Maggie's FarmWe are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for. |
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Categories
QuicksearchLinks
Blog Administration |
Sunday, July 10. 2016Healthy diet, food fetishism, food fads, primitive diets, etc.
In other words, Americans are the last people in the world who ought to fetishize the idea of "healthy" food. That is probably why we are the only people who do. The nutritional science which has the most value involves diseases of malnutrition, which are absent in the Western world. The knowledge that has general applicability concerns the roles of protein, carbs, and fats in the diet, perhaps the role of vitamins, and the new information about how people become fat. Furthermore, some foods are disparaged as unhealthy for no reason. Consider steak and burgers, ice cream, and so forth. People say "Eat fruits, greens, and vegetables." Why? They are just sometimes-tasty fillers with minimal nutrients but which can be fun to eat if done right. Is orange juice "healthy"? Depends what you mean. It's flavored sugar water and some people prefer it to plain water. Is chocolate "bad for you"? Of course not. It is wonderful food. People talk about what foods are "nutritious." In the Western world, that is an absurd notion. Lots of guys in the NBA were raised on Frosted Flakes, Doritos, hot dogs, Coke, MacDonalds, and school lunch slops. Highly nutritious. The only people who should eat brown rice and whole wheat bread are people who prefer the flavor. The only people who should pay any attention to nutrition are parents of growing kids, people who are overweight, and athletes and others with heavy physical work. In the prosperous Western world, you are not what you eat - so people ought to eat what they like and what they can afford and ignore the health marketing hype and ignore the health superstitions. I can tell you why our family meals consist of what they do: Tradition, preferences, and nothing more. Does Classifying Food as 'Healthy' or 'Unhealthy' Miss the Point? A handful of experts weigh in on a survey of nutritionist and consumer perceptions. What do/did traditional cultures eat? One quote:
Also, the traditional English country diet: Bread, cheese, and ale
Posted by Dr. Joy Bliss
in Medical, Physical Fitness, Psychology, and Dr. Bliss
at
13:10
| Comments (8)
| Trackbacks (0)
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Bread,cheese and ale did seem to suffice in getting the British around the world although I do believe roast beef played its part too.
...nobody reading this website is in any danger of being malnourished. Overnourished, more likely.
Except for all the ailments caused by all the empty, malnourishing calories ketogenic zealots proselytize against, one assumes. Sinew is in/healthy so alfredo pizza with a side of cheezy breadsticks and a brace of 32oz Cokes plus cake are right out because of the over-nourishment. But the bolded, not-so-subtle shift from lifestyling rightist Science! leads to the vague and undefinable nourishment canard - surely nobody is going to starve from a steady diet of fries and that assumption leads to supporting the assertions that follow: It's all good as long as it's not not fat. (Further, fat is not fat but carbs are fat, but that's another subject just as fraught with contradiction.) Most interesting is the lack of specificity when the subject of health and disease per diet must inevitably turn from the failing former scientism of pop-cultural Science! of carnism - itself a fad and a cult - as all other aspects of the real research and science have been and shall be ruled off the dinner table by that cultural preference. Nutrition is the thing now, provided it reference a narrow segment, that being malnutrition, presumably by starvation. (I'm trying to fill in all the gaps, so bear with me.) Ergo, I like it so I'll protect it. To protect I'll shift the narrative. Shifting the narrative allows me to hold to the tacit but equally vague notion of science-by-popularity and there I can slip in malnutrition, perhaps tied to simple calories. The nutritional science which has the most value involves diseases of malnutrition, which are absent in the Western world. There it is: Naturally it's not valuable to consider health by diet when value means something else. Circular but reassuring while the actual science is right out. Furthermore, some foods are disparaged as unhealthy for no reason. Consider steak and burgers, ice cream, and so forth. People say "Eat fruits, greens, and vegetables." Why? They are just sometimes-tasty fillers with minimal nutrients but which can be fun to eat if done right. Is orange juice "healthy"? Depends what you mean. It's flavored sugar water and some people prefer it to plain water. Is chocolate "bad for you"? Of course not. It is wonderful food. A passage of culturally-popular rubbish balanced precariously on that foregone conclusion - one naturally sans factuality - that when diet is not friendly to a cultural preconception a variant of it can still be framed specifically for cultural preference. In this case that starvation is all there is to ill health. And in closing, ignore the health marketing hype and ignore the health superstitions ...having unmoored health from health, simply conflate any diet that doesn't appeal to preconceived cultural preferences and logical fallacies with fraud. That's a tidy argument. Unscientific but not unpredicatable. So foolish is the OP's trajectory and the general cult thereof that I don't really care if anyone responds, but I said how many fallacies can one pack into a handful of paragraphs.
I've never understood what people mean when they say "nutritious," anyway, unless they mean calorie-dense, which they rarely seem to. There's a lot of confusion about what a "nutrient" is. At various times, I may be concerned about getting something like fiber into more of my food, not because it's "nutritious" but because it's filling-per-calorie, or helpful with elimination functions. Or I may want to cut back on something like refined carbohydrates, not because they're not "nutritious," but because I want to see the effect on my insulin regulation. But most of the time, I just want to hit the right number of calories for my activity level, without suffering any undue hunger. For me, that usually involves making very little room for dairy and grains--wonderful foods, but harder for me to eat in moderation than many other foods I enjoy.
Totally agree Dr. B.
Mrs Gone took the grandkids to a party so I indulged one of my guilty pleasures. I went to the local theater and bought the large bucket of popcorn for lunch. It was a toss up between that and a huge package of fresh made chocolate chip cookies at Safeway. But since I just did that two days ago I went with the popcorn. |