On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 18:33:35 +0000, Lazarus Cooke
> wrote:

>Frogleg > wrote:

>> My belief (unsubstantiated by research) is that we have a fondness for
>> calorie-dense foods -- fat & sweet -- because plain ol' calories
>> supported life. A carrot is beneficial in terms of fiber and vitamin
>> A, but it doesn't contribute much to keeping the internal fires
>> burning. The Irish potato famine was devastating in part because many
>> people were existing on a diet of potatoes and damned little else.
>> They weren't particularly healthy, but potatoes supplied calories and
>> most vitamins, and could support life for some time with occasional
>> supplements of meat, fat, bread, and other veg.
>
>Sorry, frogleg, I'm not picking a fight (promise) and shall be glad to
>have a beer with you some day but this is totally wrong - in fact the
>opposite of the truth. One of the most interesting points made in
>Leslie Clarkson's book "Feast and Famine: a history of food and
>nutrition in Ireland 1500-1920" is that the pre-famine Irish diet of
>almost nothing but potatoes, (supplemented very occasionally by
>herrings, cabbage, or bacon) was an extremely healthy one, with a very
>good supply of very high-quality protein. The strapping good looks and
>health of Irish peasants were frequently commented on. The one thing it
>was a bit low on was fat (though obviously the herrings and bacon
>supplied this).

Will have to look into this. I can't believe that a nearly all-potato
diet was healthy. I have read and researched that potatoes contian
some protein and most essential vitamins, except A. As I have posted
frequently, humans can survive on spectacularly inadequate diets. Your
teeth fall out; your hair thins; your eyesight dims; your bones break
easily; but you continue to live. Having not observed the "strapping
good looks and health" of Irish peasants of the 1840s, but only
sketches of emaciated people in rags, I am unable to comment
authoritatively. My time- and place-distant knowledge is that an diet
composed exclusively of potatoes and the odd slab of bacon would *not*
result in a healthy bloom.

>In fact the Irish were much worse off nutritionally after the famine
>was over, when they shifted the diet away from the almost exclusive
>potato diet. I was myself very surprised by this, I must admit, but
>I've talked to the author about it and he is totally convincing.

Did 'the author' explain a worse diet than nothing but potatoes
supplemented by occasional bacon or cabbage? What diet could be
*worse* that all-potato? All dirt? All tree bark?

>> So how many balanced, nutrition-complete diets have there been in
>> history?
>
>I think most peasant societies develop an extremely healthy diet, and
>unhealthy diets are a feature a few very rich countries. It can't be a
>coincidence that the US has perhaps both the worst food tastewise and
>nutritionally, until you get to some pretty poor places. Interestingly,
>othere very rich countries such as Japan and Italy have a very
>well-balanced diet.

I agree that traditional cuisines of various sorts are probably the
most reliable. While not a vegetarian, I respect and enjoy the veg
offerengs of many cuisines. Some USAsians seem meat-obsessed. Why
grilled chicken added to Caesar salad or fetuccini Alfredo?

It seems to me that many 'peasant' and vegetarian cuisines have
devoped as about as well-balanced as one could want. It seems to be
when cheap and/or calorie-dense foods are emphasized, that things get
out of balance.