It was a very interesting essay, and has changed my outlook on
things. I'm also inspired to change my diet, even though I'm no
"typical American eater" either.

It really answers my question, which I'd asked for the longest time to
no real answer, why all these protein shakes and vitamin pills, if
they really are "food," can be taken *as* food, in lieu of other
food. The article really answered that for me when it noted that
isolating nutrients from their naturally-occuring whole food contexts
has not been successful, particularly in the case of anti-oxidants.

As for a "biologically diverse" diet, well, the South Chinese are
known for their no-holds-barred culinary habits. The joke, told by
North Chinese, is that they eat anything with four legs except tables
and chairs. I'd be very curious as to a study of their health...but
such a study would probably be impossible to conduct, given the
difficulties in controlling for environmental and lifestyle factors
there....



On Jan 31, 3:05 pm, "Butcher" > wrote:
> A very long read, but very well-done. The author approaches the
> Western diet and the history of how it evolved (or devolved?) in a
> very compelling, common sense way. I truly can't disagree with what
> he's saying. Although I don't see my eating habits as typically-
> American, I'm still inspired to change my diet even more to reflect
> what he's advocating - kind of a get-back-to-nature-don't-believe-the-
> nutritional-marketing-bullshit approach.
>
> One of the most interesting lines:
>
> "Simplification has occurred at the level of species diversity, too.
> The astounding variety of foods on offer in the modern supermarket
> obscures the fact that the actual number of species in the modern diet
> is shrinking. For reasons of economics, the food industry prefers to
> tease its myriad processed offerings from a tiny group of plant
> species, corn and soybeans chief among them. Today, a mere four crops
> account for two-thirds of the calories humans eat. When you consider
> that humankind has historically consumed some 80,000 edible species,
> and that 3,000 of these have been in widespread use, this represents a
> radical simplification of the food web. Why should this matter?
> Because humans are omnivores, requiring somewhere between 50 and 100
> different chemical compounds and elements to be healthy. It's hard to
> believe that we can get everything we need from a diet consisting
> largely of processed corn, soybeans, wheat and rice."
>
> Now that's a nice example/fact that drives the point home.

On Feb 1, 7:59 am, "Prisoner at War" >
wrote:
> It was a very interesting essay, and has changed my outlook on
> things. I'm also inspired to change my diet, even though I'm no
> "typical American eater" either.
>
> It really answers my question, which I'd asked for the longest time to
> no real answer, why all these protein shakes and vitamin pills, if
> they really are "food," can be taken *as* food, in lieu of other
> food.

Vitamins and mninerals tablest are dietary supplements, not food.

Protein powder (whey proten) is said to be easier for the body to
absorp. The main thing about potein podwer is that the measurement
(one scoop or one sreving) gives exact g of protein, fat, etc.

You still need carbohydate and it is cheapest to get that from food
like pasta, rice, bread.

Protein powder is not expensive if you think about the amount of food
(meat or soy or lentil) you would have to eat to get the same
nutrition.


>The article really answered that for me when it noted that
> isolating nutrients from their naturally-occuring whole food contexts
> has not been successful, particularly in the case of anti-oxidants.

Things like anti-oxidant breaks down, turns into something else, when
isolate them.

>
> As for a "biologically diverse" diet, well, the South Chinese are
> known for their no-holds-barred culinary habits. The joke, told by
> North Chinese, is that they eat anything with four legs except tables
> and chairs. I'd be very curious as to a study of their health...but
> such a study would probably be impossible to conduct, given the
> difficulties in controlling for environmental and lifestyle factors
> there....

But they also eat other things along with meat form any four-legged
animals. And they don't overeat.

>
> On Jan 31, 3:05 pm, "Butcher" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > A very long read, but very well-done. The author approaches the
> > Western diet and the history of how it evolved (or devolved?) in a
> > very compelling, common sense way. I truly can't disagree with what
> > he's saying. Although I don't see my eating habits as typically-
> > American, I'm still inspired to change my diet even more to reflect
> > what he's advocating - kind of a get-back-to-nature-don't-believe-the-
> > nutritional-marketing-bullshit approach.
>
> > One of the most interesting lines:
>
> > "Simplification has occurred at the level of species diversity, too.
> > The astounding variety of foods on offer in the modern supermarket
> > obscures the fact that the actual number of species in the modern diet
> > is shrinking. For reasons of economics, the food industry prefers to
> > tease its myriad processed offerings from a tiny group of plant
> > species, corn and soybeans chief among them. Today, a mere four crops
> > account for two-thirds of the calories humans eat. When you consider
> > that humankind has historically consumed some 80,000 edible species,
> > and that 3,000 of these have been in widespread use, this represents a
> > radical simplification of the food web. Why should this matter?
> > Because humans are omnivores, requiring somewhere between 50 and 100
> > different chemical compounds and elements to be healthy. It's hard to
> > believe that we can get everything we need from a diet consisting
> > largely of processed corn, soybeans, wheat and rice."
>
> > Now that's a nice example/fact that drives the point home.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On 1 Feb 2007 08:58:01 -0800, "mm" > wrote:

>Protein powder is not expensive if you think about the amount of food
>(meat or soy or lentil) you would have to eat to get the same
>nutrition.

You don't get the same nutrition, just the same protein, when you use
the powder. If you eat the actual FOOD, you get the fiber, the water,
the vitamins, the trace minerals, and all that good stuff. I never
understood the point of healthy people taking massive dietary
supplements when there's actual good food around.

Serene
--
"I can't decide if I feel more like four ten-year-olds or ten four-year-olds." Laurie Anderson , on turning 40.

http://serenejournal.livejournal.com

On Feb 1, 8:13�pm, Serene > wrote:
> On 1 Feb 2007 08:58:01 -0800, "mm" > wrote:
>
> >Protein powder is not expensive if you think about the amount of food
> >(meat or soy or lentil) you would have to eat to get the same
> >nutrition.
>
> You don't get the same nutrition, just the same protein, when you use
> the powder. If you eat the actual FOOD, you get the fiber, the water,
> the vitamins, the trace minerals, and all that good stuff. *I never
> understood the point of healthy people taking massive dietary
> supplements when there's actual good food around.

You don't get the same protein from suppliment powders... no way will
I ever believe that spoonful of powder is a porterhouse... that's like
getting me to believe that your plastic vibrating dildo is equal to
real live vibrant ejaculating man meat... any of you gals want to
argue?

Sheldon

Serene wrote:
> On 1 Feb 2007 08:58:01 -0800, "mm" > wrote:
>
>> Protein powder is not expensive if you think about the amount of food
>> (meat or soy or lentil) you would have to eat to get the same
>> nutrition.
>
> You don't get the same nutrition, just the same protein, when you use
> the powder. If you eat the actual FOOD, you get the fiber, the water,
> the vitamins, the trace minerals, and all that good stuff. I never
> understood the point of healthy people taking massive dietary
> supplements when there's actual good food around.
>
> Serene

You get all that you mentioned PLUS you get the pleasure of eating
something tasty, rather than just chugging something down of
questionable taste.

On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 20:58:11 -0500, Goomba38 >
wrote:

>Serene wrote:
>> On 1 Feb 2007 08:58:01 -0800, "mm" > wrote:
>>
>>> Protein powder is not expensive if you think about the amount of food
>>> (meat or soy or lentil) you would have to eat to get the same
>>> nutrition.
>>
>> You don't get the same nutrition, just the same protein, when you use
>> the powder. If you eat the actual FOOD, you get the fiber, the water,
>> the vitamins, the trace minerals, and all that good stuff. I never
>> understood the point of healthy people taking massive dietary
>> supplements when there's actual good food around.

>
>You get all that you mentioned PLUS you get the pleasure of eating
>something tasty, rather than just chugging something down of
>questionable taste.

Yep, that too.

Serene
--
"I can't decide if I feel more like four ten-year-olds or ten four-year-olds." Laurie Anderson , on turning 40.

http://serenejournal.livejournal.com