RoR: Forum

[blush]

Post 21

Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 6:23pm

Kelly,

I took a look at Weston A. Price site. Very interesting. I bookmarked it in my Favorites.

I am visiting my parents after a long time (about 30 years) and my mother is pretty fanatical about nutrition. She is addicted to a program on cable hosted by Doug Kaufmann called Know the Cause. Here is the site:

http://www.knowthecause.com/

I have listened in on this program over the last couple of months and it makes a LOT of sense to me. Despite a Christian orientation, his documentation, etc., seems to be impeccable. Much of his nutritional information and viewpoints are very similar to those I saw on the Weston A. Price site.

His focus, however, is on the damage mycotoxins (and their brothers, sisters, cousins and whole damn family) wreak on humans. From what I have been able to fathom, a mycotoxin is fungus doody. So it doesn't matter if you kill fungi. The chemical doody is still left behind - and when we eat it, bad things happen.

And it doesn't matter whether fungi come from organic farmers who are not careful or industrialized food like grain (corn for instance) sitting around in a silo before being transported for processing.

Good nutrition is rational self-interest. I have become interested in it.

Michael

Post 22

Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 6:57pm

From what I've read about nutrition, a healthy diet depends heavily on one's individual ancestry and physiology. So, a generalization of this or that is healthier is nonsensical. It all depends on the person in question.

I don't know all the details of Dr. Byrnes work or history, but the presence of naturopathy in his credentials makes my spidey-sense go off. If he's approaching it from the idea that there are natural substances that work as well as synthetics substances in addition to diet and exercise that are conducive to health I think that's fine. If, however, he is of the opinion that there is a healing "power" in humans that can overcome all illness without the aid of medicine, well, he's a quack. Either way, he's cited his sources (something I've never seen a vegetarian argument for health do) so that earns points in my book.

In the end it's a personal issue. Discussing it outside of the context of ethics or some such thing isn't of much use.

Post 23

Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 9:00pm

Kelly,

Although I am most emphatically a carnivore, I do to eat veggies. But I admit a lot less than I probably should. I've never thought that they were not important, in fact I actually eat some everyday, just not in the variety and portions that I probaly should. You know whenever you cook them I always eat some, like a good boy. If you were my personal chef then lack of veggies would never be a problem for me. Actually when I become very wealthy, a personal chef is one of my first indulgences.

Sarah,

Could you elaborate on what you mean by how eating healthy can only be judged in the context of ethics? And how do you determine how far back to go in one's ancestry before you can formulate the nutritional priciples that are applicable to each individual?

Aquinas

Post 24

Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 9:23pm

Here is my theory on nutrition, also known as the KISS method:

1) Eat what you like. If it's decadent, eat just a little. If it's healthy, eat more than that.

2) Try to balance your diet with a well-rounded assortment of foods.

3) Leave a little bit on your plate at the end of every meal. (Ok, unless it's really, really good -- but no seconds!!)

Can't go wrong.

Post 25

Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 11:48pm

Jennifer,

That is a great method as a rule of thumb. Despite my antifungal musings, that is basically what I do. Except...

Since I have what you could call a compulsive personality at times, it sometimes turns into the SLOB method:

1) Eat what you like. If it's decadent, eat more than enough. If it's healthy, eat that too.

2) Don't ever worry about balance if there is a pizza around.

3) Leave on your plate only the bones you have sucked dry. (Ok, but unless it's really, really good -- don't lick the plate!!)

//;-)

Michael

Post 26

Friday, April 15, 2005 - 12:17am

OK, occasionally I do succumb to your #1. As for the others, here is my take on them:

2) Substitute foie gras for pizza.

3) Plate is lickable if portion is egregiously small.

Post 27

Friday, April 15, 2005 - 9:54am

Aquinas,

Oops, started mixing my pronouns at the end. My intention was to say that nutrition is a personal issue and strict vegetarianism shouldn't be discussed outside of an ethical context.

As for the ancestry, I'm not an expert so I can only give you a speculative answer. I'd say it depends on the degree to which one's genes are mixed with genes of folks from other geographic areas. For example, a "pure" Irishman could have different dietary needs than someone with a mixture of south-eastern Asian area descent based on what kinds of food were available throughout history in those areas. Although, depending on how quickly such things can be "bred out" of a person it could be significantly less important now and in the future because of the availability of new varieties of food in some areas. Also, things like diabetes, etc. can play a factor in a healthy diet.

Post 28

Friday, April 15, 2005 - 1:45pm