times.
And thanks for the book recommendation- I'm going to try to track it down after Nourishing Traditions (which arrived in the mail today- woohoo!)
I think those are really important, and I also think that grains are often difficult for me. I'm sticking to sprouted and soured ones for now.
Do you know your blood type, BTW? I read a book (and I'm not sure I believe it) that claims that a person's blood type indicates what type of diet is preferable due to the fact that the antigens on the red cells evolved over a long time. So, group O people, having no antigens on their red cells would benefit from a diet of just vegetables and meat, whereas the A antigen would have evolved along with the advent of agriculture, so group A people would benefit from grains. And group B people are supposedly the only ones who tolerate dairy well.
As a medical lab tech, I understand the concepts of blood type, but I dunno if I believe the diet aspect of it. It's intriguing, though. I do know that when I eat low fat/high carb, I feel great, lose weight and have tons of energy. And some people seem to do better with low carb diets. Although, the argument has been made that some people who eat low fat/high carb aren't eating good carbs, but lots of fat-free "goodies" with lots of sugar in them.
As for sprouted grains, I'm gonna try that. I love wheat berries. I should just go ahead and sprout them. I assume they would cook faster that way?
Hey Marcy,
I'm type O, which would make sense for the blood type diet and what I'm leaning toward eating.
The sense I've gotten from reading about this is that it's bunk; something about blood types not really being so tied to theiir respective pre- and post-agricultural groups or something. Fun idea, though, and I definitely think that some people can do quite well on grains whereas for others, any grains at all do them in.
I like Dr. Mercola, because though he's very critical of grains, he recognizes that some people do well on them, and more broadly, the same diet will not work for everyone. Based on factors, mostly what your ancestors ate, some people do better or worse on certain diets. He also says that we can be putting the highest quality organic unrefined foods in our bodies and not feeling well as a result of us not getting teh right sorts of foods for our individual selves. It's like putting high-grade gas into a diesel engine- it's gonna cause problems, and they're not because the gas isn't high-quality, but because the engine's not suited for it.
Anyway- yay foods! :-D
Post a Comment
<< Home