Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 84
  1. Collapse Details
    #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Charlottesville, va
    Posts
    2,646
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by ahalpert View Post
    I've heard that industrial farming has driven people from the country. You can't compete with that business model if no one is willing to pay you more for the difference. Then, there's the government subsidies
    In conversations with some friends who'd lived in rural NC... giant corporate pig farms don't make great neighbors

    FWIW, an article. You may note the globalism in play with the usual suspects:
    https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-world-122892/
    Pudgy bearded camera guy
    http://mcbob.tv


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #32
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by mcbob View Post
    It's a step.

    One of the characteristics of indoor operations is that they are, essentially, CAFOs for plants. The facility operator tightly controls every single input in nutrient and environment. Obvious upsides to raw production numbers, but what does nature & the trillions of wild soil microorganisms know that the greenhouse operator never will? In other words, to echo one of Puredrifting's points... you'll get a big tomato, but what sort of flavor and nutrient value will that tomato have? Are you ultimately better off than just sitting back watching Netflix and letting TomatoCorp grow them for you?
    In my youth, I spent my summer months on a micro farm (aka dacha). The lot was 600m2, including a small two story house (refer to the recent posts in the "old photos" thread). Seeds had to be planted in April-May and fruits and vegetables harvested by October. The climate was close to what one gets near the Great Lakes. The output was sufficient for half a dozen people for about four months, except the apples. We had seventeen apple trees and could eat apples into December.

    I'd speculate that a multi level greenhouse, with individual beds for the individual fruits and veggies, could cover most family needs. It's definitely not void of work but one should be able to grow "healthier" food. We were losing some to the very natural worms, flies and alike but could also pick whatever was available, wash it and consume it right away.

    PS. About two miles from us, there was an actual "kolkhoz". A few times each summer, we'd walk to that village - can you say "rustic"? - to buy some fresh milk. Fresh, as in, "wait until the cows home home ... we'll milk them for you". The farmers used gauze to physically filter the milk but it was a tasty treat, still warm from the cow's body.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #33
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by ahalpert View Post
    I've known loads of people who exercised daily (more intensive than a 40-min walk) and ate "healthfully" but were never happy with their weight.

    ...

    Do most obese people owe their condition to consuming bad food? Maybe. But it's notable to me that people who eat "well" can't lose weight or can't maintain the diet. And counting calories is a crock of s*%t IMO.
    I suspect we agree on a lot of things. I am a bit suspicious of any food advice that comes in the form of a diagram with little pictures. That triangle will tend to push people toward eating a lot of cabohydrate, the bottom layer, which is okay if there's a lot, and I mean a lot, of fibre in it. Problem is, an awful lot of carbs these days have a lot of the fibre removed, and as a result they contain quite a few calories while not keeping you feeling full for long.

    That said, it is worth reiterating the fact that if you eat fewer calories than you expend you will lose weight. That's a very simplistic view, of course, and the trick is to figure out a way of doing that so it isn't an absolute chore, but the numbers do not lie. I control my weight with a very loose, approximate calorie count, and I know very well that if I eat calorie-dense foods, I may well have to go to bed hungry.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #34
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,514
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Rhodes View Post
    I am a bit suspicious of any food advice that comes in the form of a diagram with little pictures.
    Sorry, I forgot you're in the UK. That little diagram is the American food pyramid that I was widely exposed to as a child. I think I remember seeing it on the back of cereal boxes and definitely in school. But apparently I'm dating myself, because in 2005 it was replaced with this, which is similar but less hierarchical and also emphasizes exercise:

    MyPyramidFood.svg.jpg

    And then in 2011, apparently the pyramid was replaced with a plate:

    434px-USDA_MyPlate_green.svg.jpg

    Sort of an improvement, but still very anti-fat. And not everyone tolerates dairy.

    Below is the attempt at a similar simplistic graphic by the nutritionists I settled on following about 10 years ago when I did a deep dive on the topic. Their dietary/lifestyle recommendations are not based on a theory of nutrition but on an exhaustive reading of nutritional experiments and studies to determine the optimal range of various nutrients. The interplay is quite complex: too much Vitamin A can lead to a Vitamin D deficiency because Vitamin D will be consumed in dealing with the excess Vitamin A. Too much Vitamin D can lead to a Vitamin K deficiency. You can't have too much Vitamin K because your body will just pee out the excess. (As a result, multivitamins that include Vitamin A have been shown to cause more harm than good because most westerners are already getting enough Vitamin A from food but struggling to get enough Vitamin D, which is most effectively obtained from sun exposure.)

    At the end of the day, as they say themselves, their recommendations roughly align with the maxim, "Eat food. Mostly plants. Not too much." But they talk a lot about how different foods are processed by your body, by your liver, what is the impact on your insulin or other hormone levels, etc.

    I think you're right about fiber. And of course there are different types of fiber. But gluten seems well-designed to disrupt your digestion. Probably because "Grains are edible dry seeds from plants called cereals," and plants generally try to get their seeds through our guts intact. I think that, similarly, white rice is easier to digest than brown rice. People talk about brown rice having more protein, but I don't think it's a useful protein, it is probably counterproductive to digestion. Whereas the white rice itself, while being pretty limited in terms of vitamins and micronutrients, is basically straight glucose and extremely easy to digest and put to work.

    PHD_Apple_plate-cropped.jpg
    http://perfecthealthdiet.com/the-diet/

    These nutritionists don't favor beans and peanuts either and I can't remember why although they can be tough on digestion. At any rate, I don't follow their guidelines religiously.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    7,021
    Cool
    Quote Originally Posted by ahalpert View Post
    Whereas the white rice itself, while being pretty limited in terms of vitamins and micronutrients, is basically straight glucose and extremely easy to digest and put to work.
    It's great if you are able to burn that glucose through your daily activities, but that spike in blood sugar can lead to insulin-resistance, prediabetes, and will be stored as fat if it's still around when you go to sleep. Most of us in the Western world eat way too many carbs and end up being fat because of it.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #36
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,514
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDingo View Post
    It's great if you are able to burn that glucose through your daily activities, but that spike in blood sugar can lead to insulin-resistance, prediabetes, and will be stored as fat if it's still around when you go to sleep. Most of us in the Western world eat way too many carbs and end up being fat because of it.
    Tell it to the Japanese. I mean, I think it would be bad to eat white rice by itself. But if you eat it in combination with other ingredients, it should be fine. And also not too much


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    7,021
    Cool
    Quote Originally Posted by ahalpert View Post
    Tell it to the Japanese. I mean, I think it would be bad to eat white rice by itself. But if you eat it in combination with other ingredients, it should be fine. And also not too much
    The traditional Japanese diet ( i.e. pre 1950s ) is nutritious and is one of the reasons for Japan's famous longevity, but since the 1950s more and more Japanese have adopted America's eating habits leading to a rise in cancer and obesity rates. The main difference between white and brown rice is the brown rice fiber which slows digestion and prevents blood sugar spikes.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #38
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,514
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDingo View Post
    The traditional Japanese diet ( i.e. pre 1950s ) is nutritious and is one of the reasons for Japan's famous longevity, but since the 1950s more and more Japanese have adopted America's eating habits leading to a rise in cancer and obesity rates. The main difference between white and brown rice is the brown rice fiber which slows digestion and prevents blood sugar spikes.
    According to this article, the Japanese were eating twice as much rice 50 years ago:

    Since the end of the 1960s, rice production in Japan has been strictly regulated and generously subsidized by the Japanese government. It is almost entirely sold in the domestic market. But the vagaries of history and the lifestyle change of the Japanese population have resulted in a drop in rice consumption of more than 50% in 40 years.
    https://www.japan-experience.com/to-.../rice-in-japan

    Also, their obesity rate is only rising slowly even while calorie consumption has decreased:

    DRjC9oNVAAAW0yC.jpg


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #39
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,514
    Default
    And a bit on the antinutrients in brown rice here, which is a separate matter from the fact that brown rice contains valuable micronutrients that white rice lacks:

    Brown Rice Contains Antinutrients and May Be Higher in Arsenic
    Antinutrients are plant compounds that may reduce your body’s ability to absorb certain nutrients. Brown rice contains an antinutrient known as phytic acid, or phytate.

    It may also contain higher amounts of arsenic, a toxic chemical.

    Phytic Acid
    While phytic acid may offer some health benefits, it also reduces your body’s ability to absorb iron and zinc from the diet (3Trusted Source, 4Trusted Source).

    Over the long term, eating phytic acid with most meals may contribute to mineral deficiencies. However, this is very unlikely for people who eat a varied diet.

    Arsenic
    Brown rice may also be higher in a toxic chemical called arsenic.

    Arsenic is a heavy metal that is naturally present in the environment, but it has been increasing in some areas due to pollution. Significant amounts have been identified in rice and rice-based products (5Trusted Source, 6Trusted Source, 7Trusted Source, 8Trusted Source, 9Trusted Source).

    Arsenic is toxic. Long-term consumption may increase your risk of chronic diseases including cancer, heart disease and type 2 diabetes (10Trusted Source, 11Trusted Source, 12Trusted Source).

    Brown rice tends to be higher in arsenic than white rice (13Trusted Source, 14).
    https://www.healthline.com/nutrition...OC_TITLE_HDR_7

    And the thinking of the nutritionists I follow:

    It’s very simple – in regard to plant foods we believe avoiding toxins is of paramount importance, grains tend to have bad toxins, if there are toxins in rice they’re in the protein which is largely removed in the milling of white rice.

    Grains do not provide much micronutrition, so you’re just trying to get a macronutrient – glucose – from them, with as little toxicity as possible. White rice fits the bill better than brown rice.
    http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2010/11...-chicken-soup/


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    598
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by mcbob View Post
    Way back in my Animal Bioscience days at a mega-university, a lot of the animal nutrition course focused on crafting controlled diets from cheap ingredient and augmenting nutrients with additives.

    However, animals in concentrated housing on controlled diets are far more susceptible to disease, and thus have to be kept constantly medicated.
    It seems to me that this has but very little relevance to the content of those 2 books I mentioned.
    Those 2 books are most recent science, different from most previously held theories.

    Quote Originally Posted by mcbob View Post
    To contrast, animals raised in more free-range conditions with decently managed pasture commonly exhibit less disease pressure and require far less medication. The protein characteristics and fat marbling typically have a more complex and desirable nature, but vary based on specific pasture conditions. This can be considered a downside by producers wanting a defined, homogenized product. Other potential downsides are that they also show slower weight gain and production; there is some debatable raised risk for losses from injury sustained on the range; and controlling the herd requires a greater expenditure of man-hours and management. The farm operators don't get as wealthy, so free range is thus not a common husbandry practice.
    Ö
    As true as it is, it's but a very small part of the overall picture.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •