quality of food matters
Moderators: Soprano, automatedeating
quality of food matters
When I think back to when my problems with weight started, it had to be back during my senior year in high school. I stopped eating my mom's homemade food and started to frequent the drive thru at fast food restaurants. This goes back to the french thread as well. When I lived in Europe for a year, there was no fast food in the small town. People ate 3 times a day (and by no means was it diet food). Even the women, ate good size plates of food. The food was very high quality because most of it was from local farmers. The taste was better than anything I have had here in the U.S., even at expensive restaurants. You could boil a potatoe, it didn't need any topping, it was that tasty. The meal structure there was very set: Breakfast was high-quality, bakery fresh bread with something on top (cheese, cold cuts, tomatoes, herring, red bell peppers marinated, eggs, pates, homemade cottage cheese, sausage, so on). Women would usually have two slices of bread, while men and farm workers would have up to 4. Lunch was a bowl of homemade soup and a plate for the main dish (meat/chicken/fish, potatoes/noodles/rice, and a vegetable or coleslaw style salad), following lunch there was a homemade dessert, but only on Sunday after church. Dinner was lighter than lunch, usually consisted of a repeat of breakfast. Beverages were usually tea, sometimes coffee. No fast food, no fat free or low fat products in the stores, no snacking, no crackers or chips, no soda, and not many adults would drink juice (this was more for the kids). When I watched the home cooks, no one used anything from a can, everything was fresh. Now this is changing, as they have entered the European union and are becoming more capitalistic. In a way, it makes me sad. There was something so comforting and real about eating and living in this way. I often miss it.
The destiny of nations depends on the manner in which they feed themselves. Jean-Anthelme Brillat-Savarin
-
silverfish
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 12:17 am
- Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
- Contact:
What you say reminds me of something that I was talking with friends about over the weekend. You'll be able to tell that I did a fair amount of reading (cookbooks) over the weekend, too!
We were talking about how dietary advice changes every 5-10 years or so and I commented that it's really only here in the U.S. that it changes. People in other areas of the world just eat what they've been eating for decades -- or even hundreds or thousands of years.
I bought my daughter a copy of Jamie Oliver's Italy for her birthday -- and it was almost "used" (by me) by the time she got it! In it, he says that while he loves Italy and Italian cooking, he finds it very frustrating that Italians won't try something "new" -- at least in their home cooking. Just because that's the way your mama or nonna or the people in your town or region have always done it, doesn't mean that it's the best or can't be improved on.
But the Italians believe that foods grown or produced in their own regions "marry" well, and that if you add cheese from the north to a pasta dish from the south, you get something that doesn't "marry" well. I guess it could be said that they don't believe in "fusion" cooking!
In The Italian Country Table Lynne Rossetto Kasper says that the Italians have a four-thousand year history of agricultural practices. "Food is the land; it is what the land gives. No wonder 'new and improved' rarely succeeds as a food marketing strategy in Italy." They also have a four thousand year history of eating the food that the land in their region gives. It's worked -- there's no need to change it.
In the Mediterranean, as well as other parts of the world, what happens in the home and in the kitchen have often been the only thing people have control over. When the outside world is unstable, the traditions surrounding food and eating serve as an anchor.
I was looking through The Essential Mediterranean by Nancy Harmon Jenkins. She was talking about beans and a stew made from lentils, chickpeas and fava beans called harira and how "this mess of pottage is at least as old as Jacob. The stew exchanged by the patriarch for Esau's birthright was a lentil-and-bread pottage, according to my Jerusalem Bible, and it's a fair bet that it wasn't all that different from the harira being served up in the souks of Fez this chilly autumn morning."
So I was thinking about how we'll notice that this year they're saying one thing about whatever (fat bad, carbs good; carbs bad, fat good -- and so on), and next year or five or ten years from now "they'll" (that would be the scientists, etc.) will be saying something different, but around the Mediterranean they're basically eating the same foods, prepared in nearly the same ways as they were several thousand years ago -- and to paraphrase Michael Pollan, if those traditional diets and ways of eating and foods weren't healthy, the people wouldn't be around.
It's always seemed to me that what's right shouldn't vary from expert to expert or change every five-ten years. The traditional diets haven't changed much (at least until the last 10-20 years or so, thanks to US) in thousands of years, and there are remarkable similarities between them. The differences come from what's locally available -- such as olive oil and grapes in the Mediterranean and soy and rice in Asia. But overall, they've remained the same in each area of the world and regions in those areas for thousands of years. And, again, if they weren't healthy, the people wouldn't be around.
In addition, they tend to have some very well-established habits regarding food and eating -- like no seconds, no snacks, no sweets, small portions and so on.
We were talking about how dietary advice changes every 5-10 years or so and I commented that it's really only here in the U.S. that it changes. People in other areas of the world just eat what they've been eating for decades -- or even hundreds or thousands of years.
I bought my daughter a copy of Jamie Oliver's Italy for her birthday -- and it was almost "used" (by me) by the time she got it! In it, he says that while he loves Italy and Italian cooking, he finds it very frustrating that Italians won't try something "new" -- at least in their home cooking. Just because that's the way your mama or nonna or the people in your town or region have always done it, doesn't mean that it's the best or can't be improved on.
But the Italians believe that foods grown or produced in their own regions "marry" well, and that if you add cheese from the north to a pasta dish from the south, you get something that doesn't "marry" well. I guess it could be said that they don't believe in "fusion" cooking!
In The Italian Country Table Lynne Rossetto Kasper says that the Italians have a four-thousand year history of agricultural practices. "Food is the land; it is what the land gives. No wonder 'new and improved' rarely succeeds as a food marketing strategy in Italy." They also have a four thousand year history of eating the food that the land in their region gives. It's worked -- there's no need to change it.
In the Mediterranean, as well as other parts of the world, what happens in the home and in the kitchen have often been the only thing people have control over. When the outside world is unstable, the traditions surrounding food and eating serve as an anchor.
I was looking through The Essential Mediterranean by Nancy Harmon Jenkins. She was talking about beans and a stew made from lentils, chickpeas and fava beans called harira and how "this mess of pottage is at least as old as Jacob. The stew exchanged by the patriarch for Esau's birthright was a lentil-and-bread pottage, according to my Jerusalem Bible, and it's a fair bet that it wasn't all that different from the harira being served up in the souks of Fez this chilly autumn morning."
So I was thinking about how we'll notice that this year they're saying one thing about whatever (fat bad, carbs good; carbs bad, fat good -- and so on), and next year or five or ten years from now "they'll" (that would be the scientists, etc.) will be saying something different, but around the Mediterranean they're basically eating the same foods, prepared in nearly the same ways as they were several thousand years ago -- and to paraphrase Michael Pollan, if those traditional diets and ways of eating and foods weren't healthy, the people wouldn't be around.
It's always seemed to me that what's right shouldn't vary from expert to expert or change every five-ten years. The traditional diets haven't changed much (at least until the last 10-20 years or so, thanks to US) in thousands of years, and there are remarkable similarities between them. The differences come from what's locally available -- such as olive oil and grapes in the Mediterranean and soy and rice in Asia. But overall, they've remained the same in each area of the world and regions in those areas for thousands of years. And, again, if they weren't healthy, the people wouldn't be around.
In addition, they tend to have some very well-established habits regarding food and eating -- like no seconds, no snacks, no sweets, small portions and so on.
"That which we persist in doing becomes easier for us to do. Not that the nature of the thing itself has changed but our power to do it is increased." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
"You are what you eat -- so don't be Fast, Easy, Cheap or Fake."
"You are what you eat -- so don't be Fast, Easy, Cheap or Fake."
It really is interesting how the quality of food does matter. Besides being so much more satisfying to eat a really tasty peice of fruit, I notice a big difference in how hungry I get when I eat fresh, organic foods compared to the GM mass produced stuff in the grocery store. I read a study once about how many more (20-30%) vitimins and minerals are in organic produce. I wouldn't be surprised if our bodies just need to eat more of the mass produced stuff to feel nourished.
-
dvisnjevac
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:17 am
Organic food and weight loss
I am on my own journey to lose weight. One of the reasons of today’s obesity is chemicals in food. Organic food is much healthier option. In real life this can be next to imposable but I try doing the best I can. 50- 70 % of my food is organic. It makes easier to count calories and lose weight if it is done in healthy way. Diet with balanced NATURAL-FOODS is important too. I mean lots of whole vegetable foods for vitamins and fiber; moderate to small portions of meats, fish, seafood, and other animal and protein foods, grilled, stewed or baked; and small portions of fresh whole fruit in season. Quality of food is very important.
We are what we eat!
We are what we eat!
-
stevecooper
- Posts: 124
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:56 pm
Re: Organic food and weight loss
No, it isn't.dvisnjevac wrote:One of the reasons of today’s obesity is chemicals in food. Organic food is much healthier option.
There is a dearth of evidence that organic food is any better for you at all; AFAIK, no large-scale studies have shown any health benefits to eating organic food. I have to take issue with your statement that 'organic food is much healthier.' It is, it seems, no healthier than other vegetables.
That said, it's almost always better to eat more vegetables, and you may want to eat it for other reasons. But health isn't one of them.
Here's the article I quoted, about the health benefits of eating organic. It's from a UK newspaper, The Independant.
t's not just a fad - organic food is better for you, say scientists
By Ian Herbert
Published: 03 April 2007
New evidence has emerged showing that organic food does contain nutrients that deliver health benefits, contrary to the view put forward earlier this year by David Miliband, who said it was only a "lifestyle choice".
Scientists in Britain, France and Poland examined organic carrots, apples, peaches and potatoes and discovered that they have greater concentrations of vitamin C and chemicals that protect against heart attacks and cancer than non-organic produce. The research could challenge official government guidelines which suggest there is no evidence of organic food being healthier than conventional produce. That led to the assertion by Mr Miliband, the Environment Secretary, which he later qualified by saying that he ate organic food both because of its taste and the environmental benefits.
The new studies found that organic tomatoes had more vitamin C, beta-carotene and flavonoids, which are known to help against cancer and heart disease, though they also had less lycopene, which is thought to help prevent skin ageing, diabetes and osteoporosis. Organic apple puree was found to contain more phenols, flavonoids and vitamin C than non-organic versions.
"This research shows there are benefits," said Dr Kirsten Brandt of Newcastle University, which led the research. "The reason why it's such a grey area is because it's extremely difficult to measure the health benefit in any food, but we can say that if you eat 400g of fruit and vegetables per day you would get 20 per cent more nutrients in organic food."
Peter Melchett, policy director of the Soil Association, welcomed the new research. He said: "There is clear evidence that a range of organic foods contain more beneficial nutrients and vitamins and less of things known to have a detrimental health effect."
The study follows US research published last week suggesting organic kiwi fruit has higher levels of nutrients than conventional crops. The kiwi fruit was found to have significantly more polyphenols - the healthy compounds found in red wine and coloured berries. It also had higher levels of antioxidants and vitamin C, according to a report published in the magazine Chemistry & Industry.
The French element of the latest study looked at organic peaches and found they had "a higher polyphenol content at harvest" and concluded that organic production had "positive effects ... on nutritional quality and taste". Researchers at Warsaw Agriculture University found similar benefits in organic tomatoes.
Dr Brandt's work on organic produce included a focus on a natural pesticide in carrots, falcarinol, which is believed to reduce cancer tumours. This led her to conclude two years ago that a raw carrot eaten each day might be better than the recommended five portions of fruit and vegetables.
Sales of organic food rose by 30 per cent last year to £1.6bn. But until now the health benefits of organic food have been the subject of conjecture. Last September, the Food Standards Agency refused to issue official guidance highlighting the benefits. It said that while it accepted higher levels of nutrients might exist they were of less value than long-chain fatty acids.
The debate intensified last month when a report for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs found "many" organic products had lower ecological impacts than conventional methods using fertilisers and pesticides.
But the study said other organic foods - such as milk, tomatoes and chicken were significantly less energy efficient and could be more polluting than intensively farmed equivalents.
t's not just a fad - organic food is better for you, say scientists
By Ian Herbert
Published: 03 April 2007
New evidence has emerged showing that organic food does contain nutrients that deliver health benefits, contrary to the view put forward earlier this year by David Miliband, who said it was only a "lifestyle choice".
Scientists in Britain, France and Poland examined organic carrots, apples, peaches and potatoes and discovered that they have greater concentrations of vitamin C and chemicals that protect against heart attacks and cancer than non-organic produce. The research could challenge official government guidelines which suggest there is no evidence of organic food being healthier than conventional produce. That led to the assertion by Mr Miliband, the Environment Secretary, which he later qualified by saying that he ate organic food both because of its taste and the environmental benefits.
The new studies found that organic tomatoes had more vitamin C, beta-carotene and flavonoids, which are known to help against cancer and heart disease, though they also had less lycopene, which is thought to help prevent skin ageing, diabetes and osteoporosis. Organic apple puree was found to contain more phenols, flavonoids and vitamin C than non-organic versions.
"This research shows there are benefits," said Dr Kirsten Brandt of Newcastle University, which led the research. "The reason why it's such a grey area is because it's extremely difficult to measure the health benefit in any food, but we can say that if you eat 400g of fruit and vegetables per day you would get 20 per cent more nutrients in organic food."
Peter Melchett, policy director of the Soil Association, welcomed the new research. He said: "There is clear evidence that a range of organic foods contain more beneficial nutrients and vitamins and less of things known to have a detrimental health effect."
The study follows US research published last week suggesting organic kiwi fruit has higher levels of nutrients than conventional crops. The kiwi fruit was found to have significantly more polyphenols - the healthy compounds found in red wine and coloured berries. It also had higher levels of antioxidants and vitamin C, according to a report published in the magazine Chemistry & Industry.
The French element of the latest study looked at organic peaches and found they had "a higher polyphenol content at harvest" and concluded that organic production had "positive effects ... on nutritional quality and taste". Researchers at Warsaw Agriculture University found similar benefits in organic tomatoes.
Dr Brandt's work on organic produce included a focus on a natural pesticide in carrots, falcarinol, which is believed to reduce cancer tumours. This led her to conclude two years ago that a raw carrot eaten each day might be better than the recommended five portions of fruit and vegetables.
Sales of organic food rose by 30 per cent last year to £1.6bn. But until now the health benefits of organic food have been the subject of conjecture. Last September, the Food Standards Agency refused to issue official guidance highlighting the benefits. It said that while it accepted higher levels of nutrients might exist they were of less value than long-chain fatty acids.
The debate intensified last month when a report for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs found "many" organic products had lower ecological impacts than conventional methods using fertilisers and pesticides.
But the study said other organic foods - such as milk, tomatoes and chicken were significantly less energy efficient and could be more polluting than intensively farmed equivalents.