Healthy Eating

[Jammin' Jan]

My daughter sent me this link to the Mayo Clinic's Food Pyramid page. I liked it because it includes food patterns from other cultures besides the typical American diet. Thought y'all might like to see it.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/healthy-diet/NU00190

[wosnes]

Interesting! It reminds me of this which has been around for several years.

[Jammin' Jan]

I wonder if the Mayo got it from there?

[TunaFishKid]

http://www.urbancrossfit.com/pt/blog/de ... 0228235959

[wosnes]

http://www.urbancrossfit.com/pt/blog/de ... 0228235959

I found this, this and this in relation to that pyramid and the study.

The last sentence in the article in the Daily Mail struck me as funny: "But one negative effect was the decreased intake of calcium (from dairy goods), which could be a risk factor for osteoporosis later in life."

It's something they're anticipating would be a negative effect, but absence of dairy products hasn't been linked to increased risk or occurrence of osteoporosis. In fact, where minimal dairy products are consumed, there's less occurrence of osteoporosis than where large amounts of dairy are consumed. Asians, who eat little or no dairy, have less incidence of osteoporosis than Northern Europeans, who eat much larger amounts.

Anyway...
I feel much better in general when my diet includes more vegetables and fruits, some meat, grains and legumes. The thing that strikes me as unusual is that I feel better with refined grains than whole grains.

[Jammin' Jan]

I wonder if those whole grains are more difficult for you to digest or eliminate?

[wosnes]

I wonder if those whole grains are more difficult for you to digest or eliminate?

I think they're more difficult for me to digest. It's funny, they're far more bothersome for me than any beans/legumes.

I'd never consider going raw, but this looks interesting.

[Jammin' Jan]

I would never go raw either, but her blog was fun to read. Barf-like smoothies are not my idea of a good dinner. blech.

[wosnes]

I can see the benefits of eating more raw (or just more vegetables and fruits) and I do like smoothies some of the time, but to do it 100% of the time -- no way. Not even for a week. At this time of year, raw and smoothies often don't sound good!

[wosnes]

If you scroll down to the bottom here, there's a list of various traditional diets -- most South American. Makes for some interesting reading.

[puddinpie]

If whole grains are soaked/sprouted or used to make sourdough bread they are easier for me to digest. If not prepared this way it gives me heartburn. It took a long time to figure this out!

So in practice, this translates to soaking oatmeal overnight with a small splash of vinegar (doesn't affect taste) and then cooking.

For bread, I eat the sprouted ezekial kind (or trader joes cheaper version) and I look for sourdough bread with at least part whole grain and simple ingredients. I can distinguish bread that is really made by the sourdough process by looking to see if there is yeast in the ingredients. I'm not avoiding yeast per say, but if they had to use yeast it might not be a real sourdough process.

[Hunter Gatherer]

I liked how 4 out of 5 of the pyramids described sweets as "weekly" - reminds me of No-S!

Did it bother anyone else that they used a different structure for their own pyramid? It was the only one that listed everything as a daily value with calories included. I would have preferred that they used the same structure for all 5, for easier comparison.

Theirs was also the only one with anything described as "unlimited" while the closest the others had was "At every meal." Seems shifty to me.

[Dandelion]

We try to eat a fairly traditional diet - not one that has been tweaked either to reflect modern biases against saturated fat as so many are these days. We soak/sprout grains, meat and dairy is usually grass-fed and includes the fat it comes with. We culture dairy, fruits and vegetables and pay attention to which vegetables are better cooked. We don't 'do' packaged foods, low fat foods, vegetable oils, soy, canola, artificial sweeteners/colours/flavours, and other things along those lines.

[wosnes]

I liked how 4 out of 5 of the pyramids described sweets as "weekly" - reminds me of No-S!

Did it bother anyone else that they used a different structure for their own pyramid? It was the only one that listed everything as a daily value with calories included. I would have preferred that they used the same structure for all 5, for easier comparison.

Theirs was also the only one with anything described as "unlimited" while the closest the others had was "At every meal." Seems shifty to me.

Something I've found interesting about the pyramids is that the Mediterranean, Asian, and Latin American are pretty much based on how people actually eat. Any that come from the U.S. are based on how people should eat -- which is probably why the calorie levels are there.

American "experts" have an idea of how many calories Americans should consume, which probably isn't the same as those in other countries. The others probably eat more or less depending on tradition and habit, availability of food and their level of activity (generally higher than ours).

I remember reading that after adjusting for body size, the rural Chinese consume about 30% more calories than Americans. They're also significantly more active on a daily basis than Americans.

It's not like comparing apples to apples.

[Dandelion]

I think one of the problems is deciding calorie values or how food 'behaves' in a lab not the same thing as how it actually works in our bodies. There's also the tendency to pick apart diets - as if you could take one or two items from another culture, like olive oil, and add it to a generally unhealthy diet and have it make a real difference, or to fortify low nutrient foods and expect them to be as nourishing as the real thing. Stripping a food of it's natural nutrients in processing, then adding synthetic vitamins is never going to equal the nutrition in the original food.

Someone mentioned calcium intake. Many people think bone loss is about calcium - but it's much more complex than that. Adding calcium on it's own without all the other factors isn't going to do the same thing and in fact a bad idea. Then there is the thing about fat. Fat may have more calories than carbs or protein, but the way the body actually uses fat, there isn't that much difference. Not understanding this, people restrict fat which leads to a host of other problems, including, strangely enough, obesity.

There are so many interwoven threads and complicated chemical processes in how food works in our bodies, there is no way for anyone to know it all. I think it's interesting, which is why I take the time to learn, but as far as how it affects how I eat - it doesn't. I got so tired of one food being 'healthy' one year - and certain death the next (yeah, I'm exaggerating, but you know what I mean.) Or 'people in this country eat X and have no heart disease/live longer/stay thin/look younger/etc in spite of whatever 'bad' thing they do.

This was what prompted me to turn to traditional foods. This naturally means less sweet, and the sweets are usually of the natural variety, like real maple syrup, raw honey or the less processed cane sweeteners (not beet sugar, since it's now (often) GMO). It also means a lot more fat - natural fats - but that's a whole 'nother discussion

[wosnes]

I think one of the problems is deciding calorie values or how food 'behaves' in a lab not the same thing as how it actually works in our bodies. There's also the tendency to pick apart diets - as if you could take one or two items from another culture, like olive oil, and add it to a generally unhealthy diet and have it make a real difference, or to fortify low nutrient foods and expect them to be as nourishing as the real thing. Stripping a food of it's natural nutrients in processing, then adding synthetic vitamins is never going to equal the nutrition in the original food.

One of the (many!) things that drives me nuts is the "experts" observing that the Okinawans eat soy and are healthy, so therefore we should eat soy; those in the Mediterranean use olive oil and are healthy, therefore we should use olive oil. And so on. The heck of it is, until we started eating all the manufactured food, we were ALL pretty healthy.

To quote Michael Polland in Food Rules: "Populations eating a remarkably wide range of traditional diets generally don't suffer from these (obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancers) chronic diseases. These diets run the gamut from ones very high in fat (the Inuit in Greenland subsist largely on seal blubber) to ones high in carbohydrate (Central American Indians subsist largely on maize and beans) to ones very high in protein (Masai tribesmen in Africa subsist chiefly on cattle blood, meat and milk), to cite three rather extreme examples. But much the same holds true for more mixed traditional diets. What this suggests is that there is no single ideal human diet but that the human omnivore is exquisitely adapted to a wide range of different diets. Except, that is, for one: the relatively new (in evolutionary terms) Western diet that most of us now are eating. What an extraordinary achievement for a civilization: to have developed the one diet that reliably makes its people sick! (While it is true that we generally live longer than people used to, or than people in some traditional cultures do, most of our added years owe to gains in infant mortality and child health, not diet)."

The bold is mine. I'd also add that our longevity has a lot to do with improvements in public health, sanitation, and the ability to prevent and treat infectious diseases. Plus the ability to treat traumatic injuries.

[Jammin' Jan]

I'd also add that our longevity has a lot to do with improvements in public health, sanitation, and the ability to prevent and treat infectious diseases. Plus the ability to treat traumatic injuries.

I noticed he didn't really mention any of those things in his wonderful little book. But they are really important and need to be considered when comparing the health of people in different nations/cultures/times.

[wosnes]

I'd also add that our longevity has a lot to do with improvements in public health, sanitation, and the ability to prevent and treat infectious diseases. Plus the ability to treat traumatic injuries.

I noticed he didn't really mention any of those things in his wonderful little book. But they are really important and need to be considered when comparing the health of people in different nations/cultures/times.

On the other hand, people didn't used to develop the chronic diseases until much later in life, if at all. During the Korean War 18-21 y/olds showed the beginnings of cardiovascular disease. Type 2 Diabetes was "adult onset diabetes." Now both are seen in children as young as elementary/preschool for those populations following a Western diet. Essentially, we're killing ourselves younger and younger with our knives and forks!

[Dandelion]

Totally agree, Wosnes.

[Jammin' Jan]

Ditto. Perhaps longevity statistics are not too important. How long people live is a different idea than how well they live.

I picked up a copy of his new little book yesterday and inhaled it last night. There is so much sense in what he writes, which is why I keep coming back for more from him. Putting it all into practice, though, is really tough.

[wosnes]

Ditto. Perhaps longevity statistics are not too important. How long people live is a different idea than how well they live.

I picked up a copy of his new little book yesterday and inhaled it last night. There is so much sense in what he writes, which is why I keep coming back for more from him. Putting it all into practice, though, is really tough.

Yesterday I picked up another new book, True Food. It lists 8 principles we can follow to improve our eating and health. The first one is "Eat Local" which would probably be the fourth sentence of Pollan's mantra. However, he is aware that he lives in an area where this is much easier to do than it is for most of the rest of the country.

In True Food there are lists of the foods available locally in the northeast, south, midwest, southwest, northwest and California for each season. California has the longest list and, surprising to me, the southwest has the shortest list. If you're trying to eat locally, unless you live in California, it's pretty slim pickin's in the winter.

And then there's meat. If you're trying to buy sustainably raised meat, dairy and eggs, they can be not only difficult to find, but expensive.

It's fairly easy to eat locally during the late spring, summer and early autumn, but not so much the rest of the year. I could eat more locally, but it would represent a huge investment in both time and money. While we do have a winter market, it's certainly not "one-stop-shopping." To get everything would mean making procuring food nearly a full-time job. Lots of time and lots of miles.

Of course, if you're trying to eat locally and don't live in California, for at least part of the year you're probably going to be eating more meat -- because plant foods are less available.

Then we could add Mark Bittman whose mantra is "less meat" (including fish, dairy and eggs). In theory I have no problem with that and I do limit meat/poultry/fish to no more than once daily (though I occasionally have dairy or eggs). I could do more meatless meals, but my family would revolt and I do feel better when I eat a small amount daily.

Which rules does one follow? Pollan's mantra is a good place to start. "Cook" is a rule I not only follow but encourage others to do. After that, I think it's what's most important to you and that you're able to incorporate into your life.

[wosnes]

Well, here's what Pollan says the most important rule is. Before I heard it, it was my guess.

[kccc]

Well, here's what Pollan says the most important rule is. Before I heard it, it was my guess.

What a great clip! I just played it for my family, and we all enjoyed it.

[wosnes]

And speaking of cooking (because I did) I enjoyed this piece by Michael Ruhlman. Though I acknowledge that there are people who don't have time to roast a chicken on a weeknight.

My neighbor used to not cook -- she was under the impression that cooking was difficult. If she did "cook", it was opening cans and boxes, but she was just as likely to eat frozen meals, fast food or stop at casual restaurants.

We talk a lot as we're letting our dogs out. One topic is pretty consistently "what are you having for dinner?" She couldn't believe that I cooked everything and I couldn't believe that she cooked nothing!

Well, she's cooking now! She had company for dinner a couple of weeks ago and cooked everything from scratch!

[Jammin' Jan]

Wosnes, thanks for that link! I have enjoyed his books so much, and it was fun to watch him in person.

Food Rules is a terrific little book, kind of a 'daily devotional' for eating.

Seems like everytime I put a no-s plate together, I am looking at it to see how close it comes to his diet recommendations.

[TunaFishKid]

I think one of the problems is deciding calorie values or how food 'behaves' in a lab not the same thing as how it actually works in our bodies. There's also the tendency to pick apart diets - as if you could take one or two items from another culture, like olive oil, and add it to a generally unhealthy diet and have it make a real difference, or to fortify low nutrient foods and expect them to be as nourishing as the real thing. Stripping a food of it's natural nutrients in processing, then adding synthetic vitamins is never going to equal the nutrition in the original food.

Someone mentioned calcium intake. Many people think bone loss is about calcium - but it's much more complex than that. Adding calcium on it's own without all the other factors isn't going to do the same thing and in fact a bad idea. Then there is the thing about fat. Fat may have more calories than carbs or protein, but the way the body actually uses fat, there isn't that much difference. Not understanding this, people restrict fat which leads to a host of other problems, including, strangely enough, obesity.

There are so many interwoven threads and complicated chemical processes in how food works in our bodies, there is no way for anyone to know it all. I think it's interesting, which is why I take the time to learn, but as far as how it affects how I eat - it doesn't. I got so tired of one food being 'healthy' one year - and certain death the next (yeah, I'm exaggerating, but you know what I mean.) Or 'people in this country eat X and have no heart disease/live longer/stay thin/look younger/etc in spite of whatever 'bad' thing they do.

This was what prompted me to turn to traditional foods. This naturally means less sweet, and the sweets are usually of the natural variety, like real maple syrup, raw honey or the less processed cane sweeteners (not beet sugar, since it's now (often) GMO). It also means a lot more fat - natural fats - but that's a whole 'nother discussion

You have hit the nail on the head! We all remember the stories of English sailors who solved their scurvy problem by adding limes and lemons to their provisions. What most people don't know is that there were plenty of sailors from other countries back then who had no problem with scurvy, because their diet did not contain the flour-based biscuits that the English ate. It turns out our bodies require more vitamin C when wheat is a part of our diet. In fact, the arctic explorer Stefansson used to put European explorers who got scurvy on an all-meat, Inuit-type diet to cure them!

But for some reason, we continue to pick apart bits and pieces of other diets and think they are the magic cure. Olive oil, pomegranate juice, fish oil - practically every day we're being told to add some new exotic ingredient to our diets. And at the same time we're told to alter or avoid natural foods - drink skim milk, don't eat butter, etc. Scientists, doctors and nutritionists seem to have very little knowledge of how our bodies actually work, and how food nourishes us. It doesn't stop them from giving advice, though.

[Starla]

I think this is a very interesting thread. I love Dandelion's comment about the folly of picking elements from other cultures as if they are independent of everything else. That's so true, and I had never thought of that before.

To anyone who wants to maximize their ability to eat locally produced food, you might want to consider a CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) farm membership. You can see if there's one in your area at this link:

http://www.localharvest.org/csa/

[wosnes]

Michael Pollan has become my food guru -- and it's largely because he doesn't demonize any food group and he acknowledges that there is more than one way to eat and be healthy. There are, in fact, lots of ways and some are quite extreme. I've never been able to buy that this, that or the next food group is inherently unhealthy.

I read this article and was chuckling over his recommendation of more saturated fat in the diet to prevent dry skin, broken nails and wrinkles as well as other problems. I know folks who would say to use the fat ON the skin to prevent those problems. Now that I think about it, it's sort of like saying "if you're thirsty, take a bath."

This video is good, too, and shows Pollan's sense of humor. It's from his book tour for In Defense of Food.

By the way, Food Renegade is a big believer in the information from the Weston Price Foundation. I was taught that those folks are not to be believed or trusted. However, one of the things I'd done in other areas of life is to look back at how people used to do things. I've read some of the WPF info and I've read Nina Planck's Real Food and it makes sense. Come to think of it, it was Michael Pollan referencing the WPF that made me take a look at it. Others had mentioned them, too.

[TunaFishKid]

And speaking of cooking (because I did) I enjoyed this piece by Michael Ruhlman.

"Americans are too stupid cook"

We're definitely bombarded with that message. Have you seen the tv commercial - for McDonald's I think - that shows people ineptly trying to cook their own breakfast, breaking eggs directly onto the stove burners, etc. ? That ad gets me so mad!

[wosnes]

I'm a big fan of the Mediterranean diet -- partly because I like the food of the region and partly because it's a way of eating that makes sense to me. One of the complaints I've read about it is that many of the authors who promote this use foods that are difficult or impossible for some folks to find. In that light, this looks kind of interesting. Follow the principles using the foods available to you. What a concept!

I did find the trapezoid difficult to read.

I found this, too: Forget Diets, Think Healthy Lifestyle Change. I liked the interview with Martha Rose Shulman, too.