betsy@dartvax.UUCP (Betsy Hanes Perry) (07/29/85)
A recent posting sneered at those who didn't choose to follow
the most ascetic food rules in order to avoid cancer, heart
disease, et cetera. Let me give a demonstration of why so many
of us are frustrated by the 'rules for better eating'.
Suppose that (trying to eat sensibly) I decide on chicken breast
for supper. Let's try to decide how to cook it.
How about a Szechuan chicken? One of my favorites.
-- Nope. Too salty (soy sauce), too fatty (peanut oil for cooking,
sesame oil for flavor).
Okay. How about Chicken a'l Anything? I love classic French food.
-- No dice. Too much butter; French foods may even involve
(horrors!) eggs in the sauce. Cholesterol city, man!
Back to basics, then. Let's grill the sucker. No oil, no salt;
just virgin fowl.
-- Wrong again. If I grill it on my Weber , I'll just cover
the poor innocent fowl with carcinogens.
Yes, I'm exaggerating; there are quite a few good recipes for chicken
which are 'legit'. (Especially since they decided olive oil
was acceptable last week!). But the point is, there are so many
eating rules that most of the world's classic dishes are verboten
for one reason or another. And the rules are constantly changing!
One year they tell us to eschew dairy products to keep cholesterol
levels low; another, women are implored to drink more milk in order
to avoid osteoporosis. I consider myself fortunate that nobody's
outlawed garlic yet.
For the first time in my life, I sympathize with addicted smokers;
I cannot face cutting lamb, pork, and butter out of my life, even
if it would make me live longer.
--
Elizabeth Hanes Perry
UUCP: {decvax |ihnp4 | linus| cornell}!dartvax!betsy
CSNET: betsy@dartmouth
ARPA: betsy%dartmouth@csnet-relay
"Ooh, ick!" -- Penfoldtjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) (07/30/85)
In article <3401@dartvax.UUCP> betsy@dartvax.UUCP (Betsy Hanes Perry) writes: >Yes, I'm exaggerating; there are quite a few good recipes for chicken >which are 'legit'. (Especially since they decided olive oil >was acceptable last week!). But the point is, there are so many >eating rules that most of the world's classic dishes are verboten >for one reason or another. And the rules are constantly changing! >One year they tell us to eschew dairy products to keep cholesterol >levels low; another, women are implored to drink more milk in order >to avoid osteoporosis. I consider myself fortunate that nobody's >outlawed garlic yet. >-- >Elizabeth Hanes Perry >UUCP: {decvax |ihnp4 | linus| cornell}!dartvax!betsy >CSNET: betsy@dartmouth >ARPA: betsy%dartmouth@csnet-relay Excellent point. If it changes that often then I certainly wouldn't believe it either. Stop looking to the modern medical industry for health food recomendations. Look to wholistic groups that have not changed their requirements ever! Possible exceptions are those causes by modern conditions such as the condition of soil, acid rain, etc. If you are confused then you are talking to the wrong people, the rules are simple. Nothing artificial, minimum to no cooking, avoid meats and all processed foods. Simple huh? {allegra|ihnp4}!cbdkc1!tjs
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/02/85)
In article <1073@cbdkc1.UUCP> tjs@dkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) writes: > >Excellent point. If it changes that often then I certainly wouldn't believe it >either. Stop looking to the modern medical industry for health food >recomendations. Look to wholistic groups that have not changed their >requirements ever! Possible exceptions are those causes by modern conditions >such as the condition of soil, acid rain, etc. If you are confused then you >are talking to the wrong people, the rules are simple. Nothing artificial, >minimum to no cooking, avoid meats and all processed foods. Simple huh? > Well, I am suspicious of any position that *never* changes, this speaks to me not of correctness but of dogmatism, or even megalomania. I at least admit that I do not know everything and might even be wrong. And your rules seem to be based on questionable reasoning to boot! The ecological shift which seperated the Hominidae from the other Great Apes 4 to 6 million years ago was the shift to *carnivory*, thus to deny eating meat is to deny a large part of our evolutionary heritage. Perhaps analyzing the middens of early Australopithicus might be a way of determining the optimal diet? :-) At least that would be based on real evidence. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (08/06/85)
Stanley Friesen writes: > ... your (dietary) rules seem to be based on questionable >reasoning to boot! The ecological shift which seperated the Hominidae >from the other Great Apes 4 to 6 million years ago was the shift to >*carnivory*, thus to deny eating meat is to deny a large part of our >evolutionary heritage. Perhaps analyzing the middens of early >Australopithicus might be a way of determining the optimal diet? :-) >At least that would be based on real evidence. > > Sarima (Stanley Friesen) It was my impression that chimps and gorillas DO eat meat when they get the chance (insects, small mammals). Frank Silbermann
lj@ewj01.UUCP (Leonard Jacobs) (08/07/85)
> >Stop looking to the modern medical industry for health food > >recomendations. Look to wholistic groups that have not changed their > >requirements ever! Possible exceptions are those causes by modern conditions > >such as the condition of soil, acid rain, etc. If you are confused then you > >are talking to the wrong people, the rules are simple. Nothing artificial, > >minimum to no cooking, avoid meats and all processed foods. Simple huh? > > > The ecological shift which seperated the Hominidae > from the other Great Apes 4 to 6 million years ago was the shift to > *carnivory*, thus to deny eating meat is to deny a large part of our > evolutionary heritage. Perhaps analyzing the middens of early > Australopithicus might be a way of determining the optimal diet? :-) > -- > Sarima (Stanley Friesen) > > {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen > or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen Was the evolutionary shift a result of meat eating (baboons and other apes/monkeys do eat other animals), or a result of using fire for cooking and the selection of cereal grains as a primary food? Do we know for certain that homonids are a result of carnivorous habits? Perhaps this topic should go in net.evol? -- Len Jacobs East West Journal harvard!bbnccv!ewj01!lj
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/13/85)
In article <96@unc.unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: > > >It was my impression that chimps and gorillas DO eat meat when >they get the chance (insects, small mammals). > Only occasionally. I was talking about a shift from "when they get a chance" to "on a regular/systematic basis", that is obtaining meat by deliberate hunting rather than opportunity. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/13/85)
In article <172@ewj01.UUCP> lj@ewj01.UUCP (Leonard Jacobs) writes: >> > >Was the evolutionary shift a result of meat eating (baboons and other >apes/monkeys do eat other animals), or a result of using fire for cooking >and the selection of cereal grains as a primary food? Do we know for certain >that homonids are a result of carnivorous habits? > >Perhaps this topic should go in net.evol? No, the evolutionary shift occured prior to the use of fire by a about million years. And, yes it is known for certain, or at least as certainly as we can know anything about events 3 million years ago! The evidence include the reduction of our canines, the existance of butchering creches with stone tools in Africa. Since most of the differnces between Hominids and other Great Apes can be explained on the basis of a shift from opportunistic to regular feeding on meat, it seems fairly well established. (BTW baboons are not great apes, and are not particularly closely related to Human ancestry. In fact they may represent a parallel evolutionary line heading down the same herbivore to carnivore transition we did) -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen