Food Questions
DaBreeze21
Ok, so I am the posting machine tonight! Everyone else is asleep and I
had a coke with my pizza during the Superbowl, so I don't think sleep
is coming for me anytime soon!
I recently started reading a book called, "Healing Our Children". It
looked interesting, and I am pregnant with our second baby so I
thought I would look at it.
Basically it rejects the whole western diet and way of eating. It
calls for eating many things raw -- meat, milk, seafood etc. And the
list of things not to eat was mind boggling.
I only read a bit of the book, but the whole thing seems to be based
on indigenous people's diets and the author believes that many of our
illnesses today are due to our diet.
Well, I just couldn't read much more because I found it overwhelming.
To eat the way they describe would be very challenging in our society.
And I found it discouraging that most of the things I eat were on the
"don't eat" lists.
I am posting about this here for a couple of reasons. First, I think
that some of the people on this list have really well thought through
opinions and I really respect that. I view myself as a smart person,
but I also have a habit of seeing things from every side which ends up
confusing me. Does anyone actually eat a diet similar to this one and
how does it mesh with your unschooling lifestyle?
Part of me thinks that "ignorance is bliss" and I feel pretty healthy
as I am! But then part of me wonders if I should explore it more --
after all, unschooling is certainly not the norm in our society and I
am very glad that I have pursued my interest in it.
Thanks for any input once again!
Susan
had a coke with my pizza during the Superbowl, so I don't think sleep
is coming for me anytime soon!
I recently started reading a book called, "Healing Our Children". It
looked interesting, and I am pregnant with our second baby so I
thought I would look at it.
Basically it rejects the whole western diet and way of eating. It
calls for eating many things raw -- meat, milk, seafood etc. And the
list of things not to eat was mind boggling.
I only read a bit of the book, but the whole thing seems to be based
on indigenous people's diets and the author believes that many of our
illnesses today are due to our diet.
Well, I just couldn't read much more because I found it overwhelming.
To eat the way they describe would be very challenging in our society.
And I found it discouraging that most of the things I eat were on the
"don't eat" lists.
I am posting about this here for a couple of reasons. First, I think
that some of the people on this list have really well thought through
opinions and I really respect that. I view myself as a smart person,
but I also have a habit of seeing things from every side which ends up
confusing me. Does anyone actually eat a diet similar to this one and
how does it mesh with your unschooling lifestyle?
Part of me thinks that "ignorance is bliss" and I feel pretty healthy
as I am! But then part of me wonders if I should explore it more --
after all, unschooling is certainly not the norm in our society and I
am very glad that I have pursued my interest in it.
Thanks for any input once again!
Susan
Joanna Murphy
"Does anyone actually eat a diet similar to this one and how does it mesh with your
unschooling lifestyle?"
The information you are talking about is promoted by the Weston A. Price Foundation. We
do keep these principles in mind in our diets, and I know many other unschooling families
that do as well. We've actually had a small slew of minor, and a few major, complaints
clear up with this stuff, and so have many others I've known.
All that being said, we all make our own choices and have lots of conversation about food.
I mesh the principles in as it makes sense, being the main cook and purchaser in the
house, and we work to find foods that satisfy and bring pleasure to our lives, like many
families on this list do. If you are asking whether we "impose" this diet on our children,
the answer is no, and that would also go for the other unschooling families that I know
well enough to know that sort of thing.
Feel free to contact me off-list if you'd like to discuss more, because it seems like part of
what you're asking makes sense on this list, but part of it might be more specific to the
information you've been reading about.
Joanna
unschooling lifestyle?"
The information you are talking about is promoted by the Weston A. Price Foundation. We
do keep these principles in mind in our diets, and I know many other unschooling families
that do as well. We've actually had a small slew of minor, and a few major, complaints
clear up with this stuff, and so have many others I've known.
All that being said, we all make our own choices and have lots of conversation about food.
I mesh the principles in as it makes sense, being the main cook and purchaser in the
house, and we work to find foods that satisfy and bring pleasure to our lives, like many
families on this list do. If you are asking whether we "impose" this diet on our children,
the answer is no, and that would also go for the other unschooling families that I know
well enough to know that sort of thing.
Feel free to contact me off-list if you'd like to discuss more, because it seems like part of
what you're asking makes sense on this list, but part of it might be more specific to the
information you've been reading about.
Joanna
Joyce Fetteroll
On Feb 1, 2009, at 11:47 PM, DaBreeze21 wrote:
seem like a good thing is that people consume a lot more fruits and
vegetables. That *is* a good thing in terms of fiber and bulk and
vitamins and minerals. You probably will feel better. But you can get
that also by ... consuming more raw fruits and vegetables ;-)
This seems to be a really good site:
Beyond Vegetarianism - transcending outdated dogmas
http://www.beyondveg.com/index.shtml
Lots of links to real research. On the research page is:
Research-Based Appraisals of Alternative Diet Lore
Comparative Anatomy and Physiology Brought Up to Date: Are humans
natural frugivores/vegetarians or omnivores/faunivores?
The rationale for vegetarianism based on similarities with apes or
differences with carnivores has long been a cornerstone of the
philosophy for many adherents. However, the supporting arguments have
changed little for over 25 years now. Given that scientific study has
advanced tremendously during that time, an update has been long
overdue. This extensive tour provides an in-depth look at the
numerous and intriguing problems involved, including an examination
of the much more rigorous analytical techniques of recent comparative
studies. Whether or not you're pleased with what the evidence points
to, you're sure to come away with fascinating insights into the
complex mix of factors involved in determining the diet that the
human species is most naturally adapted to.
(And then lots of links)
and
Is Cooked Food Poison? Looking at the Science on Raw vs. Cooked Foods.
The traditional answers to this question in raw foods are often
justified either on the subjective grounds of philosophical
naturalism, or by harking back to very old scientific studies that
have never been replicated. On the other hand, what modern research
is available about the effects of specific substances in raw foods or
the biochemistry of cooking has been restricted to very narrowly
defined studies scattered widely in the literature.
(More links)
Joyce
> asically it rejects the whole western diet and way of eating. ItI suspect one of the immediate advantages of rawism that makes it
> calls for eating many things raw -- meat, milk, seafood etc. And the
> list of things not to eat was mind boggling.
seem like a good thing is that people consume a lot more fruits and
vegetables. That *is* a good thing in terms of fiber and bulk and
vitamins and minerals. You probably will feel better. But you can get
that also by ... consuming more raw fruits and vegetables ;-)
This seems to be a really good site:
Beyond Vegetarianism - transcending outdated dogmas
http://www.beyondveg.com/index.shtml
Lots of links to real research. On the research page is:
Research-Based Appraisals of Alternative Diet Lore
Comparative Anatomy and Physiology Brought Up to Date: Are humans
natural frugivores/vegetarians or omnivores/faunivores?
The rationale for vegetarianism based on similarities with apes or
differences with carnivores has long been a cornerstone of the
philosophy for many adherents. However, the supporting arguments have
changed little for over 25 years now. Given that scientific study has
advanced tremendously during that time, an update has been long
overdue. This extensive tour provides an in-depth look at the
numerous and intriguing problems involved, including an examination
of the much more rigorous analytical techniques of recent comparative
studies. Whether or not you're pleased with what the evidence points
to, you're sure to come away with fascinating insights into the
complex mix of factors involved in determining the diet that the
human species is most naturally adapted to.
(And then lots of links)
and
Is Cooked Food Poison? Looking at the Science on Raw vs. Cooked Foods.
The traditional answers to this question in raw foods are often
justified either on the subjective grounds of philosophical
naturalism, or by harking back to very old scientific studies that
have never been replicated. On the other hand, what modern research
is available about the effects of specific substances in raw foods or
the biochemistry of cooking has been restricted to very narrowly
defined studies scattered widely in the literature.
(More links)
Joyce
Sandra Dodd
What Joanna and Joyce wrote might answer all of the original poster's
questions, so I want to go a different direction with it.
Some people really enjoy the feeling (and it can be kind of addictive)
that the world is ending and only valiant sacrifice by those noble
enough to change EVERYthing can save the human race. There's an
entire industry creating movies to give them the thrill of imagining
various such scenarios. There have always been books and stories
about it, one way or another.
Much of religion, superstition and magic (not sleight-of-hand and
illusion) are based on sacrifice. What will the practitioner offer up
in exchange for power / life / luck?
Some parents decide to sacrifice TV, or books with too many pictures,
hoping they will gain for their children more imagination and a love
of (or dependence upon) books.
Some parents decide to sacrifice playing cards and drinking beer and
dancing, so that their children will be in a "Godly" environment and
more likely to live eternally.
Some parents sacrifice sugar, hoping for health and placidness in
their children.
In many cases, adopting a rule or big set of rules is a sacrifice a
parent makes in hopes of not having to think so hard all the time.
One of the things that makes unschooling and mindful parenting work,
it seems to me, is the CONSTANT thought and awareness that the world
changes, people change, what's great for a three year old might not be
great for a twelve-year-old (not just food but anything in any area),
or it might be!!! Either rejecting all or accepting all is still a
rule, and not a thoughtful balance.
If I read the links Joyce brought and decide the raw food thing is
bogus, and if in reaction to my new judgment I start cooking even the
things I used to eat raw, that would be goofy.
If I get carrots and wonder whether I should give them to my family
raw or cooked, and if I think VERY much about that, it would be kind
of a waste of thinking. I could cut some up and offer them raw and
cook some. I could ask Holly (the one who likes cooked carrots most)
whether she's in the mood for cooked carrots. She usually is. Or
Keith could get down the juicer he got for working at Honeywell for
fifteen years (it's over 20 now, but we still have the juicer) and he
could make us carrot juice. I wouldn't try to make any of them eat
raw or cooked or juice-of carrots.
If I decide today what I will do with carrots for the rest of my
life, that would be more like superstition than mindfulness. If I
imbue carrots with the ability to destroy my health or to maintain it,
that's too much power to give a carrot!
Sandra
questions, so I want to go a different direction with it.
Some people really enjoy the feeling (and it can be kind of addictive)
that the world is ending and only valiant sacrifice by those noble
enough to change EVERYthing can save the human race. There's an
entire industry creating movies to give them the thrill of imagining
various such scenarios. There have always been books and stories
about it, one way or another.
Much of religion, superstition and magic (not sleight-of-hand and
illusion) are based on sacrifice. What will the practitioner offer up
in exchange for power / life / luck?
Some parents decide to sacrifice TV, or books with too many pictures,
hoping they will gain for their children more imagination and a love
of (or dependence upon) books.
Some parents decide to sacrifice playing cards and drinking beer and
dancing, so that their children will be in a "Godly" environment and
more likely to live eternally.
Some parents sacrifice sugar, hoping for health and placidness in
their children.
In many cases, adopting a rule or big set of rules is a sacrifice a
parent makes in hopes of not having to think so hard all the time.
One of the things that makes unschooling and mindful parenting work,
it seems to me, is the CONSTANT thought and awareness that the world
changes, people change, what's great for a three year old might not be
great for a twelve-year-old (not just food but anything in any area),
or it might be!!! Either rejecting all or accepting all is still a
rule, and not a thoughtful balance.
If I read the links Joyce brought and decide the raw food thing is
bogus, and if in reaction to my new judgment I start cooking even the
things I used to eat raw, that would be goofy.
If I get carrots and wonder whether I should give them to my family
raw or cooked, and if I think VERY much about that, it would be kind
of a waste of thinking. I could cut some up and offer them raw and
cook some. I could ask Holly (the one who likes cooked carrots most)
whether she's in the mood for cooked carrots. She usually is. Or
Keith could get down the juicer he got for working at Honeywell for
fifteen years (it's over 20 now, but we still have the juicer) and he
could make us carrot juice. I wouldn't try to make any of them eat
raw or cooked or juice-of carrots.
If I decide today what I will do with carrots for the rest of my
life, that would be more like superstition than mindfulness. If I
imbue carrots with the ability to destroy my health or to maintain it,
that's too much power to give a carrot!
Sandra
DJ250
My family consumes raw milk and cheese. We buy from a co-op. An Amish farmer (we love to visit his farm!) in PA delivers in our area. He also has grass-fed beef and milk-fed pork, among other things. I know people who follow the Weston A. Price Foundation's cookbook Nourishing Traditions, some more strictly than others. One who is very strict is not an unschooling mom but follows Waldorf, which we used to. It IS overwhelming! A great thing for me has been to go to cooking classes that a leader in our co-op has offered (many of the people in our co-op also follow Nourishing Traditions and are members of the Weston A.Price Foundation).
We are not strict in our household. I feel food is a social aspect of life, whether it's crap or not. :) If you're at a party and everyone's eating pizza, it wouldn't be NT (Nourishing Traditions) to eat it because the flour wouldn't have been fresh-ground and soaked in whey and water for 24 hours to make the dough and the cheese would not have been raw to start with, blah, blah, blah. But, to eat it would be a social thing--you'd like to join in the party and enjoy a slice of pizza!! So, we dabble in fast food, drink raw milk, eat fresh fruits and vegetables (my girls are NUTS for carrots!), and sometimes drink soda. They're hardly ever sick. I know drinking raw milk and eating good quality yogurt adds to the health of the gut, which is where disease and ill health starts. This protects against the ill-effects of the crap they eat and I feel we can still partake in our social life and in society and enjoy some 'bad" food! They buy soda or candy with their own money and I don't bat an eye. It's their choice!! And if they are restricted from it while their friends enjoy, well, life just sucks for them. So, unless it's a food allergy, I say balance is key. And educate your kids on WHY some food is bad for you while others are nourishing!
My .02,
~Melissa :)
We are not strict in our household. I feel food is a social aspect of life, whether it's crap or not. :) If you're at a party and everyone's eating pizza, it wouldn't be NT (Nourishing Traditions) to eat it because the flour wouldn't have been fresh-ground and soaked in whey and water for 24 hours to make the dough and the cheese would not have been raw to start with, blah, blah, blah. But, to eat it would be a social thing--you'd like to join in the party and enjoy a slice of pizza!! So, we dabble in fast food, drink raw milk, eat fresh fruits and vegetables (my girls are NUTS for carrots!), and sometimes drink soda. They're hardly ever sick. I know drinking raw milk and eating good quality yogurt adds to the health of the gut, which is where disease and ill health starts. This protects against the ill-effects of the crap they eat and I feel we can still partake in our social life and in society and enjoy some 'bad" food! They buy soda or candy with their own money and I don't bat an eye. It's their choice!! And if they are restricted from it while their friends enjoy, well, life just sucks for them. So, unless it's a food allergy, I say balance is key. And educate your kids on WHY some food is bad for you while others are nourishing!
My .02,
~Melissa :)
----- Original Message -----
From: DaBreeze21
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 11:47 PM
Subject: [AlwaysLearning] Food Questions
Ok, so I am the posting machine tonight! Everyone else is asleep and I
had a coke with my pizza during the Superbowl, so I don't think sleep
is coming for me anytime soon!
I recently started reading a book called, "Healing Our Children". It
looked interesting, and I am pregnant with our second baby so I
thought I would look at it.
Basically it rejects the whole western diet and way of eating. It
calls for eating many things raw -- meat, milk, seafood etc. And the
list of things not to eat was mind boggling.
I only read a bit of the book, but the whole thing seems to be based
on indigenous people's diets and the author believes that many of our
illnesses today are due to our diet.
Well, I just couldn't read much more because I found it overwhelming.
To eat the way they describe would be very challenging in our society.
And I found it discouraging that most of the things I eat were on the
"don't eat" lists.
I am posting about this here for a couple of reasons. First, I think
that some of the people on this list have really well thought through
opinions and I really respect that. I view myself as a smart person,
but I also have a habit of seeing things from every side which ends up
confusing me. Does anyone actually eat a diet similar to this one and
how does it mesh with your unschooling lifestyle?
Part of me thinks that "ignorance is bliss" and I feel pretty healthy
as I am! But then part of me wonders if I should explore it more --
after all, unschooling is certainly not the norm in our society and I
am very glad that I have pursued my interest in it.
Thanks for any input once again!
Susan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.16/1930 - Release Date: 2/2/2009 7:51 AM
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
nymodels2
i stopped eating meat & chicken in highschool for political reasons & never started again <boycott..john zogby, zogby poles was my social studies teacher> a yr ago i stopped seafood then dairy. john hopkins study said that everyone gets cancer cells in their body a dozen or so times during their life. cells die if not fed. sugar & dairy feed cells. i try & eat healthy. limit sugar & eat lots of fruit, veg. whole grains & miso , seaweed...... my ? is about the dairy. is it good or bad? also my original email didn't have the list of "do not eat foods" could someone pls resend list. thanks. also i belong to farmfresh yahoo group. it is a group w/ info on healthy eating , group buys & much more. is it ok to send excerps of email to farmfresh to get more info. TIA ***sim'aria***
Jenny C
> Basically it rejects the whole western diet and way of eating. ItRejecting the "western" diet is like rejecting the diet of our
> calls for eating many things raw -- meat, milk, seafood etc. And the
> list of things not to eat was mind boggling.
ancestors, if that is where one's ancestors come from. It's
traditionally consiste of grains, meats, and fruits and veggies, or the
4 food groups, or the newer pyramid.
People all over the world have eaten what comes in abundance where they
live. For hundreds of years people have eaten foods from all over the
world in addition to what comes in abundance. The farther and faster
people have been able to travel the more diverse people have been able
to eat.
I love how culinary ideas are different because of what comes in
abundance. I love how it makes living in one place different from
living in other places. Living in the Pacific NW makes fish very
abundant, especially salmon. If I'd grown up in the SW US, I'd probably
be eating a lot of beef and chiles. It's fascinating how culinary ideas
are created and area specific and represtational of what is abundant.
What these kinds of diets tend to ignore is the fact that indigenous
cultures have always eaten what is most locally abundant, it doesn't
mean that those things are the exact best thing for each individual to
eat. I like that I can eat an orange in the winter, even though I don't
live in CA, FL, or a place with a similar climate, Italy? maybe.
If a diet deemed fish as much worthier than beef, I'd be in a world of
hurt if I lived in the midwest. Not that people can't eat fish in the
midwest US, it's just more likely frozen and expensive. I've had
friends from Germany really enjoy being in the NW US, because of the
abundance of fresh fish for sushi.
I love how food has traveled around the world, from island to island,
from continent to continent, from city to city, and region to region.
People have been doing this for thousands of years. Coconuts are a good
example, traveling from island to island and transplanting itself in an
area that may have never seen a coconut before.
> I only read a bit of the book, but the whole thing seems to be basedI'd like to see anyone prove this! Are illnesses really from eating or
> on indigenous people's diets and the author believes that many of our
> illnesses today are due to our diet.
not eating food? There have been different illnesses throughout the
history of the world. Thousands of people died from the plague, and I'm
sure that those people were eating entirely unprocessed, organically
grown foods. People used to die from leprosy. A lot of children never
made it to adult hood. I think people, in general, are a lot healthier
than a thousand years ago.
The preservation of food in some form or another has been around since
humans have, correct me if I'm wrong on that. Cheese is a form of
preservation of milk, just like dried fruit is a preservation of fresh
fruit.
I'd rather eat a fresh apple from cold storage than an apple that was
sun dried many months ago and reconstituted in water. Refridgerators
have allowed us to eat more and more things fresh. One could argue that
cheese powder for mac and cheese is just another way of food
preservation. Why is this a bad thing?
> Well, I just couldn't read much more because I found it overwhelming.Is the feeling of discouragment, challenge and being overwelmed healthy?
> To eat the way they describe would be very challenging in our society.
> And I found it discouraging that most of the things I eat were on the
> "don't eat" lists.
There are so many foods that are available, who's to say what is good
and what isn't? How narrow should we make our world? Should we ignore
the global way in which we can accept the world of food? Should I stop
using pepper and salt because I don't go to the ocean and process my own
salt locally, and pepper because it comes originally from anciet India?
Where does one draw the line, on what to eat or not to eat? What about
things that we can't eat raw? Some tubers are poisonous if eaten raw,
but are quite good for you if you cook them.
> Part of me thinks that "ignorance is bliss" and I feel pretty healthyI think it's good to question things and understand why we believe the
> as I am! But then part of me wonders if I should explore it more --
> after all, unschooling is certainly not the norm in our society and I
> am very glad that I have pursued my interest in it.
way we do!
Jenny C
"john hopkins study said that everyone gets cancer cells in their body a
dozen or so times during their life. cells die if not fed. sugar & dairy
feed cells. i try & eat healthy. "
If that were true, then every single person who ate sugar and dairy
would get cancer! Cancer researchers don't even know why some people
get cancer and others don't. Free radicals are all around us, some of
them contribute to cancers, but clearly they all don't, otherwise every
person alive would get cancer.
"limit sugar & eat lots of fruit, veg. whole grains & miso ,
seaweed...... my ? is about the dairy. is it good or bad?"
I guess it depends on who you ask? I don't eat whole grains, they make
me sick. I don't eat dairy for the same reason. My husband and
children can all eat grains of any kind and mostly prefer whole grain
things but can certainly appreciate a delicious plain bagel, the same
goes for dairy, except each individual has their own tolerances of that.
Lots of people can't drink milk, but can eat cheese. I have a friend
that can drink raw milk, but pasteurized milk makes her sick.
Nothing is one size fits all, and that includes the way we eat. If you
don't like meat, don't eat it. If you love fish, eat it. If you prefer
bananas to apples, then by all means eat bananas. Limiting sugar isn't
going to stop your body from needing sugars. Limiting your protein
source isn't going to stop your body from requiring protein.
We can make our world really small with our diets, or we can make our
worlds really big and wonderful and enjoy what we enjoy and eat the
things we like and that make our bodies feel good. Some people get sick
because they are always negative and cynical. I think our attitude
helps us be healthy and happy, just as much as what we put into it.
dozen or so times during their life. cells die if not fed. sugar & dairy
feed cells. i try & eat healthy. "
If that were true, then every single person who ate sugar and dairy
would get cancer! Cancer researchers don't even know why some people
get cancer and others don't. Free radicals are all around us, some of
them contribute to cancers, but clearly they all don't, otherwise every
person alive would get cancer.
"limit sugar & eat lots of fruit, veg. whole grains & miso ,
seaweed...... my ? is about the dairy. is it good or bad?"
I guess it depends on who you ask? I don't eat whole grains, they make
me sick. I don't eat dairy for the same reason. My husband and
children can all eat grains of any kind and mostly prefer whole grain
things but can certainly appreciate a delicious plain bagel, the same
goes for dairy, except each individual has their own tolerances of that.
Lots of people can't drink milk, but can eat cheese. I have a friend
that can drink raw milk, but pasteurized milk makes her sick.
Nothing is one size fits all, and that includes the way we eat. If you
don't like meat, don't eat it. If you love fish, eat it. If you prefer
bananas to apples, then by all means eat bananas. Limiting sugar isn't
going to stop your body from needing sugars. Limiting your protein
source isn't going to stop your body from requiring protein.
We can make our world really small with our diets, or we can make our
worlds really big and wonderful and enjoy what we enjoy and eat the
things we like and that make our bodies feel good. Some people get sick
because they are always negative and cynical. I think our attitude
helps us be healthy and happy, just as much as what we put into it.
Sandra Dodd
On Feb 2, 2009, at 12:03 PM, Jenny C wrote:
tend to process milk fine and have done so for a long, long time.
Lapps. Nepalese and Tibetans. Scandinavians, Brits. Italy? Not so
much. Cheese yes. Africa? Not so much. Persians and Indian drink
yoghurt drinks. I don't know the whole-world rundown on that, just
some examples.
Requiring schoolkids to drink their milk regardless of their genetic
heritage is going to be looked back upon as a Bad Thing someday, I'm
pretty sure.
Then there are some people saying people outgrow their need for and
tolerance for milk. But I think it's not ALL people. Even within
those cultures that even make their alcoholic beverages with milk,
it's likely that some don't like or digest milk as well as others.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> my ? is about the dairy. is it good or bad?"Interbreeding has made quite a hodgepodge. Genetically, some groups
tend to process milk fine and have done so for a long, long time.
Lapps. Nepalese and Tibetans. Scandinavians, Brits. Italy? Not so
much. Cheese yes. Africa? Not so much. Persians and Indian drink
yoghurt drinks. I don't know the whole-world rundown on that, just
some examples.
Requiring schoolkids to drink their milk regardless of their genetic
heritage is going to be looked back upon as a Bad Thing someday, I'm
pretty sure.
Then there are some people saying people outgrow their need for and
tolerance for milk. But I think it's not ALL people. Even within
those cultures that even make their alcoholic beverages with milk,
it's likely that some don't like or digest milk as well as others.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Joanna Murphy
--- In [email protected], "Jenny C" <jenstarc4@...> wrote:
people ate, they are speaking of what is currently "in fashion" which is lots of processed
food, like white flour and sugar, and most recently, high fructose corn syrup and vegetable
oils, that are separated from their original source. These foods haven't been in our supply
for all that long (in terms of human history), but have become readily available because of
the industrial revolution and factory processing making them cheap to produce.
It's
not necessarily from our European roots.
healthy and drawing from that. There were plenty of indigenous groups that didn't have a
high level of health.
the government has taken. They either don't get reported, get mis-reported or are talked
about in terms of being anomalies. For instance, the government has been trying to
prove for 40 years that a low-fat diet is healthy, and they can't actually make well-
designed studies show it. A good book that is pretty exhaustive with detail on the studies
is Good Calories, Bad Calories. It's pretty surprising stuff.
The food related illnesses have to do with Syndrome X (type 2 diabetes, heart disease, high
hypertension) and digestive disorders, and there is lots of evidence anectotally from all
around the world, and through current studies that show these diseases are pretty food
related. I don't think anyone is talking about viral or bacterially based diseases, although
my own immune system has become remarkably stronger. I used to catch every cold that
came my way--both before kids and after--and I don't really get sick anymore.
The proof has been in the pudding of health for me and my family.
And at the same time, I think Sandra's post is well-taken. I think we can make decisions
that don't have that doom and gloom, end of the world, fanatical energy to them that
move us in the direction of health, etc. And I trust that my children can make their own
decisions if presented with a buffet of options. I've seen them do it time and again.
Joanna
>When people use the term "western diet" they are not speaking of what any traditional
>
> > Basically it rejects the whole western diet and way of eating. It
> > calls for eating many things raw -- meat, milk, seafood etc. And the
> > list of things not to eat was mind boggling.
>
> Rejecting the "western" diet is like rejecting the diet of our
> ancestors, if that is where one's ancestors come from.
people ate, they are speaking of what is currently "in fashion" which is lots of processed
food, like white flour and sugar, and most recently, high fructose corn syrup and vegetable
oils, that are separated from their original source. These foods haven't been in our supply
for all that long (in terms of human history), but have become readily available because of
the industrial revolution and factory processing making them cheap to produce.
It's
> traditionally consisted of grains, meats, and fruits and veggies, or theAnd this way of looking at food comes from the 1970's government recommendations--
> 4 food groups, or the newer pyramid.
not necessarily from our European roots.
>They don't ignore this fact--they are looking at the groups of people that are robustly
> What these kinds of diets tend to ignore is the fact that indigenous
> cultures have always eaten what is most locally abundant, it doesn't
> mean that those things are the exact best thing for each individual to
> eat.
healthy and drawing from that. There were plenty of indigenous groups that didn't have a
high level of health.
> > I only read a bit of the book, but the whole thing seems to be basedThere are actually a lot of studies available, but they aren't in fashion due to the position
> > on indigenous people's diets and the author believes that many of our
> > illnesses today are due to our diet.
>
> I'd like to see anyone prove this! Are illnesses really from eating or
> not eating food?
the government has taken. They either don't get reported, get mis-reported or are talked
about in terms of being anomalies. For instance, the government has been trying to
prove for 40 years that a low-fat diet is healthy, and they can't actually make well-
designed studies show it. A good book that is pretty exhaustive with detail on the studies
is Good Calories, Bad Calories. It's pretty surprising stuff.
The food related illnesses have to do with Syndrome X (type 2 diabetes, heart disease, high
hypertension) and digestive disorders, and there is lots of evidence anectotally from all
around the world, and through current studies that show these diseases are pretty food
related. I don't think anyone is talking about viral or bacterially based diseases, although
my own immune system has become remarkably stronger. I used to catch every cold that
came my way--both before kids and after--and I don't really get sick anymore.
> I think it's good to question things and understand why we believe theI agree with this too--
> way we do!
The proof has been in the pudding of health for me and my family.
And at the same time, I think Sandra's post is well-taken. I think we can make decisions
that don't have that doom and gloom, end of the world, fanatical energy to them that
move us in the direction of health, etc. And I trust that my children can make their own
decisions if presented with a buffet of options. I've seen them do it time and again.
Joanna
Robyn L. Coburn
<<<< And educate your kids on WHY some food is bad for you while others are
nourishing!>>>
In all of that happy post this is the one idea that could be problematic.
What might "educate" mean?
What does "nourishing" mean? If Joyce's links show anything, they show that
this is an idea that has changed, continues to change, that it varies
between individuals.
The more I read and talk to people about food and diets, the more I am
convinced that the dietary preferences of most parents, most adults in
general, are a reflection of their philosophy and values than really have
anything to do with nutrition.
My dd is a different body type from me. I look at her and see her father's
genetics. The things that we share, like hair color and skin texture, seem
to be things that I share with her father as well. Plus she has an allergy
that I don't, and nor does he, so that came from somewhere unknown. Her
body's nutritional needs are probably always going to be different from
mine. I am not going to tell her what is nourishing to her, because I know
that she can trust her own body to give her good cues. I am not going to
tell her that some food is bad for her, because I can trust her to
experience and express how foods make her feel. The only observation that I
have for her is that she gets emotionally volatile and cranky when she is
very hungry, with little self control. And when she is hungry, what matters
is calories fast.
We have a kind of dance around discovering what she wants to eat. She
usually resents it if I make her food without offering her choices first.
She sometimes doesn't know what she wants until she is able to envisage it.
(This is why we love buffets.) I list what we have and I can make and she
eventually makes a choice. If she can't then I make something that I will
eat if she doesn't care for it. It does take patience and energy from me,
much more than if I were defining nutritious, limiting to those and acting
accordingly. When we go out I put a huge variety in the food bag. I make
monkey platter type snack trays too, especially when we have visitors.
The other day I was in the bedroom while she was playing with her friends. I
came out to find that she had cooked scrambled eggs for all of them. Her
fairly regular visitors are two girls who eat anything that is put in front
of them, regardless of how soon they just ate, and will generally finish
everything. Once one asked me if she had to finish everything on her plate
at dinner time because she was finally full and didn't like it all that much
(of course I said "no" very emphatically), but her sister continued to
slowly soldier on until her plate was empty. They express being hungry all
the time. It is no small matter to have them over for a visit!
Robyn L. Coburn
www.Iggyjingles.etsy.com
www.iggyjingles.blogspot.com
www.allthingsdoll.blogspot.com
nourishing!>>>
In all of that happy post this is the one idea that could be problematic.
What might "educate" mean?
What does "nourishing" mean? If Joyce's links show anything, they show that
this is an idea that has changed, continues to change, that it varies
between individuals.
The more I read and talk to people about food and diets, the more I am
convinced that the dietary preferences of most parents, most adults in
general, are a reflection of their philosophy and values than really have
anything to do with nutrition.
My dd is a different body type from me. I look at her and see her father's
genetics. The things that we share, like hair color and skin texture, seem
to be things that I share with her father as well. Plus she has an allergy
that I don't, and nor does he, so that came from somewhere unknown. Her
body's nutritional needs are probably always going to be different from
mine. I am not going to tell her what is nourishing to her, because I know
that she can trust her own body to give her good cues. I am not going to
tell her that some food is bad for her, because I can trust her to
experience and express how foods make her feel. The only observation that I
have for her is that she gets emotionally volatile and cranky when she is
very hungry, with little self control. And when she is hungry, what matters
is calories fast.
We have a kind of dance around discovering what she wants to eat. She
usually resents it if I make her food without offering her choices first.
She sometimes doesn't know what she wants until she is able to envisage it.
(This is why we love buffets.) I list what we have and I can make and she
eventually makes a choice. If she can't then I make something that I will
eat if she doesn't care for it. It does take patience and energy from me,
much more than if I were defining nutritious, limiting to those and acting
accordingly. When we go out I put a huge variety in the food bag. I make
monkey platter type snack trays too, especially when we have visitors.
The other day I was in the bedroom while she was playing with her friends. I
came out to find that she had cooked scrambled eggs for all of them. Her
fairly regular visitors are two girls who eat anything that is put in front
of them, regardless of how soon they just ate, and will generally finish
everything. Once one asked me if she had to finish everything on her plate
at dinner time because she was finally full and didn't like it all that much
(of course I said "no" very emphatically), but her sister continued to
slowly soldier on until her plate was empty. They express being hungry all
the time. It is no small matter to have them over for a visit!
Robyn L. Coburn
www.Iggyjingles.etsy.com
www.iggyjingles.blogspot.com
www.allthingsdoll.blogspot.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "DJ250" <dj250@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Food Questions
> My family consumes raw milk and cheese. We buy from a co-op. An Amish
> farmer (we love to visit his farm!) in PA delivers in our area. He also
> has grass-fed beef and milk-fed pork, among other things. I know people
> who follow the Weston A. Price Foundation's cookbook Nourishing
> Traditions, some more strictly than others. One who is very strict is not
> an unschooling mom but follows Waldorf, which we used to. It IS
> overwhelming! A great thing for me has been to go to cooking classes that
> a leader in our co-op has offered (many of the people in our co-op also
> follow Nourishing Traditions and are members of the Weston A.Price
> Foundation).
>
> We are not strict in our household. I feel food is a social aspect of
> life, whether it's crap or not. :) If you're at a party and everyone's
> eating pizza, it wouldn't be NT (Nourishing Traditions) to eat it because
> the flour wouldn't have been fresh-ground and soaked in whey and water for
> 24 hours to make the dough and the cheese would not have been raw to start
> with, blah, blah, blah. But, to eat it would be a social thing--you'd
> like to join in the party and enjoy a slice of pizza!! So, we dabble in
> fast food, drink raw milk, eat fresh fruits and vegetables (my girls are
> NUTS for carrots!), and sometimes drink soda. They're hardly ever sick.
> I know drinking raw milk and eating good quality yogurt adds to the health
> of the gut, which is where disease and ill health starts. This protects
> against the ill-effects of the crap they eat and I feel we can still
> partake in our social life and in society and enjoy some 'bad" food!
> They buy soda or candy with their own money and I don't bat an eye. It's
> their choice!! And if they are restricted from it while their friends
> enjoy, well, life just sucks for them. So, unless it's a food allergy, I
> say balance is key. >
> My .02,
> ~Melissa :)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: DaBreeze21
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 11:47 PM
> Subject: [AlwaysLearning] Food Questions
>
>
> Ok, so I am the posting machine tonight! Everyone else is asleep and I
> had a coke with my pizza during the Superbowl, so I don't think sleep
> is coming for me anytime soon!
>
> I recently started reading a book called, "Healing Our Children". It
> looked interesting, and I am pregnant with our second baby so I
> thought I would look at it.
>
> Basically it rejects the whole western diet and way of eating. It
> calls for eating many things raw -- meat, milk, seafood etc. And the
> list of things not to eat was mind boggling.
>
> I only read a bit of the book, but the whole thing seems to be based
> on indigenous people's diets and the author believes that many of our
> illnesses today are due to our diet.
>
> Well, I just couldn't read much more because I found it overwhelming.
> To eat the way they describe would be very challenging in our society.
> And I found it discouraging that most of the things I eat were on the
> "don't eat" lists.
>
> I am posting about this here for a couple of reasons. First, I think
> that some of the people on this list have really well thought through
> opinions and I really respect that. I view myself as a smart person,
> but I also have a habit of seeing things from every side which ends up
> confusing me. Does anyone actually eat a diet similar to this one and
> how does it mesh with your unschooling lifestyle?
>
> Part of me thinks that "ignorance is bliss" and I feel pretty healthy
> as I am! But then part of me wonders if I should explore it more --
> after all, unschooling is certainly not the norm in our society and I
> am very glad that I have pursued my interest in it.
>
> Thanks for any input once again!
>
> Susan
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.16/1930 - Release Date:
> 2/2/2009 7:51 AM
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.233 / Virus Database: 270.10.16/1930 - Release Date: 01/29/09
17:57:00
Sandra Dodd
On Feb 2, 2009, at 12:21 PM, Joanna Murphy wrote:
recommendations--
not necessarily from our European roots.-=-
People from many governments are on this list.
For the U.S.,
The four food groups charts go back to the 50's or earlier, and the
food pyramid from the 1980's I think. But the stuff IN the groups
(bread, cheese, milk, the vegetables and meats they picture) are north
American versions of northern European foods, generally.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> And this way of looking at food comes from the 1970's government-=-And this way of looking at food comes from the 1970's government
> recommendations--
> not necessarily from our European roots.
> >
recommendations--
not necessarily from our European roots.-=-
People from many governments are on this list.
For the U.S.,
The four food groups charts go back to the 50's or earlier, and the
food pyramid from the 1980's I think. But the stuff IN the groups
(bread, cheese, milk, the vegetables and meats they picture) are north
American versions of northern European foods, generally.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jenny C
>any traditional
> When people use the term "western diet" they are not speaking of what
> people ate, they are speaking of what is currently "in fashion" whichis lots of processed
> food, like white flour and sugar, and most recently, high fructosecorn syrup and vegetable
> oils, that are separated from their original source. These foodshaven't been in our supply
> for all that long (in terms of human history), but have become readilyavailable because of
> the industrial revolution and factory processing making them cheap toproduce.
Well, then the term is a misnomer! I'm sure there are lots of folks
that eat a lot of high fat and high sugar diet, but I see more people
eat food bought in grocery stores that are used to make things. My kids
and I analyze other peoples' grocery hauls on a fairly regular basis.
So, sure people put cookies made in a factory in their haul, as well as
fruit and veggies, and breads, and meats, and chips, and a whole host of
other things.
Something that's really helped me get to a place of ease about factory
processing has been shows like "Unwrapped" on the food network channel.
It has created convenience and cost effective eating. There are so many
brands of factory processed food, that we can pick and choose our
ingredients when buying things.
It's all part of the process of the evolution of food storage. Some of
the things that we can buy all packaged up, have been around for a long
time, and before factories, were made by hand in small batches. Some of
these things haved changed very little minus the mass production aspect.
>the
> It's
> > traditionally consisted of grains, meats, and fruits and veggies, or
> > 4 food groups, or the newer pyramid.recommendations--
>
> And this way of looking at food comes from the 1970's government
> not necessarily from our European roots.The reason that it became a recommendation is because food systems were
analyzed based on what people had been eating. What people had been
eating, in the US and Europe, has been relativley the same for a long
time. The basic components of the diets are, there are many variations
for sure.
>to
> > What these kinds of diets tend to ignore is the fact that indigenous
> > cultures have always eaten what is most locally abundant, it doesn't
> > mean that those things are the exact best thing for each individual
> > eat.that are robustly
>
> They don't ignore this fact--they are looking at the groups of people
> healthy and drawing from that. There were plenty of indigenous groupsthat didn't have a
> high level of health.Right, I get that. It still doesn't mean that those things are the
exact best thing for each individual to eat. Even if all the
information was gathered and processed with the idea that these folks
were healthy and drew a food correlative, doesn't make it so.
> > > I only read a bit of the book, but the whole thing seems to bebased
> > > on indigenous people's diets and the author believes that many ofour
> > > illnesses today are due to our diet.or
> >
> > I'd like to see anyone prove this! Are illnesses really from eating
> > not eating food?fashion due to the position
>
> There are actually a lot of studies available, but they aren't in
> the government has taken.My point was that people jump to food, what we eat or don't eat to prove
or disprove health, when it could have nothing at all to do with food.
Perhaps more and more people are getting immuno type illnesses from
water. The fact is, nobody really knows, there are lots of guesses and
speculation and fear about what if, but we don't really know.
People didn't know what the cause of the plague was, there were a lot of
guesses and speculation and fear, but nobody really knew. The guesses
and speculation turned out to be wrong.
>A good book that is pretty exhaustive with detail on the studiesI haven't read the book. What I do know, is that I could eat the best,
> is Good Calories, Bad Calories. It's pretty surprising stuff.
leanest, most natural beef, and it would still make me sick. I could
eat bananas all day long, but they would still make me sick. I could
grow my own grain, harvest it myself with my own mill and make my own
bread, but it would still make me sick.
I don't have a rice paddy, so I rely on others to grow and process my
rice and it's almost always imported from somewhere else. Rice is a
good source of calories for me, but if my ideal was to only eat what was
local, I would go hungry a lot. People travel, food travels, culinary
ideas travel. If we consume food because we like it and it makes us
feel good, how could that be "bad" calories?
>diabetes, heart disease, high
> The food related illnesses have to do with Syndrome X (type 2
> hypertension) and digestive disorders, and there is lots of evidenceanectotally from all
> around the world, and through current studies that show these diseasesare pretty food
> related. I don't think anyone is talking about viral or bacteriallybased diseases, although
> my own immune system has become remarkably stronger. I used to catchevery cold that
> came my way--both before kids and after--and I don't really get sickanymore.
My own experience says that this is the best reason that we should allow
kids to eat what they feel like eating! If I had been allowed to eat or
not eat the foods that I wanted,as a child, I could've learned to listen
to my body better. I wouldn't be an adult with digestive disorders. I
hardly ever get sick now that I've stopped eating the foods that make me
sick. I don't eat raw, I don't follow any other diet, except the one
that allows me to eat what makes me feel good and not eat the things
that make me feel yucky. Kids, if allowed to make free choices, do
exactly this!
So maybe the real problem is how we treat kids and force them to eat or
not eat things, simply because, the adults in their lives seemingly know
better and force this "knowledge" onto their kids.
Joanna Murphy
> -=-And this way of looking at food comes from the 1970's governmentHere's a nice little summary of the history of the food groups. What is interesting to me is
> recommendations--
> not necessarily from our European roots.-=-
>
> People from many governments are on this list.
>
> For the U.S.,
> The four food groups charts go back to the 50's or earlier, and the
> food pyramid from the 1980's I think. But the stuff IN the groups
> (bread, cheese, milk, the vegetables and meats they picture) are north
> American versions of northern European foods, generally.
>
> Sandra
the change--it started out as seven groups and then shifted around. When I mentioned
70's, now I see that what I was talking about was a different recommendation about
grouping and amounts. That's probably what the real change is--not, of course, in the
foods themselves, but in what is recommended from each group, and how the foods are
grouped.
But the stuff IN the groups
> (bread, cheese, milk, the vegetables and meats they picture) are northRight! If it had been a list from Asia, it might include a fermented foods group, like
> American versions of northern European foods, generally.
kimchi, etc. Maybe it only feels like a complete description of available foods because I'm
a westerner. Interesting...
Joanna
Chris and Kelli Bailey
<<john hopkins study said that everyone gets cancer cells in their body a dozen or so times during their life. cells die if not fed. sugar & dairy feed cells.>>
i don't post often, but i feel the need to respond to this statement, having had breast cancer during pregnancy less than 2 years ago at the age of 37.
i feel it is irresponsible to make blanket statements about cancer, such as foods "feeding" cancer. although i think many people (especially people from lists like these who question the status quo) do their own research about issues they are curious about, statements such as these are not helpful in general. they create misunderstanding and fear.
according to my panel of oncologists i had "done everything right" to avoid breast cancer, ie breastfeeding, avoiding tobacco products, having children later in life, no family history, etc.
my tumor specifically grew directly proportionate to the pregnancy. it was affected by the hormone progesterone. it was not known to be caused by specific foods or anything else besides pregnancy (this after 3 other normal pregnancies).
oncologists and researchers do not know exact triggers which cause cells to mutate into cancer. they do their best to identify risk factors. by publishing findings, they attempt to help people, and they maintain their research funding.
my doctors flat-out told me they do not know why i developed cancer. i had NO apparent risk factors for that particular disease. i was told that most of their body of knowledge is in regards to treatment of cancer. the treatment techniques have come a long way since the 60's, when pregnancy termination would have been recommended, and for that i am grateful.
no one knows when or how they may become ill, nor if they will die a sudden death tomorrow. in our family we choose not to control diet. far better for our family to be emotionally "healthy" than to live in fear of some unknown illness caused by drinking milk or eating sugar!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
i don't post often, but i feel the need to respond to this statement, having had breast cancer during pregnancy less than 2 years ago at the age of 37.
i feel it is irresponsible to make blanket statements about cancer, such as foods "feeding" cancer. although i think many people (especially people from lists like these who question the status quo) do their own research about issues they are curious about, statements such as these are not helpful in general. they create misunderstanding and fear.
according to my panel of oncologists i had "done everything right" to avoid breast cancer, ie breastfeeding, avoiding tobacco products, having children later in life, no family history, etc.
my tumor specifically grew directly proportionate to the pregnancy. it was affected by the hormone progesterone. it was not known to be caused by specific foods or anything else besides pregnancy (this after 3 other normal pregnancies).
oncologists and researchers do not know exact triggers which cause cells to mutate into cancer. they do their best to identify risk factors. by publishing findings, they attempt to help people, and they maintain their research funding.
my doctors flat-out told me they do not know why i developed cancer. i had NO apparent risk factors for that particular disease. i was told that most of their body of knowledge is in regards to treatment of cancer. the treatment techniques have come a long way since the 60's, when pregnancy termination would have been recommended, and for that i am grateful.
no one knows when or how they may become ill, nor if they will die a sudden death tomorrow. in our family we choose not to control diet. far better for our family to be emotionally "healthy" than to live in fear of some unknown illness caused by drinking milk or eating sugar!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
eaglefalconlark
--- In [email protected], "Jenny C" <jenstarc4@...> wrote:
"limit sugar & eat lots of fruit, veg. whole grains & miso ,
seaweed...... my ? is about the dairy. is it good or bad?"
>>I guess it depends on who you ask? I don't eat whole grains, they
make me sick.<<
Eh, my brother has celiac, I'm allergic to oats, and my doctor told me
recently that I shouldn't be eating hardly any grains at all because
it's not what stone-age people ate. Or something like that. Also
according to her I'm not supposed to be eating much fruit either, or
sweet vegetables or tubers because of the amount of sugar in them. I
read somewhere else that for some reason (my blood type or what-not)
that I shouldn't be eating lentils. And somewhere else that I
shouldn't be eating nuts. And of course everyone knows that soy and
dairy are horrible for you. All this is of course completely contrary
to what I grew up hearing from nutrition "experts". I'm not sure what
there is left to eat. It just seems like no matter how healthy you
think you're eating someone somewhere is going to have a reason for
you why it's wrong. (I once laid out my diet for someone who was
convinced I was obese because I was eating "bad" foods, and when she
was given a list of whole natural foods she said, "Well, you know you
have to eat them in the right *order*." Oy.)
I've given up hoping that anyone knows what they're talking about. At
this point we are just paying attention to how what *we* eat makes
*us* feel. I've learned more doing that than hours upon hours of
scouring the internet for information.
Linda
k
>>>> I've given up hoping that anyone knows what they're talking about. Atthis point we are just paying attention to how what *we* eat makes
*us* feel. I've learned more doing that than hours upon hours of
scouring the internet for information. <<<<
I have been doing the same thing because the advice is so contrary. Hardly
any view is consistent with any other and the range of allowed foods is
really short on any one diet.
~Katherine
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
k
>>>> no one knows when or how they may become ill, nor if they will die asudden death tomorrow. in our family we choose not to control diet. far
better for our family to be emotionally "healthy" than to live in fear of
some unknown illness caused by drinking milk or eating sugar! <<<<
Especially since the main component of sugar breakdown in the body is
glucose. Sugar is present in some amount in just about anything we eat, and
this is naturally so because glucose is necessary for the body to function
at all, to make insulin.
~Katherine
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
thanks 4 info 4 thought.?? i really liked dairy but stopped because of the study.... but i lost so much weight when i stopped dairy that? now it makes it worth it to me.?thanks again,
-----Original Message-----
From: Jenny C <jenstarc4@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 2:03 pm
Subject: [AlwaysLearning] Re: Food Questions
"john hopkins study said that everyone gets cancer cells in their body a
dozen or so times during their life. cells die if not fed. sugar & dairy
feed cells. i try & eat healthy. "
If that were true, then every single person who ate sugar and dairy
would get cancer! Cancer researchers don't even know why some people
get cancer and others don't. Free radicals are all around us, some of
them contribute to cancers, but clearly they all don't, otherwise every
person alive would get cancer.
"limit sugar & eat lots of fruit, veg. whole grains & miso ,
seaweed...... my ? is about the dairy. is it good or bad?"
I guess it depends on who you ask? I don't eat whole grains, they make
me sick. I don't eat dairy for the same reason. My husband and
children can all eat grains of any kind and mostly prefer whole grain
things but can certainly appreciate a delicious plain bagel, the same
goes for dairy, except each individual has their own tolerances of that.
Lots of people can't drink milk, but can eat cheese. I have a friend
that can drink raw milk, but pasteurized milk makes her sick.
Nothing is one size fits all, and that includes the way we eat. If you
don't like meat, don't eat it. If you love fish, eat it. If you prefer
bananas to apples, then by all means eat bananas. Limiting sugar isn't
going to stop your body from needing sugars. Limiting your protein
source isn't going to stop your body from requiring protein.
We can make our world really small with our diets, or we can make our
worlds really big and wonderful and enjoy what we enjoy and eat the
things we like and that make our bodies feel good. Some people get sick
because they are always negative and cynical. I think our attitude
helps us be healthy and happy, just as much as what we put into it.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
-----Original Message-----
From: Jenny C <jenstarc4@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 2:03 pm
Subject: [AlwaysLearning] Re: Food Questions
"john hopkins study said that everyone gets cancer cells in their body a
dozen or so times during their life. cells die if not fed. sugar & dairy
feed cells. i try & eat healthy. "
If that were true, then every single person who ate sugar and dairy
would get cancer! Cancer researchers don't even know why some people
get cancer and others don't. Free radicals are all around us, some of
them contribute to cancers, but clearly they all don't, otherwise every
person alive would get cancer.
"limit sugar & eat lots of fruit, veg. whole grains & miso ,
seaweed...... my ? is about the dairy. is it good or bad?"
I guess it depends on who you ask? I don't eat whole grains, they make
me sick. I don't eat dairy for the same reason. My husband and
children can all eat grains of any kind and mostly prefer whole grain
things but can certainly appreciate a delicious plain bagel, the same
goes for dairy, except each individual has their own tolerances of that.
Lots of people can't drink milk, but can eat cheese. I have a friend
that can drink raw milk, but pasteurized milk makes her sick.
Nothing is one size fits all, and that includes the way we eat. If you
don't like meat, don't eat it. If you love fish, eat it. If you prefer
bananas to apples, then by all means eat bananas. Limiting sugar isn't
going to stop your body from needing sugars. Limiting your protein
source isn't going to stop your body from requiring protein.
We can make our world really small with our diets, or we can make our
worlds really big and wonderful and enjoy what we enjoy and eat the
things we like and that make our bodies feel good. Some people get sick
because they are always negative and cynical. I think our attitude
helps us be healthy and happy, just as much as what we put into it.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Joanna Murphy
> Especially since the main component of sugar breakdown in the body isGlucose is necessary, but the body has a mechanism for producing it's own glucose in the
> glucose. Sugar is present in some amount in just about anything we eat, and
> this is naturally so because glucose is necessary for the body to function
> at all, to make insulin.
>
> ~Katherine
liver, even in the complete absence of ingested sugars and starches, so it's becoming
increasingly debatable to what degree it is normal or healthy for us to eat them. It's not
the given that many of us have believed, and might be at the heart of the rising diabetes
problem.
And insulin is a hormone that our bodies make independent of eating sugars or starches.
Here a quick picture of how it works if anyone is interested:
http://health.howstuffworks.com/diabetes1.htm
Joannna
[email protected]
ur right about making school kids drink milk?? how about the biggest allergy food item?? nuts... kids in school that didn't like other choices were given PB&J.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 2:18 pm
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Re: Food Questions
-----Original Message-----
From: Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 2:18 pm
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Re: Food Questions
On Feb 2, 2009, at 12:03 PM, Jenny C wrote:
> my ? is about the dairy. is it good or bad?"
Interbreeding has made quite a hodgepodge. Genetically, some groups
tend to process milk fine and have done so for a long, long time.
Lapps. Nepalese and Tibetans. Scandinavians, Brits. Italy? Not so
much. Cheese yes. Africa? Not so much. Persians and Indian drink
yoghurt drinks. I don't know the whole-world rundown on that, just
some examples.
Requiring schoolkids to drink their milk regardless of their genetic
heritage is going to be looked back upon as a Bad Thing someday, I'm
pretty sure.
Then there are some people saying people outgrow their need for and
tolerance for milk. But I think it's not ALL people. Even within
those cultures that even make their alcoholic beverages with milk,
it's likely that some don't like or digest milk as well as others.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
k
Everything has sugar in it:
http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/summary/21/5/484 My question is
how is it determined that insulin is made independently from the presence of
sugar? I don't think it is. Glucose comes from what we eat from food
breakdown. The liver doesn't produce glucose independently but uses stored
glycogen derived from glucose in the blood which it remakes into glucose
when energy is needed.
From the link given: http://health.howstuffworks.com/diabetes1.htm
your cells would have more than enough glucose right after a meal and starve
in between meals and overnight. So, when you have an oversupply of glucose,
your body stores the excess in the liver and
muscles<http://health.howstuffworks.com/muscle.htm>by making
*glycogen*, long chains of glucose. When glucose is in short supply, your
body mobilizes glucose from stored glycogen and/or stimulates you to eat
food. The key is to maintain a constant blood-glucose level. <<<<
Also:
cells<http://health.howstuffworks.com/blood.htm>,
rely solely on glucose for fuel). The glucose in the blood comes from the
food <http://health.howstuffworks.com/food.htm> that you eat. <<<<
I agree that adult physiology may not require as much sugar as child
physiology. Depends. Some people need more than others. Some people use
energy more, some less through physical activity, higher drain on energy
levels placed on the body due to fighting disease or relative health which
might not lead to more need of energy to raise immunity. Injury increases
the need for energy, as does stress from a variety of sources.
The need for glucose to produce energy is a balancing act, a cycle, in which
the pancreas produces both insulin and its opposing glucagon.
I don't think that the consumption of sugar is the main factor in the
development of diabetes. Some people eat plenty of it and other people
avoid it like the plague, and still from both groups there are diabetics.
Which probably means other factors are involved.
Experts, scientists, researchers etc don't quite understand it. The How
Stuff Works writeup is a general rundown of what *is* known. But that
doesn't mean that there isn't more to be understood.
~Katherine
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/summary/21/5/484 My question is
how is it determined that insulin is made independently from the presence of
sugar? I don't think it is. Glucose comes from what we eat from food
breakdown. The liver doesn't produce glucose independently but uses stored
glycogen derived from glucose in the blood which it remakes into glucose
when energy is needed.
From the link given: http://health.howstuffworks.com/diabetes1.htm
>>>> Your body tries to keep a constant supply of glucose for your cells bymaintaining a constant glucose concentration in your blood -- otherwise,
your cells would have more than enough glucose right after a meal and starve
in between meals and overnight. So, when you have an oversupply of glucose,
your body stores the excess in the liver and
muscles<http://health.howstuffworks.com/muscle.htm>by making
*glycogen*, long chains of glucose. When glucose is in short supply, your
body mobilizes glucose from stored glycogen and/or stimulates you to eat
food. The key is to maintain a constant blood-glucose level. <<<<
Also:
>>>> The cells take in glucose from the blood<http://health.howstuffworks.com/blood.htm>and break it down for energy (some cells, like braincells <http://health.howstuffworks.com/brain.htm> and red blood
cells<http://health.howstuffworks.com/blood.htm>,
rely solely on glucose for fuel). The glucose in the blood comes from the
food <http://health.howstuffworks.com/food.htm> that you eat. <<<<
I agree that adult physiology may not require as much sugar as child
physiology. Depends. Some people need more than others. Some people use
energy more, some less through physical activity, higher drain on energy
levels placed on the body due to fighting disease or relative health which
might not lead to more need of energy to raise immunity. Injury increases
the need for energy, as does stress from a variety of sources.
The need for glucose to produce energy is a balancing act, a cycle, in which
the pancreas produces both insulin and its opposing glucagon.
I don't think that the consumption of sugar is the main factor in the
development of diabetes. Some people eat plenty of it and other people
avoid it like the plague, and still from both groups there are diabetics.
Which probably means other factors are involved.
Experts, scientists, researchers etc don't quite understand it. The How
Stuff Works writeup is a general rundown of what *is* known. But that
doesn't mean that there isn't more to be understood.
~Katherine
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
cathyandgarth
--- In [email protected], "Robyn L. Coburn"
<dezigna@...> wrote:
which has been written about already, but I wanted to readdress, is
how something makes you feel emotionally and mentally. When denied
all kinds of food items because they aren't "nourishing", a child's
desires, wants, fascinations, curiosities aren't being nourished.
When I want a big ol' bowl of haagen daaz, it isn't because my
physical body *needs* it, something else in me wants/needs it, and
when I sit down and enjoy it, it IS nourishing. Are kids *hyper*
when they eat something that tastes really good because it has sugar
in it? Or are they just expressing happiness and joy? As adults
maybe we forget that feeling of something so good it makes you want
to dance ... maybe when you are 4 that is how a slurpee on a hot day
tastes?
In light of some of the comments on diets that are given by
allergies and sensitivites, I just wanted to make note (and
celebrate) that within this community even those (sometimes extreme)
diets haven't been equated with suffering. If the dietary needs of
someone need to exclude certain ingredients, it doesn't have to
exclude all the elements of "nourishing" -- the soul, the spirit.
For example, just yesterday we had a couple of celiac kids over and
my dd and I are gluten sensitive, so we made gluten free crepes,
filled them with nutella, and topped them with whipped cream ...
mmm, can you get much more nourishing than that? :).
What makes me uncomfortable are the parents I have seen who use
allergies to limit many things beyond the actual allergy, as if it
gives them the free-pass on food controls. The celiac children that
were at our home yesterday do not have their diet limited, except
for the gluten ... they, like my children, ate what they wanted and
not a bite more, it was very refreshing. We have had other friends
whose children couldn't have gluten over and they really gorged on
the yummy gluten free treats we have laying out on our counters and
easily available -- they can't have gluten but that has been ramped
up to incude many other things "just in case."
So, I think that when you buy into something like Weston Price, it
is easy to forget about all the other nourishing traditions out
there, all the other aspects of nourishment that are so important to
children who live in the moment and don't/*shouldn't* be bogged down
with all the what-ifs surrounding that kind of dietary control, all
the *educating* can really destroy pure simple food enjoyment.
Cathy
<dezigna@...> wrote:
>And I think another important peice of the concept of nourishing,
>
> What does "nourishing" mean?
which has been written about already, but I wanted to readdress, is
how something makes you feel emotionally and mentally. When denied
all kinds of food items because they aren't "nourishing", a child's
desires, wants, fascinations, curiosities aren't being nourished.
When I want a big ol' bowl of haagen daaz, it isn't because my
physical body *needs* it, something else in me wants/needs it, and
when I sit down and enjoy it, it IS nourishing. Are kids *hyper*
when they eat something that tastes really good because it has sugar
in it? Or are they just expressing happiness and joy? As adults
maybe we forget that feeling of something so good it makes you want
to dance ... maybe when you are 4 that is how a slurpee on a hot day
tastes?
In light of some of the comments on diets that are given by
allergies and sensitivites, I just wanted to make note (and
celebrate) that within this community even those (sometimes extreme)
diets haven't been equated with suffering. If the dietary needs of
someone need to exclude certain ingredients, it doesn't have to
exclude all the elements of "nourishing" -- the soul, the spirit.
For example, just yesterday we had a couple of celiac kids over and
my dd and I are gluten sensitive, so we made gluten free crepes,
filled them with nutella, and topped them with whipped cream ...
mmm, can you get much more nourishing than that? :).
What makes me uncomfortable are the parents I have seen who use
allergies to limit many things beyond the actual allergy, as if it
gives them the free-pass on food controls. The celiac children that
were at our home yesterday do not have their diet limited, except
for the gluten ... they, like my children, ate what they wanted and
not a bite more, it was very refreshing. We have had other friends
whose children couldn't have gluten over and they really gorged on
the yummy gluten free treats we have laying out on our counters and
easily available -- they can't have gluten but that has been ramped
up to incude many other things "just in case."
So, I think that when you buy into something like Weston Price, it
is easy to forget about all the other nourishing traditions out
there, all the other aspects of nourishment that are so important to
children who live in the moment and don't/*shouldn't* be bogged down
with all the what-ifs surrounding that kind of dietary control, all
the *educating* can really destroy pure simple food enjoyment.
Cathy
Sandra Dodd
On Feb 3, 2009, at 3:06 PM, cathyandgarth wrote:
If you've been packing up a dusty medieval camp that's just held and
fed 18 people for five days and it's late May and you've been in a
place with no running water for those five days or more and you're
about to need to drive an hour and then face unloading and washing all
those clothes, dishes, coolers, table cloths, salvaging what's still
good of the food, and taking one of the best showers EVER.... when
clean, cold, sweet ice cream shows up in the mountains it's one of the
greatest things ever, ever, EVER.
-=-What makes me uncomfortable are the parents I have seen who use
allergies to limit many things beyond the actual allergy, as if it
gives them the free-pass on food controls.-=-
YES. It makes me more than uncomfortable; it pisses me off.
When parents come to unschooling chats and try to derail ALL talk of
choices because their child acts like Mr. Hyde if he sees red food
coloring, I want to reach through and magically thump them. They've
sacrificed peace and freedom for nothing. They get nothing but fear
and irritation, and they're spreading it around.
I watched a movie called Role Models yesterday. There's a dinner
table scene where the guest gets tired of the way the mom and step dad
are speaking of and to their teenaged son, and he says something about
it. I don't know the quote, but it's like the mom said life's hard
and the guest says especially with parents like you. It was quite a
powerful moment, and a great thing to put in a mainstream movie. I
hope it makes a lot of not-yet-parents people my kids' ages be more
thoughtful, generous and compassionate if they have a kid who's just
not like they are.
-=-all
the *educating* can really destroy pure simple food enjoyment-=-
And IF the educating is exaggerated, or if it turns out to be
out'n'out bull, it will erode the child's trust in the parent.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> When I want a big ol' bowl of haagen daaz, it isn't because myThere have been times...
> physical body *needs* it,
If you've been packing up a dusty medieval camp that's just held and
fed 18 people for five days and it's late May and you've been in a
place with no running water for those five days or more and you're
about to need to drive an hour and then face unloading and washing all
those clothes, dishes, coolers, table cloths, salvaging what's still
good of the food, and taking one of the best showers EVER.... when
clean, cold, sweet ice cream shows up in the mountains it's one of the
greatest things ever, ever, EVER.
-=-What makes me uncomfortable are the parents I have seen who use
allergies to limit many things beyond the actual allergy, as if it
gives them the free-pass on food controls.-=-
YES. It makes me more than uncomfortable; it pisses me off.
When parents come to unschooling chats and try to derail ALL talk of
choices because their child acts like Mr. Hyde if he sees red food
coloring, I want to reach through and magically thump them. They've
sacrificed peace and freedom for nothing. They get nothing but fear
and irritation, and they're spreading it around.
I watched a movie called Role Models yesterday. There's a dinner
table scene where the guest gets tired of the way the mom and step dad
are speaking of and to their teenaged son, and he says something about
it. I don't know the quote, but it's like the mom said life's hard
and the guest says especially with parents like you. It was quite a
powerful moment, and a great thing to put in a mainstream movie. I
hope it makes a lot of not-yet-parents people my kids' ages be more
thoughtful, generous and compassionate if they have a kid who's just
not like they are.
-=-all
the *educating* can really destroy pure simple food enjoyment-=-
And IF the educating is exaggerated, or if it turns out to be
out'n'out bull, it will erode the child's trust in the parent.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Bob Collier
--- In [email protected], "eaglefalconlark"
<eaglefalconlark@...> wrote:
way of eating to be good for you one week and bad for you the next, or
vice versa, depending on who you read or listen to.
At
own bodies and what they tell us about what we need.
Bob
<eaglefalconlark@...> wrote:
>LOL. Me too. In my experience, it's far from unusual for a food or a
>
> I've given up hoping that anyone knows what they're talking about.
way of eating to be good for you one week and bad for you the next, or
vice versa, depending on who you read or listen to.
At
> this point we are just paying attention to how what *we* eat makesIt certainly has seemed to me that the starting point ought to be our
> *us* feel. I've learned more doing that than hours upon hours of
> scouring the internet for information.
>
> Linda
>
own bodies and what they tell us about what we need.
Bob
Jenny C
> I watched a movie called Role Models yesterday. There's a dinnerChamille's friend has a mean dad. He's really mean. He doesn't just
> table scene where the guest gets tired of the way the mom and step dad
> are speaking of and to their teenaged son, and he says something about
> it. I don't know the quote, but it's like the mom said life's hard
> and the guest says especially with parents like you. It was quite a
> powerful moment, and a great thing to put in a mainstream movie. I
> hope it makes a lot of not-yet-parents people my kids' ages be more
> thoughtful, generous and compassionate if they have a kid who's just
> not like they are.
punish a disobedient child, he shames, humiliates, name calls, and
punishes in extreme fashion. The girl is desperate. She called me for
advice.
There are a few things she can do to empower herself, but she's scared
and probably won't. In our conversation, I asked her if she was happy
with her situation, knowing the answer already. I asked her if she had
relayed her unhappiness to her dad and she said this, "He doesn't care
about my happiness, when I told him how unhappy I was, he laughed and
told me it was my problem, not his." It was stunning to hear her say it
even though I knew it was the case.
I told her that it absolutely was his problem, his responsibility to
provide for his children, not just food and clothes, but emotional
health as well. I told her that parents have a great power to make
their children's lives miserable or happy and that I considered it to be
one of the biggest responsibilities of being a parent. I also reminded
her that her mom really does care about her happiness.
If there is one thing that makes unschooling work well, it's happiness.
If one of my kids is unhappy, it's my cue to ramp it up, make life
easier, better, calmer. I know without a doubt that kids who are happy
learn more and better, they are open and receptive. Kids who are
unhappy, close themselves to the world.
Laura Beaudin
Hmm...okay..
Proof that we can live without sugar? The Inuit have traditionally
lived on a diet of 90% protein. And that 10% of carbs they received
usually was only during the summer months. Since the arrival of
"white man" and all their carbs, the incidence of T2 diabetes among
this population has skyrocketed exponentially.
Some diabetics live on VERY few carbs..i.e. 30 carbs a day. I've done
it and the liver still makes glycogen through a process called
glucogenesis where protein is converted to glucose. People are
starting to come to the realization that we don't need carbs as
previously thought to live and the ADA< CDA and many doctors are
coming to the realization that Dr. Atkins and Dr. Bernstein (the
diabetes doc, not the diet quack) have something interesting going on
in their claims and research.
Laura
At 12:53 PM 03/02/2009, you wrote:
Should you give your children an allowance?
http://www.practical-homeschooling.org
The Great Blog Experiment!!! http://laurabeaudin.com
Works in Progress: http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/Laura.Beaudin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Proof that we can live without sugar? The Inuit have traditionally
lived on a diet of 90% protein. And that 10% of carbs they received
usually was only during the summer months. Since the arrival of
"white man" and all their carbs, the incidence of T2 diabetes among
this population has skyrocketed exponentially.
Some diabetics live on VERY few carbs..i.e. 30 carbs a day. I've done
it and the liver still makes glycogen through a process called
glucogenesis where protein is converted to glucose. People are
starting to come to the realization that we don't need carbs as
previously thought to live and the ADA< CDA and many doctors are
coming to the realization that Dr. Atkins and Dr. Bernstein (the
diabetes doc, not the diet quack) have something interesting going on
in their claims and research.
Laura
At 12:53 PM 03/02/2009, you wrote:
>Everything has sugar in it:Don't let school interfere with your education!" --Mark Twain
><http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/summary/21/5/484>http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/summary/21/5/484
>My question is
>how is it determined that insulin is made independently from the presence of
>sugar? I don't think it is. Glucose comes from what we eat from food
>breakdown. The liver doesn't produce glucose independently but uses stored
>glycogen derived from glucose in the blood which it remakes into glucose
>when energy is needed.
>
> From th
Should you give your children an allowance?
http://www.practical-homeschooling.org
The Great Blog Experiment!!! http://laurabeaudin.com
Works in Progress: http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/Laura.Beaudin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Schuyler
My mom just sent David a book called The 10,000 Year Explosion by Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending. I really like Henry Harpending's work. They've got a website up for the book: http://the10000yearexplosion.com/ (ooh, I got Rick Rolled off the site, hee, hee)
Anyhow, the book is based on the idea that not only did humans not stop evolving 10,000 years ago, or 50,000 as some people posit, but that through civilization we've accelerated change through evolution. They use dogs as an example of rapid evolution. Dogs have been domesticated for roughly the same time as humans have been farming. The traits that they carry as dogs are derived from the genetic traits that a wolf has, but adapted in ways that are appropriate for their environment. So, a border-collie's hyper herding instinct is derived from wolf game-herding patterns, but is exaggerated as it was the herding that made the dog best suited to the environment of a shephard's dog. They also point out that some wolf traits have disappeared either entirely in dogs, like regurgitating food for their puppies, or having male parental care, or traits that have disappeared in most breeds of dogs, like digging birthing dens or having a specific time of year when
they go into season. The point of the comparison is to say: "[a]ny adaptation, whether physical or behavioral, that loses its utility in a new environment can be lost rapidly, especially if it has any noticeable cost. Fish in lightless cave lose their sight over a few thousand years at most--much more rapidly than it took for eyes to evolve in the first place."
So that sets the stage for the idea that the Inuit are less adapted to a farmed diet, whereas those of us who have not recently come from a hunter-gatherer or a horticulturalists society are much more adapted to these diets. They write: "There is every reason to think that early farmers developed serious health problems from this low-protein, vitamin-short, high-carbohydrate diet. Infant mortality increased, and the poor diet was likely one of the causes. You can see the mismatch between the genes and the environment in the skeletal evidence. Humans who adopted agriculture shrank: Average height dropped by almost five inches." They continue with "There are numerous signs of pathology in the bones of early agriculturalists. In the Americas, the introduction of maize led to widespread tooth decay and anemia due to iron deficiency, since maize is low in bioavailable iron. This story is not new: Many researchers have written about the health problems
stemming from the advent of agriculture. Our point is that, over millennia, populations responded to these new pressures. People who had genetic variants that helped them deal with the new diet had more surviving children, and those variants spread: Farmers began to adapt to an agricultural diet. Humanity changed."
They argue that the increased incidence of diabetes among populations who have never farmed or that haven't farmed for long is a consequence of a lesser degree of adaptation to high-carbohydrate diets. It would take time to undo the changes that our changed environment has wrought, maybe the thousands of years that it takes for fish to go blind. And while we probably still have some of the genetic predispositions of our pre-agriculture forebears, more or less depending on who they were and how they subsisted, most of us are fairly well adapted to the diet of agriculture.
Schuyler
________________________________
From: Laura Beaudin <laura.beaudin@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 4 February, 2009 4:31:51 AM
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Re: Food Questions
Hmm...okay..
Proof that we can live without sugar? The Inuit have traditionally
lived on a diet of 90% protein. And that 10% of carbs they received
usually was only during the summer months. Since the arrival of
"white man" and all their carbs, the incidence of T2 diabetes among
this population has skyrocketed exponentially.
Some diabetics live on VERY few carbs..i.e. 30 carbs a day. I've done
it and the liver still makes glycogen through a process called
glucogenesis where protein is converted to glucose. People are
starting to come to the realization that we don't need carbs as
previously thought to live and the ADA< CDA and many doctors are
coming to the realization that Dr. Atkins and Dr. Bernstein (the
diabetes doc, not the diet quack) have something interesting going on
in their claims and research.
Laura
At 12:53 PM 03/02/2009, you wrote:
Should you give your children an allowance?
http://www.practical-homeschooling.org
The Great Blog Experiment!!! http://laurabeaudin.com
Works in Progress: http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/Laura.Beaudin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Anyhow, the book is based on the idea that not only did humans not stop evolving 10,000 years ago, or 50,000 as some people posit, but that through civilization we've accelerated change through evolution. They use dogs as an example of rapid evolution. Dogs have been domesticated for roughly the same time as humans have been farming. The traits that they carry as dogs are derived from the genetic traits that a wolf has, but adapted in ways that are appropriate for their environment. So, a border-collie's hyper herding instinct is derived from wolf game-herding patterns, but is exaggerated as it was the herding that made the dog best suited to the environment of a shephard's dog. They also point out that some wolf traits have disappeared either entirely in dogs, like regurgitating food for their puppies, or having male parental care, or traits that have disappeared in most breeds of dogs, like digging birthing dens or having a specific time of year when
they go into season. The point of the comparison is to say: "[a]ny adaptation, whether physical or behavioral, that loses its utility in a new environment can be lost rapidly, especially if it has any noticeable cost. Fish in lightless cave lose their sight over a few thousand years at most--much more rapidly than it took for eyes to evolve in the first place."
So that sets the stage for the idea that the Inuit are less adapted to a farmed diet, whereas those of us who have not recently come from a hunter-gatherer or a horticulturalists society are much more adapted to these diets. They write: "There is every reason to think that early farmers developed serious health problems from this low-protein, vitamin-short, high-carbohydrate diet. Infant mortality increased, and the poor diet was likely one of the causes. You can see the mismatch between the genes and the environment in the skeletal evidence. Humans who adopted agriculture shrank: Average height dropped by almost five inches." They continue with "There are numerous signs of pathology in the bones of early agriculturalists. In the Americas, the introduction of maize led to widespread tooth decay and anemia due to iron deficiency, since maize is low in bioavailable iron. This story is not new: Many researchers have written about the health problems
stemming from the advent of agriculture. Our point is that, over millennia, populations responded to these new pressures. People who had genetic variants that helped them deal with the new diet had more surviving children, and those variants spread: Farmers began to adapt to an agricultural diet. Humanity changed."
They argue that the increased incidence of diabetes among populations who have never farmed or that haven't farmed for long is a consequence of a lesser degree of adaptation to high-carbohydrate diets. It would take time to undo the changes that our changed environment has wrought, maybe the thousands of years that it takes for fish to go blind. And while we probably still have some of the genetic predispositions of our pre-agriculture forebears, more or less depending on who they were and how they subsisted, most of us are fairly well adapted to the diet of agriculture.
Schuyler
________________________________
From: Laura Beaudin <laura.beaudin@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 4 February, 2009 4:31:51 AM
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Re: Food Questions
Hmm...okay..
Proof that we can live without sugar? The Inuit have traditionally
lived on a diet of 90% protein. And that 10% of carbs they received
usually was only during the summer months. Since the arrival of
"white man" and all their carbs, the incidence of T2 diabetes among
this population has skyrocketed exponentially.
Some diabetics live on VERY few carbs..i.e. 30 carbs a day. I've done
it and the liver still makes glycogen through a process called
glucogenesis where protein is converted to glucose. People are
starting to come to the realization that we don't need carbs as
previously thought to live and the ADA< CDA and many doctors are
coming to the realization that Dr. Atkins and Dr. Bernstein (the
diabetes doc, not the diet quack) have something interesting going on
in their claims and research.
Laura
At 12:53 PM 03/02/2009, you wrote:
>Everything has sugar in it:Don't let school interfere with your education!" --Mark Twain
><http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/summary/21/5/484>http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/summary/21/5/484
>My question is
>how is it determined that insulin is made independently from the presence of
>sugar? I don't think it is. Glucose comes from what we eat from food
>breakdown. The liver doesn't produce glucose independently but uses stored
>glycogen derived from glucose in the blood which it remakes into glucose
>when energy is needed.
>
> From th
Should you give your children an allowance?
http://www.practical-homeschooling.org
The Great Blog Experiment!!! http://laurabeaudin.com
Works in Progress: http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/Laura.Beaudin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
k
>>>> Hmm...okay..lived on a diet of 90% protein. <<<<
>>>> Proof that we can live without sugar? The Inuit have traditionally
I wonder if that's really right. Wouldn't that 90% protein also
include a pretty hefty amount of fats from which glucose levels could
be more efficiently maintained for energy? What are the Inuit protein
sources? Fish, bears, caribou (I have no idea)? Animals, fish and
birds from Inuit country all have high fat for warmth and energy. The
Inuit have been eating their diet for probably many 1000s of years.
I don't know. Can high enough glucose levels be made from almost
nothing but protein?
I doubt if *I* could live on 90% protein/fats. I wouldn't want to for
one thing, and even if I did my kidneys and liver would be overworked
by all that protein intake which would pull out all sorts of calcium
and other trace minerals during excretion. I can live on higher
amounts of protein than some. I am not a high percentage carb eater.
But I don't eat anything like 90% or even 50% protein.
Originally I posted that there's a huge range of variation in diet,
energy needs and preference. Just in terms of higher or less demand
for glucose. In my view, how we go about that is more individualistic
than is generally thought.
~Katherine
Sandra Dodd
On Feb 4, 2009, at 10:38 AM, k wrote:
likely that there will be unexpected differences in the children,
especially if the parents are from two different gene pools
altogether. So what's good for the mom might not be good for the
kid. And in the case of adoption, the parents can swear up and down
that a food is nourishing or "bad" or will give a kid the runs, or
won't, and they might just be making noise in the wind.
IF a child is allowed to try foods and decide on his own stopping
place (none of the "clean your plate" pressure), and if there are food
choices and peace and love in the house, then It's unlikely he or she
will eat out of spite or despearation or fear or 'gluttony.'
People cannot ever become attuned to what their bodies need if someone
else is TELLING them what's good and bad and how they should be feeling.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Originally I posted that there's a huge range of variation in diet,And unless the parents are siblings or first cousins, it's really
> energy needs and preference. Just in terms of higher or less demand
> for glucose. In my view, how we go about that is more individualistic
> than is generally thought.
likely that there will be unexpected differences in the children,
especially if the parents are from two different gene pools
altogether. So what's good for the mom might not be good for the
kid. And in the case of adoption, the parents can swear up and down
that a food is nourishing or "bad" or will give a kid the runs, or
won't, and they might just be making noise in the wind.
IF a child is allowed to try foods and decide on his own stopping
place (none of the "clean your plate" pressure), and if there are food
choices and peace and love in the house, then It's unlikely he or she
will eat out of spite or despearation or fear or 'gluttony.'
People cannot ever become attuned to what their bodies need if someone
else is TELLING them what's good and bad and how they should be feeling.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]