Sweeteners (was Re: Guilt, satiety, calorie restriction...)

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ :

> The breaking down of polysaccharides yields sugar, does it not?

> How is it that the enjoyment of sugar derived from the break down

> of polysaccharides in seaweed is a noble and natural thing, but the

> enjoyment of sugar derived from the processing of cane isn't?

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

the nutrient-density of seaweed is a zillion times higher than cane.

" noble " and " natural " are subjective; the latter doesn't interest me,

and the former rests on nutrient-density for me.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@ :

> The difference in " sea veggies " and " seaweed " , however, is not

> so obvious, especially given the name of the company from which

> you get your " sea veggies " . (-:

@@@@@@@@@@

same object, different names, one i prefer more than the other

because " weed " is pejorative. analogous to folks in the wild-

edibles world munching on the leaves of the dandelion plant and

calling it " dandelion greens " instead of " dandelion weeds " ...

@@@@@@@@@@@@@ :

> Neither seaweed, raw oysters, nor raw beef are acceptable

> sweetening agents for pound cake petit fours with tangerine

> glaze, jasmine ice cream, vanilla cream caramels with walnuts,

> lemonade, cheesecake, baklava, plum pudding, pumpkin pie,

> pecan pie, raspberry trifle or any such other of the artistic

> flavor combinations that our wonderful human intelligence has

> invented. There is absolutely nothing wrong with these flavors,

> or the desire for, or the enjoyment of them. The sole problem

> is in the methods and ingredients we initially used, in our

> ignorance, to create them.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

well, i thoroughly disagree that most of these foods are defensible.

any of them with flour are products of the recent " flour era " in

human history, which is an example on the negative side of the

decidedly MIXED blessing of our wonderful human intelligence. any

of the others can be fruitfully made and relished without

concentrated sweeteners (pun not resisted), or their occasional

appearance at the table could become a joyful showcase for the

judicious use of honey.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Mike/:

> > and i also eat small amounts of fruit seasonally (mostly berries

i

> pick myself),

> > and that's the most obvious way to make food sweeter, as so many

> people

> > already know.

>

> What makes it " the most obvious way " ? You mean the most

> obvious way that _you_ personally consider natural or proper,

> don't you? The way to make food sweeter that is most obvious

> to _me_, and that " many people already know " , is to add honey.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

that's a good point, but i'm guessing that fruits have a much longer,

more ubiquitous, and more varied presence in the human diet than

honey. honey is a great whole food, but for all its virtues, i'm

sure it's easily overconsumed too.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ :

> Yes, but I get the impression that some people are letting their

> ideological zeal fool their palates.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

the part of the brain that processes the experience of deliciousness

is different than the part of the brain that processes the experience

of ideological zeal, so if someone find some food delicous, i suspect

it's an authentic reflection of their palate.

@@@@@@@@@@@@ :

> I don't think that my palate

> is " imbalanced " and further, I think that life itself is a " cycle

> of desire " . If I didn't desire eating food that I find delicious,

> or didn't desire being alive, I'd have no reason to eat in the

> first place. All things humans do are, in the final analysis,

> done in the pursuit of satisfying their desires.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I would say life is a system of millions of overlapping cycles (note

plural) of desire, and the satisfaction of certain desires constrains

the satisfaction of other desires, requiring a dynamic selection of

desires for suppression or expression. like for example right now i

would like to go outside and forage for autumn olives and listen to

the rustling of leaves and songs of birds, but instead i'm staying

inside all night to prove theorems due tomorrow for a class...

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ :

> However, the appreciation and enjoyment of

> flavors in the savory category, no matter how large that category

> may be, will never replace that of the sweet category.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

these categories overlap.

@@@@@@@@@@@@ :

> Your

> comments remind me of the humorous suggestions we've all

> read, that by adding lemon and herbs, or by otherwise adding

> extra flavor to a dish, that salt becomes unnecessary. This is

> of course false because the premise that salt is just one more

> flavor among many, is false. There is a natural and instinctual

> desire for the flavor of salt itself regardless of how many other

> flavors are in the food, and the same is true of sweetness.

@@@@@@@@@@@

that's a great point about salt, and of course it's one of the five

basic tastes. while the same is true indeed of sweetness, in the

examples i gave, there was authentic sweetness, not a simulation of

or distraction from sweetness. just less concentrated sweetness

enhanced in cooccurence with other tastes.

@@@@@@@@@@@ :

> Like the sweetness inherent in honey? I love the taste of

> honey and could easily sweeten everything with it. However

> I have learned in my twenty years of studying nutrition, that

> a diet high in carbohydrates, from whatever source is not

> healthy.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

honey could be used in perfect health if one's diet is balanced by

the presence of other tastes, hence avoiding large quantities of

honey. if the degree to which you desire sweetness exceeds the

degree to which you could use honey without excess, then your desires

are not in harmony with your physiology. if not, then you have no

reason to eschew honey in any situation where you desire sweetness.

it's much easier to change your desires than your physiology.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@ :

I'm afraid that you're bringing a " holier than thou "

> attitude to the discussion of diet and health, my friend.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

you're absolutely right about that! you'll find the same tone of

arrogance and harshness in many of my posts in the archives as well,

and i bring this to other facets of my life besides this forum. it's

a very distinctive " style " , sort of unpleasantly scientific, but

potentially very fruitful to the extent it enhances the Popperian

falsifiability of my discourse. i've been studying nutrition for

less than two years, but if i'm right then i'm right, and if not,

then i'll revise my views and express them similarly... ordinarily

people use smiley symbols at these junctures, but it doesn't fit my

style! (i've only used them maybe 3 or 4 times out of the thousands

of emails i've written in my life!)

mike parker