Re: a few carb questions (Deanna, Heidi, Wanita)

[Guest guest]

>

> >Thank you for your additional clarifications. I hope we have made

> >friends again.

> >

> >

> José , I think you must be reading more here than what exists

for

> me. I was never offended or feeling animosity towards you.

Surely, we

> are amicable list mates as always.

** Thank you, Deanna. You´re right: That was an overstatement (that

we had made friends again). I could have left it out. But it stems

from my own insecurity, you know. I am a very insecure person. I am

always in need of " reality checks " , if you know what it means. I was

checking just to see, don't be offended. But let me add this: from

the beginning of our conversation I felt I knew whom I was talking

to.

> And I am still wondering what exactly worries you about eating

fruits,

> vegetables and nuts as the only carb source? For me, I would do

well to

> give up legumes and live this way. However, I do enjoy the taste

and

> convenience of beans once or twice a week.

** I eat some fruit every day, but I can't eat a lrge quantity: 100g -

200g (sorry, I don't know the American units well) is enough for me.

I can't digest more than that. Besides, fruit makes feel cold. Oh, I

wish I could live off fruit (and some animal protein) myself, but

really it doesn't work for me. I need starches, but I really try to

keep it to a minimum, for instance, usually having only two meals a

day. I also eat vegetables, both cooked and raw, but, like , I

can't overeat them, because of the fiber. Nuts, just a handful now

and then. Maybe my digestive system is the real culprit. It would be

better for me to try to improve it, but given this present condition

there is no other alternative for me than to rely on carbs. I know

other people like me, though.

>

> >

> Okay, now I do see a clear reason behind the skepticism of low carb

> diets. Thank you for that.

** OK, but let's make it still clearer: not really scepticism of low-

carb, but of non-carb. And especially for my own biotype (is that the

right English word for it?).

Funny thing, the " low fat " diet prescribed

> by the orthodoxy in the US is <30%. So accordingly, the 30% carbs

of

> the French authors might be considered low carb.

** I don't know. May be yes. They really don't mention low-carb. They

talk rather about moderation and balance.

Would you please

> expand on the idea that we need certain carbs for " optimal proteic

> assimilation?

** Yes, I will, but could you please give me some time? I will come

back to that later. Now I just wanted to give a brief and quick

answer. I am in the office. Later when I get home and the kids give

me a break.

> I think when we get too bent on percentages of calories, we can get

> stuck. By this I mean I need a certain amount of protein and fat

to

> function, but if I get a bit more of one, is it really detrimental

to

> me? Carbs I can live without indefinitely. The brain can live off

of

> ketones in lipolysis, just as it can live off of glucose in

glucosis, we

> have adapted to these duel metabolic systems. And I never said no

carb

> was for everybody in the long run. However, low carb diets have

been

> around for a long time, and are not in vitro. In modern times,

> Banting popularized a low carb diet in Europe in the 1800s.

** I think I have read a little about Banting somewhere. Also about

the Salisbury diet. Well, in this case I was wrong. Low carb is not a

modernity nor something in fashion. Now let's hope that it will throw

roots everywhere. But again (I am insistent, am I not?) I am wary of

non-carb.

> http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/banting.html

> ______________________________

> >

> When I mentioned the addiction, it was an attempt at humor at the

time.

> Forgive me if I did not include a smile or something to help with

that

> meaning :-) .

** I know, Deanna. Don't worry. I myself never use emoticons.

>

> >

> If you don't believe there is one formula for all, then why do you

think

> suppressing carbohydrates is dangerous for some in the long run?

** I said " for some " , not for everybody.

>

> Our range as a species is global. That is unique among the

animals. As

> such, I believe, we have adapted, through our individual ancestry

and

> present environmental conditions, to particular diets. Mine

happens to

> be high in vegetables and animal foods. Yours will be something

else

> from your region and genetic makeup. Finding the best lifestyle

for us

> as individuals is the real challenge, I think. Sharing what we

have

> learned along the way may help others to at least think, " Perhaps I

> should try this, " or, " Perhaps the orthodoxy hasn't all the answers

in

> their one size fits all diet paradigm. "

** I do agree. I think that you should have typed these four or five

final sentences in capital letters.

> >Best wishes.

> >

> >José

> >

> Best regards to you as well,

> Deanna

>

** It is a pleasure for me to talk to you.

José

>

[Guest guest]

José

>Besides, fruit makes feel cold.

That " cold " feeling is often a sign of an IgG

or IgA allergy ... I get that when I eat dairy.

A lot of people DO react to fruit, esp. citrus

I think.

I'm not sure exactly what causes it: might

be cortisol production that happens when your

body is under stress, which causes your blood to

retreat from your extremities into your body

cavity (like happens when you are in shock:

if you have a near-miss while driving, for instance,

you might feel cold afterward).

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>We tend to look at diet through middle-class blinders. What do we make of this?

> " For breakfast we have bulldog gravy

>For dinner we have beans and bread

>The miners don't have any supper

>And a tick of straw they call a bed. "

>

>

Very true, . Um, do I dare ask what bulldog gravy is? Off the

top of mehead comes:

Peas porridge hot, peas porridge cold, peas porridge in the pot nine

days old ...

Jack Sprat cold eat no fat, his wife could eat no lean ...

Come butter come ...

I can't think of any folksongs offhand, though. You know, I love old

books. The ones that come from 1910 or earlier are generally very

ornate with bindings and paper that stand the test of time. Those books

must have cost something to produce - especially the Bibles. Contrast

that with the NAPD book I got from amazon had pages falling out of the

cheap glue binding from the get go. Does anyone have an old copy of NAPD?

>This is the Appalachian working class in the 1930s...not very NT, is

>it? Not everybody had equal access to the agricultural means of

>production, esp. in the cities. And sometimes the means of production

>didn't produce. It was basically the potato and modern transportation

>that ended famine in Europe...grain crops periodically failed (or

>were taken by marauding armies, while the potatoes were safe

>underground).

>

>

No, it's not very NT. And that makes me think perhaps NT in the modern

industrial era IS a middle class nutritional plan. For who can afford

the time and money for these rich foods, organically grown and properly

prepared, then or now? Here's the page on WAPF site about the church

cookbooks and what these people at before the 20th century.

http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional_diets/sad_changes_american_standard.html

These folks undoubtedly could afford better nutrition than the poor

folks. That said, old and new world farmers probably did better, at

least in theory. They had clean air, fresh foods (so long as they knew

what they were doing and raised good food), and lived a life with lots

of good hard work (aka exercise).

>The Lapps have been living on reindeer milk for as long as anyone

>remembers. I don't know about cows though.

>

>

That's good enough for me <g>. I do like dairy and have a good

percentage of Swedish blood in me. Finland was invaded by Swedes long

ago. And it is easier to grow livestock than much grain up there, right?

>Right, but look at the etymology of the word: smörgas=bread and

>butter + bord=table. It's like the Indonesian rijstafel...a zillion

>dishes, but ultimately it's all about rice. I've read that

>historically, smorgasbord as we know it is more an invention of

>hotels for late-19th c train travellers than a traditional Swedish

>meal, though certainly traditional dishes are included. It was the

>same sort of tempting excess as 's " 31 flavors " , for

>the same purpose.

>

>

Ya got me there. I wasn't even thinking along those lines! Interesting

history on that invention.

>In the Time-Life Scandinavian cookbook, so many of the Norwegian

>dishes described seem so NT...the sour cream porridge drunk at

>weddings, the fermented fish. And of course they don't include

>recipes for any of the " weird stuff " :-(

>

Yeah. It's not fair that they don't share info on the weird stuff. How

many folks eat/ate insects for a cheap source of protein, we'll probably

never know. We only know of the weirdos on list who do, lol.

These books are dictating what is acceptable much like TV advertising

does. That's why the old books rock. Even if they were for the wealthy

and guilty of the same sort of thing, at least they were pre mass

marketed junk era.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

>> not really scepticism of low-

carb, but of non-carb <<

The only " no-carb " diet would be one of nothing but meat and fats. Dairy

products, vegetables, fruits, nuts... all other foods have carbs.

This is a false distinction as I know of NO ONE, no book, no author, no

guru, who recommends or follows a " no-carb " plan.

Christie

Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

Holistically Raising Our Dogs Since 1986

http://www.caberfeidh.com

http://doggedblog.com

[Guest guest]

Hello:

Thank you for the correction. I though " non-carb " was the right

expression.

You are right. There are carbs in veggies, fruit and dairy. I have

acknowledged this in a previous post. But classically or

traditionally when you think of carbs you think of grains and tubers

(starches). It may be a simplification, but it's grains and tubers

which have the most carbs and need previous preparation (cooking,

baking, fermenting, etc) to be eaten. I think this difference must

not be overlooked.

JC

> >> not really scepticism of low-

> carb, but of non-carb <<

>

> The only " no-carb " diet would be one of nothing but meat and fats.

Dairy

> products, vegetables, fruits, nuts... all other foods have carbs.

>

> This is a false distinction as I know of NO ONE, no book, no

author, no

> guru, who recommends or follows a " no-carb " plan.

>

> Christie

> Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

> Holistically Raising Our Dogs Since 1986

> http://www.caberfeidh.com

> http://doggedblog.com

[Guest guest]

> Re: a few carb questions (Deanna, Heidi, Wanita)

>

>

>>> not really scepticism of low-

>carb, but of non-carb <<

>

>The only " no-carb " diet would be one of nothing but meat and fats.

Oddly enough, even meat has a tiny amount of carbs in it.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

[José] Orthorexic, aloof, elitist - these are not words to apply to you or

to anyone else here. These are tentative descriptions. It is true I

have known people who would wear the cap, because it would fit them,

but again those were generic observations. Maybe I should have been

more careful with my wordage. It is not the first time that words

betray me, appearing to mean more than what they actually meant, if

you see what I mean.

Possibly, it is too late now to justify myself. I have made a

blunder, however unintentional it was, and nobody will come to

support me. All that is left for me to do is slink off and pray that

time will heal this situation.

[MikeP] I have just read through this thread here and I must extend my

appreciation to you, José, for your valuable postings. I follow your

reasoning entirely and I see you are getting at some subtleties in

food philosophy that I have also pondered at length. I must also

comment on your admirable literary flair. Certainly your remarks

above are quite general and don't apply to the special cases of gluten

and casein intolerant people (but it's good for our representatives of

those special cases to speak loud and clear) and it's wonderful that

you've taken up the challenge of articulating these psychological and

conceptual issues. I'm also a fairly anti-grain type person who

recognizes this bias as an artifact of eccentric striving for optimal

nutrition and not a reasonable imposition on humanity as a whole,

which must accomodate many conflicting threads of cultural tradition

and accept many compromises in the spirit of adaptation. Well, again,

thank you, José, for such enjoyable and stimulating reading, and my

casual impression is that I agree with your assessments of this topic.

I should also apologize because I rarely skim my NN folder or

participate these days... Perhaps it has suffered from competition

with other priorities... It is in phases like this that I rely on

their accuracy of subject lines to direct my clicking...

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

The best way to predict the future is to invent it. --Alan Kay