Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
Historic (rec.food.historic) Discussing and discovering how food was made and prepared way back when--From ancient times down until (& possibly including or even going slightly beyond) the times when industrial revolution began to change our lives. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Humans have existed on all kinds of diets that would be considered
inadequate in various nutrients today. "A chicken in every pot" was once a sweet promise of better living when chicken (or any meat?) was a luxury. How many "historical" diets provided (or didn't) what we now regard as an adequate mix of protein, vitamins, starch, etc.? The poor may have fared better nutritionally by foraging for field greens to add to grain than the rich with abundant supplies of meat and little else. How 'bout some expert opinions here? |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
>The poor
> may have fared better nutritionally by foraging for field greens to > add to grain than the rich with abundant supplies of meat and little > else. Why would the rich not have anything other than meat? They would have had a house full of servants who would have kept the house well-supplied from a kitchen garden. Cookie "Frogleg" > wrote in message ... > Humans have existed on all kinds of diets that would be considered > inadequate in various nutrients today. "A chicken in every pot" was > once a sweet promise of better living when chicken (or any meat?) was > a luxury. How many "historical" diets provided (or didn't) what we now > regard as an adequate mix of protein, vitamins, starch, etc.? The poor > may have fared better nutritionally by foraging for field greens to > add to grain than the rich with abundant supplies of meat and little > else. How 'bout some expert opinions here? |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Cookie Cutter wrote:
> > >The poor > > may have fared better nutritionally by foraging for field greens to > > add to grain than the rich with abundant supplies of meat and little > > else. > > Why would the rich not have anything other than meat? They would > have had a house full of servants who would have kept the house > well-supplied from a kitchen garden. > Hieatt and Butler have a nice theory: there are many warnings in mediaeval and later writings against the dangers of eating salads, and their argument is that were it not a great habit of former times to eat such things, there would be no need to warn against them. There are also plenty of quite elaborate vegetable dishes and dishes containing vegetables and meat or fish in Roman and mediaeval cookery writings, dishes that would have been hard for peasants and poor townsfolk to afford or have the resources and equipment to make (never mind the time!), so they must have been eaten in middle class and merchant households, or in the houses of the rich and nobility. Another good argument in favour of this is that the peasants couldn't write: these recipes came from a stratum of society where writing things down was a well established habit, places such as religious establishments and the houses of great and wealthy. Kitchen gardens and the still room were often the preserve of the lady of the house, and were places where not only herbs and medicinal plants were grown, used and stored, but also places where fruits were bottled and preserved for use throughout the year. I think it's a great mistake to assume from the few surviving menus of mediaeval feasts that the upper classes dines exclusively on meat and white bread, especially when you look at the methods of preparation of the dishes, and see how many had vegetables as a part of their make up, one of the expected accompaniments. If you stop looking at menus and look at household accounts, you can see that a lot more went into feeding the household than meat for the master and pottage for his servant. The records of places like Knole, Hampton Court Palace, and some of the great religious houses will tell you this. Also take a look at the religious calendar: there were days (nay, weeks!) when meat was off limits, and fish had to be eaten, and times when BOTH were forbidden. In addition, and at the other end of society, meat was eaten by the peasantry: pigs were kept, and slaughtered and preserved as bacon, for example. Pigs could be kept close to the house (they didn't mind the smell!), and made a good waste disposal unit that could be eaten later. Peasants also had grazing rights for sheep and goats, and while many of the ewes were kept for wool and reproduction, the ram lambs would mostly be slaughtered for meat. They may not have eaten anything like as much meat as the upper and middle classes, but they did get some. More at some times of the year, and more in some areas, but pigs, goats, and chickens are all kaleyard keepers. Certainly in England it was part of a serf's right to have enough time NOT tilling his master's land and animals to grow food for his family, and tend his own animals. -- Kate XXXXXX Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons http://www.diceyhome.free-online.co.uk Click on Kate's Pages and explore! |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
You mentioned "The records of places like Knole, Hampton Court Palace, and
some of the great religious houses will tell you this." I"m new to this. Could you tell me how I can find the records you cited, or similar records? cliff, from pgh "Kate Dicey" > wrote in message ... > Cookie Cutter wrote: > > > > >The poor > > > may have fared better nutritionally by foraging for field greens to > > > add to grain than the rich with abundant supplies of meat and little > > > else. > > > > Why would the rich not have anything other than meat? They would > > have had a house full of servants who would have kept the house > > well-supplied from a kitchen garden. > > > Hieatt and Butler have a nice theory: there are many warnings in > mediaeval and later writings against the dangers of eating salads, and > their argument is that were it not a great habit of former times to eat > such things, there would be no need to warn against them. There are > also plenty of quite elaborate vegetable dishes and dishes containing > vegetables and meat or fish in Roman and mediaeval cookery writings, > dishes that would have been hard for peasants and poor townsfolk to > afford or have the resources and equipment to make (never mind the > time!), so they must have been eaten in middle class and merchant > households, or in the houses of the rich and nobility. Another good > argument in favour of this is that the peasants couldn't write: these > recipes came from a stratum of society where writing things down was a > well established habit, places such as religious establishments and the > houses of great and wealthy. > > Kitchen gardens and the still room were often the preserve of the lady > of the house, and were places where not only herbs and medicinal plants > were grown, used and stored, but also places where fruits were bottled > and preserved for use throughout the year. I think it's a great mistake > to assume from the few surviving menus of mediaeval feasts that the > upper classes dines exclusively on meat and white bread, especially when > you look at the methods of preparation of the dishes, and see how many > had vegetables as a part of their make up, one of the expected > accompaniments. If you stop looking at menus and look at household > accounts, you can see that a lot more went into feeding the household > than meat for the master and pottage for his servant. The records of > places like Knole, Hampton Court Palace, and some of the great religious > houses will tell you this. Also take a look at the religious calendar: > there were days (nay, weeks!) when meat was off limits, and fish had to > be eaten, and times when BOTH were forbidden. > > In addition, and at the other end of society, meat was eaten by the > peasantry: pigs were kept, and slaughtered and preserved as bacon, for > example. Pigs could be kept close to the house (they didn't mind the > smell!), and made a good waste disposal unit that could be eaten later. > Peasants also had grazing rights for sheep and goats, and while many of > the ewes were kept for wool and reproduction, the ram lambs would mostly > be slaughtered for meat. They may not have eaten anything like as much > meat as the upper and middle classes, but they did get some. More at > some times of the year, and more in some areas, but pigs, goats, and > chickens are all kaleyard keepers. Certainly in England it was part of > a serf's right to have enough time NOT tilling his master's land and > animals to grow food for his family, and tend his own animals. > -- > Kate XXXXXX > Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons > http://www.diceyhome.free-online.co.uk > Click on Kate's Pages and explore! |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Clifford Payne wrote:
> You mentioned "The records of places like Knole, Hampton Court Palace, and > some of the great religious houses will tell you this." > > I"m new to this. Could you tell me how I can find the records you cited, or > similar records? Google for the historic places, then ring them up and ask them! I do that all the time... I've talked to various folk at Hampton Court about Henry's feasts, textile dates and preservation (The Royal School of Needlework is also there), sewers, and all sorts! The British Library and The British Museum are also excellent places to look. Ring them up or email them and ask... It is, after all, what they are there fore - the preservation and dissemination of knowledge! Some records are only available to bona fide historians as they are too old to be handled by all and sundry, but they will soon tell you what research facilities are available and how to use them. I have to book a day to go and see the collection of 17th & 18th C clothing not fit for display in the V&A soon: I need details of how things were actually sewn together. > > cliff, from pgh > > "Kate Dicey" > wrote in message > ... > >>Cookie Cutter wrote: >> >>>>The poor >>>>may have fared better nutritionally by foraging for field greens to >>>>add to grain than the rich with abundant supplies of meat and little >>>>else. >>> >>>Why would the rich not have anything other than meat? They would >>>have had a house full of servants who would have kept the house >>>well-supplied from a kitchen garden. >>> >> >>Hieatt and Butler have a nice theory: there are many warnings in >>mediaeval and later writings against the dangers of eating salads, and >>their argument is that were it not a great habit of former times to eat >>such things, there would be no need to warn against them. There are >>also plenty of quite elaborate vegetable dishes and dishes containing >>vegetables and meat or fish in Roman and mediaeval cookery writings, >>dishes that would have been hard for peasants and poor townsfolk to >>afford or have the resources and equipment to make (never mind the >>time!), so they must have been eaten in middle class and merchant >>households, or in the houses of the rich and nobility. Another good >>argument in favour of this is that the peasants couldn't write: these >>recipes came from a stratum of society where writing things down was a >>well established habit, places such as religious establishments and the >>houses of great and wealthy. >> >>Kitchen gardens and the still room were often the preserve of the lady >>of the house, and were places where not only herbs and medicinal plants >>were grown, used and stored, but also places where fruits were bottled >>and preserved for use throughout the year. I think it's a great mistake >>to assume from the few surviving menus of mediaeval feasts that the >>upper classes dines exclusively on meat and white bread, especially when >>you look at the methods of preparation of the dishes, and see how many >>had vegetables as a part of their make up, one of the expected >>accompaniments. If you stop looking at menus and look at household >>accounts, you can see that a lot more went into feeding the household >>than meat for the master and pottage for his servant. The records of >>places like Knole, Hampton Court Palace, and some of the great religious >>houses will tell you this. Also take a look at the religious calendar: >>there were days (nay, weeks!) when meat was off limits, and fish had to >>be eaten, and times when BOTH were forbidden. >> >>In addition, and at the other end of society, meat was eaten by the >>peasantry: pigs were kept, and slaughtered and preserved as bacon, for >>example. Pigs could be kept close to the house (they didn't mind the >>smell!), and made a good waste disposal unit that could be eaten later. >>Peasants also had grazing rights for sheep and goats, and while many of >>the ewes were kept for wool and reproduction, the ram lambs would mostly >>be slaughtered for meat. They may not have eaten anything like as much >>meat as the upper and middle classes, but they did get some. More at >>some times of the year, and more in some areas, but pigs, goats, and >>chickens are all kaleyard keepers. Certainly in England it was part of >>a serf's right to have enough time NOT tilling his master's land and >>animals to grow food for his family, and tend his own animals. >>-- >>Kate XXXXXX >>Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons >>http://www.diceyhome.free-online.co.uk >>Click on Kate's Pages and explore! > > > -- Kate XXXXXX Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons http://www.diceyhome.free-online.co.uk Click on Kate's Pages and explore! |
|
|||
|
|||
![]() [social organization of eating in feudal households] >> You mentioned "The records of places like Knole, Hampton Court >> Palace, and some of the great religious houses will tell you this." >> I"m new to this. Could you tell me how I can find the records you >> cited, or similar records? > Google for the historic places, then ring them up and ask them! Usually, no. Records like that tend to end up in major libraries (in Scotland, the National Library and Scottish Records Office both have lots of them). In the case of Hampton Court, it had a devastating fire a few years ago (from a senile royal dimwit forgetting a candle) and interesting records had better *not* have been stored there. Sometimes great houses come to an arrangement where a major library does their cataloguing for them. The National Library of Scotland holds the catalogue for the library of the Kers of Newbattle, so if you want to know what's in it, the NLS is the place to ask. Getting hold of the item then means going through the NLS to get the Kers to send it up with the next batch of requests, which are at three month intervals. I don't know of any major private library in Scotland where phoning up to ask would work directly. There are national registers of archives that act like a catalogue of catalogues. Librarians are paid to know about them, janitors at great houses aren't. ========> Email to "j-c" at this site; email to "bogus" will bounce <======== Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760 <http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/purrhome.html> food intolerance data & recipes, Mac logic fonts, Scots traditional music files and CD-ROMs of Scottish music. |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
You mentioned "The records of places like Knole, Hampton Court Palace, and
some of the great religious houses will tell you this." I"m new to this. Could you tell me how I can find the records you cited, or similar records? cliff, from pgh "Kate Dicey" > wrote in message ... > Cookie Cutter wrote: > > > > >The poor > > > may have fared better nutritionally by foraging for field greens to > > > add to grain than the rich with abundant supplies of meat and little > > > else. > > > > Why would the rich not have anything other than meat? They would > > have had a house full of servants who would have kept the house > > well-supplied from a kitchen garden. > > > Hieatt and Butler have a nice theory: there are many warnings in > mediaeval and later writings against the dangers of eating salads, and > their argument is that were it not a great habit of former times to eat > such things, there would be no need to warn against them. There are > also plenty of quite elaborate vegetable dishes and dishes containing > vegetables and meat or fish in Roman and mediaeval cookery writings, > dishes that would have been hard for peasants and poor townsfolk to > afford or have the resources and equipment to make (never mind the > time!), so they must have been eaten in middle class and merchant > households, or in the houses of the rich and nobility. Another good > argument in favour of this is that the peasants couldn't write: these > recipes came from a stratum of society where writing things down was a > well established habit, places such as religious establishments and the > houses of great and wealthy. > > Kitchen gardens and the still room were often the preserve of the lady > of the house, and were places where not only herbs and medicinal plants > were grown, used and stored, but also places where fruits were bottled > and preserved for use throughout the year. I think it's a great mistake > to assume from the few surviving menus of mediaeval feasts that the > upper classes dines exclusively on meat and white bread, especially when > you look at the methods of preparation of the dishes, and see how many > had vegetables as a part of their make up, one of the expected > accompaniments. If you stop looking at menus and look at household > accounts, you can see that a lot more went into feeding the household > than meat for the master and pottage for his servant. The records of > places like Knole, Hampton Court Palace, and some of the great religious > houses will tell you this. Also take a look at the religious calendar: > there were days (nay, weeks!) when meat was off limits, and fish had to > be eaten, and times when BOTH were forbidden. > > In addition, and at the other end of society, meat was eaten by the > peasantry: pigs were kept, and slaughtered and preserved as bacon, for > example. Pigs could be kept close to the house (they didn't mind the > smell!), and made a good waste disposal unit that could be eaten later. > Peasants also had grazing rights for sheep and goats, and while many of > the ewes were kept for wool and reproduction, the ram lambs would mostly > be slaughtered for meat. They may not have eaten anything like as much > meat as the upper and middle classes, but they did get some. More at > some times of the year, and more in some areas, but pigs, goats, and > chickens are all kaleyard keepers. Certainly in England it was part of > a serf's right to have enough time NOT tilling his master's land and > animals to grow food for his family, and tend his own animals. > -- > Kate XXXXXX > Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons > http://www.diceyhome.free-online.co.uk > Click on Kate's Pages and explore! |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 22:22:54 GMT, "Cookie Cutter"
> wrote: >>The poor >> may have fared better nutritionally by foraging for field greens to >> add to grain than the rich with abundant supplies of meat and little >> else. > >Why would the rich not have anything other than meat? They would >have had a house full of servants who would have kept the house >well-supplied from a kitchen garden. Point taken. Although people tend to disparage 'low class' items and favor the rare and expensive. 'White' (refined flour) bread was an upper-class treat (see 'Heidi') Meat has often been a prized and rare addition to the diet. Yet low-class diets -- the beans & corn and squash of Central & South America, beans & rice in many areas, peas or lentils and rice (and veg) in Indian cuisine seems, by today's standards, a healthier diet than a tableful of roasts and sweets, as described in many medieval feasts. I believe the concept of 'salads' of raw greens were once thought poisonous. Specifics aside, we're told today that a 'healthy' diet consists of a balance of protein, fat, carbohydrates, vitamins, minerals, etc., etc. How many pre-20tth century diets were 'healthy' by contemporary analysis? How 'balanced' is balanced? Meat, veg and starch at every meal? A recommended daily allowance of everything every day? A pound of meat (in one meal) every 3 weeks and beans/grain the rest of the time? Veg in summer; grain and stored fat in winter? 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. So how many balanced, nutrition-complete diets have there been in history? |
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Frogleg" > wrote in message ... > On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 22:22:54 GMT, "Cookie Cutter" > > wrote: > > >>The poor > >> may have fared better nutritionally by foraging for field greens to > >> add to grain than the rich with abundant supplies of meat and little > >> else. > > > >Why would the rich not have anything other than meat? They would > >have had a house full of servants who would have kept the house > >well-supplied from a kitchen garden. > > Point taken. Although people tend to disparage 'low class' items and > favor the rare and expensive. 'White' (refined flour) bread was an > upper-class treat (see 'Heidi') Meat has often been a prized and rare > addition to the diet. Yet low-class diets -- the beans & corn and > squash of Central & South America, beans & rice in many areas, peas or > lentils and rice (and veg) in Indian cuisine seems, by today's > standards, a healthier diet than a tableful of roasts and sweets, as > described in many medieval feasts. I believe the concept of 'salads' > of raw greens were once thought poisonous. Specifics aside, we're > told today that a 'healthy' diet consists of a balance of protein, > fat, carbohydrates, vitamins, minerals, etc., etc. How many pre-20tth > century diets were 'healthy' by contemporary analysis? How 'balanced' > is balanced? Meat, veg and starch at every meal? A recommended daily > allowance of everything every day? A pound of meat (in one meal) every > 3 weeks and beans/grain the rest of the time? Veg in summer; grain and > stored fat in winter? > > 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. > > So how many balanced, nutrition-complete diets have there been in > history? How are you frogleg - haven't spoken to you for a while..... What about diets from the Far East regions (coastal China, Vietnam, Myanmar etc etc) where there were according to a number of contemporary reports, meals of rice (not polished, generally), vegetables and fish; some accounts of African diets - as far as I can recall - from again coastal regions; the diets from the 'cradle of civilisation' - the 'Fertile Crescent', etc Have some reading material at home - will find it if you're interested. Cheers --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.583 / Virus Database: 369 - Release Date: 10/02/2004 |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 17:47:12 -0000, "ahem" >
wrote: > >"Frogleg" > wrote >> people tend to disparage 'low class' items and >> favor the rare and expensive. 'White' (refined flour) bread was an >> upper-class treat (see 'Heidi') Meat has often been a prized and rare >> addition to the diet. Yet low-class diets... >> seem, by today's >> standards, a healthier diet than a tableful of roasts and sweets, as >> described in many medieval feasts. >> How many pre-20tth >> century diets were 'healthy' by contemporary analysis? >> >> My belief (unsubstantiated by research) is that we have a fondness for >> calorie-dense foods -- fat & sweet -- because plain ol' calories >> supported life. >> >> So how many balanced, nutrition-complete diets have there been in >> history? >What about diets from the Far East regions (coastal China, Vietnam, Myanmar >etc etc) where there were according to a number of contemporary reports, >meals of rice (not polished, generally), vegetables and fish; some accounts >of African diets - as far as I can recall - from again coastal regions; the >diets from the 'cradle of civilisation' - the 'Fertile Crescent', etc > >Have some reading material at home - will find it if you're interested. This is kind of what I meant. There *must* be healthy (balanced?) diets through history that sustained life adequately . Rice, veg, & fish sounds good to me. Maybe my question would have been better framed as 'unbalanced diet.' I haven't done a great deal of reading on the subject, but medieval upper-class menus seem awfully dependent on meat and sweets. A good deal of extended lifespan today, I believe, has to do with adequate nutrition. People can *survive* on very limited diets, but not thrive. 'Angela's Ashes' about a poor Irish family mentions feeding babies with sugar-water when milk was unavailable/expensive. Supplying calories, but not the minerals, protein and vitamins necessary for health. The caveman (and his family) was mostly after enough calories to support life. It doesn't matter much if you eat a carrot and have enough vitamin A to keep your vision good when that's *all* you have to eat. In some sense, we have gone to the opposite corner -- a $1 fast food burger is 650 calories -- a bunch of broccoli on sale this week is $2. Few calories not a 'meal' but useful nonetheless. So how many historical, common diets were 'balanced'? |
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
>
>So how many historical, common diets were 'balanced'? > The answer is virtually all. If they were not, the societies in which they were consumed would not have survived. It doesn't take much to suffer from vitamin deficiencies-- pellagra, rickets, scurvy, rickets, etc. Without protein the body decays quickly. Without meeting basic nutritional diets, people would therefore die before reproducing. One problem is the "statistics" that are used to describe people's diets usually refer to products sold or major products cultivated. Most people consume much greater variety than statistics suggest. I've always loved the quote for Joseph Fielding: "How can any man complain of hunger," said Peter, "in a country where such excellent salads, are to be gathered in almost every field?" [Joseph Fielding. The History of the Adventures of Joseph Andrews and His Friend Mr. Abraham Adams. London: A. Millar, 1742.] Also, it isn't just what you eat, it is how it is prepared and what you eat it with. Diets of indigenous peoples in Central America, for instance, are 70 percent corn (maize). By nutritional standards they should be dead. But they prepare the corn through a process call nixtimalization, which frees up necessary proteins. They also combine corn with beans, and the combination produces different proteins than consuming the foods separately, etc. Andy Smith |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article >, Frogleg
> wrote: > On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 22:22:54 GMT, "Cookie Cutter" > > 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). 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. > > 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. Certainly when I travel south and east from Italy I'll have to go a long long way (In Ethiopa/sudan, the result of war and corruption, rather than native choice) before I'll find anything other than a delicious, well-balanced diet. Lazarus -- Remover the rock from the email address |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Frogleg > nattered on
m: > 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 Were these sketches made before or during the Hunger? Were these sketches of English origin? If so, specifically what text accompanied them in publication? There was a great deal of racism in English portrayal of the Irish. |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Frogleg > wrote in message >. ..
> 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? So that it forms the basis of a complete, balanced meal. In fact, I'm having a Caesar salad with grilled chicken on it for dinner tonight. No other meat will be served. Would you find it noteworthy if the grilled chicken were served on a separate plate? (The salad dressing forms a sauce for the chicken, by the way.) I'll agree that we USAians are obsessed with meat. It's hard to get my husband to consider a meatless meal, although I can manage it once in a while. Cindy Hamilton |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Lazarus Cooke wrote:
> In article >, Frogleg > > wrote: > >>On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 22:22:54 GMT, "Cookie Cutter" > 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 look at paleodiets would substantiate this. Animal fats were sufficiently prized that bones were cracked to get the marrow. Offal was eaten, including brains, for that same reason. Ripe fruits in season were prized and the gathering of honey has been documented in cave drawings. Watching the behaviors of our closest primate relatives documents the apparently instinctual attraction of these foods. Chimps hunt and kill prey between bouts of fruit eating. >>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. Given that they ate potatoes virtually exclusively and about 3 million did eat them exclusively, the amount of 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). > > 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. The potato was problematic all across Europe. The blight was endemic in England as well as Ireland. European potato crops had been wiped out earlier in the century by a different disease caused by the fusarium fungus. No other culture was as hard-hit as the subsistence-level Irish farmers. But out of more than 8 million counted in the census of 1841 (and which was undoubtedly a good deal less than the actual count in 1846), more than a million starved and another 1.5 million emigrated. By the census of 1851, the population was reduced to just over 6 million. Since many lived in remote and inaccessible places, it is likely that far more people died than has been estimated. Ireland is a relatively small island with many rivers. Fish abound all through and around it. The soil will support root crops of all sorts. Cabbages and other brassicas will do fine. It's called the Emerald Isle because it's so green. The gulf stream warms it, it virtually never snows and I've stood under palm trees in Dublin. There have been several famines in Ireland between 900 and 1900. There were others in the early 19th century, all exacerbated by barbaric British regulations and laws. [Famine: "The Irish Experience 900-1900: Subsistence Crises and Famines in Ireland." E. Margaret Crawford (Editor)] Farmers could grow triple the amount of potatoes as grain on the same amount of land. A single acre of potatoes could support a family for a year. About half of Ireland's population depended on potatoes for subsistence. "To increase their harvest, farmers came to rely heavily on one variety, the lumper. While the lumper was among the worst-tasting types, it was remarkably fertile, with a higher per-acre yield than other varieties. Economist Cormac O'Grada estimates that on the eve of the famine, the lumper and one other variety, the cup, accounted for most of the potato crop. For about 3 million people, potatoes were the only significant source of food, rarely supplemented by anything else. [...] "At the beginning of the 19th century, a Dublin Society survey recorded at least a dozen varieties of potato cultivated in the county of Kilkenny alone. Then, adults could still remember when most of the poor raised oats, barley, or rye, along with beans and other green vegetables. But according to O'Grada, this diversity had largely disappeared by the 1840s. [...] "Although the potatoes were ruined completely, plenty of food grew in Ireland that year. Most of it, however, was intended for export to England. There, it would be sold--at a price higher than most impoverished Irish could pay." A wonderful article, "The Irish Potato Famine." Catharina Japikse [EPA Journal - Fall 1994] <http://www.epa.gov/history1/topics/perspect/potato.htm> It would seem that peasants don't choose healthy diets. > I was myself very surprised by this, I must admit, but > I've talked to the author about it and he is totally convincing. One reviewer took this information from the book: "The Irish diet of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was reflective of their cattle economy: meat and milk products for the gentry and meat scraps, offal and milk products for the poorer Irish. They had long cultivated cereals and legumes. Potatoes made their appearance during this time, but they were meant only to supplement other foods, and were not intended to be the primary, indeed the only, food source. [...] "Clarkson and Crawford examine tea drinking in post-Famine Ireland, noting that while there was a good deal of regional variation, tea consumption per capita increased from 0.5 pounds to 2.2 pounds between the late 1830s and the early 1860s. Tea drinking spread in the 1870s and the 1880s, so much so that by 1904 the Irish were consuming more tea than tea drinkers in the British Isles. Not only did the Irish drink large amounts of tea, but they also drank the best available tea. The cost of tea and sugar for the tea that they drank very sweet cost the Irish 20% of their food income in 1904." "Feast and Famine: Food and Nutrition in Ireland 1500-1920." Maureen Murphy. Hofstra University. <http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/paper/murphyM.html> It would seem that peasants don't choose healthy diets. >>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. Peasant societies develop a diet from what's available. Through most of history, peasants have eked out a rather bare living. That some developed the notions of eating beans and corn together or that others found out ways to process otherwise toxic foods says that the breadth of availablities was narrow. Why be forced to suffer malnutrition until some soul puts together corn and beans by happy accident if other, healthier sources are generally available? Information and educational levels are more significant contributors to societal health. Even in modern times with (somewhat) greater access to medical care, peasants, by whatever name the culture uses, live shorter, more difficult lives. From Pubmed, "Mortality in Asia." <http://tinyurl.com/yrhgf> Excerpts: "Generally, rural areas exhibited higher infant mortality than urban areas. The level of child mortality declines with increases in the mother's educational level in Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Thailand." And "In most countries, particularly in South Asia, population is expected to increase by 75%, much of it in rural areas and among poorer socioeconomic groups." > 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. Nonsense. Until you got here, it was reasonable, if certainly debatable. This generalization that's supposed to cover 300 million people and their food supplies across every climate and geological terrain from arctic to desert, mountain to plain, seacoast to inland is just too broad to credit. This sort of assertion seems to assume that the U.S. sprang into existence with no antecedents and no new food notions being continuously introduced. Foods from every nation on earth can be found here. Food handling ideas from every culture on earth can be found here. People who brought their recipes, utensils, methods and preferences are here. If it was healthy back home, it'll still be healthy here. In my international travels (Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia), I've found food that was great and food that was bad (quality, not tastes). It's frankly rather silly to characterize any nation's food as though it existed homogeneously. There is a great number of regional cuisines in the U.S. just as there is in every large, settled land mass. The U.S. has probably the best raw-material food on earth (as well as some admitted crap, but so does everybody), and with with the resurgence of significant levels of artisanal food production and departures from the mainstream agribusiness approach, some of the best finished foods, as well. The most-processed foods can be found in Japan and other Asian countries. Americans have the greatest choice of foods and their nutritional implications. The greatest breadth of choices is accompanied by very detailed nutrition labeling. It's a matter of choice. They can choose the quality levels they want. Clearly, the choices have not been as wise as could be. But a significant percentage of the American populace live in rural areas and could be considered modern peasants. It would seem that peasants don't choose healthy diets. Actually, educated urban-dwellers seem to choose more wisely. From Pubmed, "International Conference on nutrition." <http://tinyurl.com/2bkml> "WHO scientists reviewed data from 26 developed and 16 developing countries from the period 1960-89: 20 countries showed increases ranging up to 160% in death rates from diet-related and life-style-related causes. The biggest decreases were in Australia, Canada, Japan, and the USA where education advised people to limit intakes of fat, saturated fat, and salt as well as to increase exercise and reduce smoking." > Interestingly, > other very rich countries such as Japan and Italy have a very > well-balanced diet. Italy is having a plague of obesity *greater* than the U.S., Europe in general, and Australia. The nation's doctors are now asserting that Italy has the greatest percentage of obese children of any country. Japan has done well with their public health issues, but that's largely because they've modified their traditional diet by reducing the amount of sodium being consumed and eating a wider diversity of foods. But an alarm has been raised recently about the increase of fat in their diet with all the diseases that can result from that condition. > Certainly when I travel south and east from Italy I'll have to go a > long long way (In Ethiopia/sudan, the result of war and corruption, > rather than native choice) before I'll find anything other than a > delicious, well-balanced diet. That question of what a "well-balanced diet" is remains open. Research into the subject has turned up some surprises and that work is ongoing and will be for a long time. Delicious is in the eye of the beholder. Developed nations offer their citizens the greatest number of choices for their food. It doesn't mean they'll choose wisely. Indeed, they haven't. World-wide. Whether the fault lies in deliberate choices of nutritionally bad food when better could be purchased, or bad food was the only food available, humans don't have a good record for healthy eating until relatively recent times. Attribute it more to mass media than folk wisdom. Pastorio |
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 17:21:30 -0500, Bob > wrote:
<snip, cut, tear> >Developed nations offer their citizens the greatest number of choices >for their food. It doesn't mean they'll choose wisely. Indeed, they >haven't. World-wide. Whether the fault lies in deliberate choices of >nutritionally bad food when better could be purchased, or bad food was >the only food available, humans don't have a good record for healthy >eating until relatively recent times. Attribute it more to mass media >than folk wisdom. Whew! Very interesting post (and references). I agree with most of what you wrote. And "mass media" promoting a steaming Whopper is certainly more persuasive than a CNN report on, say, childhood obesity. It is odd that some 'peasant' food has historically been inadequate in terms of total calories and nutrients, and is now harmful by way of excess fat and sugar. Upscale food outlets offer coarse "stone ground" cornmeal and bunches of dandelion greens at astronomical prices. Many things seem to have switched places. A bacon-cheeseburger is cheap; a salad of field greens luxurious. I do doubt folk wisdom. Traditional diets in the southern US are bloody awful! Pork side-meat with everything, plus sugar.*Good* diets must be few and far-between. Maybe the ancients weren't *wise* to choose beans&corn or lentils&rice, but just happily stumbled on an economical combination that seemed to work. folk wisdom -- spend a few hours waiting at the DMV and imagine how many clients you'd like to have planning your meals. Much less driving on the same roads. (What *was* that guy with a white cane doing there?) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Balanced Diet Plan | Mexican Cooking | |||
What exactly is a balanced diet for an individual | General Cooking | |||
Chinese food - Eat a Healthy and Balanced Diet | General Cooking | |||
Chinese food - Eat a Healthy and Balanced Diet | Wine | |||
Chinese food - Eat a Healthy and Balanced Diet | Historic |