Anti-Sugar Elitism

Health, Fitness, Insurance, ...
ThisDinosaur
Posts: 492
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:31 am

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by ThisDinosaur » Fri Oct 14, 2016 7:47 am

If you've already accepted that some of your nutrition will come from off - site, shouldn't you somehow cost - optimize your crop choices? It seems like you should only grow expensive stuff (doubles as cash crops) and buy or barter for cheap stuff (soy and corn are both heavily subsidized) . The Pareto garden.

Also, I think Iskra Lawrence's particular charms have very little to do with her diet. Add thirty pounds and she'd still be built like a Paleolithic fertility icon.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 3806
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by Ego » Fri Oct 14, 2016 7:49 am

7Wannabe5 wrote: Nope, 'cause I am an elitist too ;) I've just been trying to do the math related to my stated goals of successful completion of perma-culture project, financial independence, and achieving something resembling the hip-healthy (healthy, hip) fitness profile of Iskra Lawrence on or before Autumnal Equinox 2022.
I apologize. I misunderstood.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 2551
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Fri Oct 14, 2016 9:50 am

Ego said: I apologize. I misunderstood.
No need. I was being provocative, and I am a self-aware sugar-fiend who is not yet living in full accordance with her stated ideals. For instance, it may be the case that I harvested a bunch of pears and apples from a friend's orchard last week, and my sister made some of them into a pie topped with sour cream and brown sugar streusel, and over the course of a couple days, I ate half of that pie (sigh.) Another thought I had was that processing food is often more labor-intensive than growing and harvesting food, but the efficiency of industrial processing has reversed the economic equation that made fine pastry a luxury food that only the affluent could afford in the time of Marie Antoinette. Nowadays, transportation and storage are more expensive, so fresh greens are a luxury food, and finely milled flour is dirt cheap.
ThisDinosaur said: If you've already accepted that some of your nutrition will come from off - site, shouldn't you somehow cost - optimize your crop choices? It seems like you should only grow expensive stuff (doubles as cash crops) and buy or barter for cheap stuff (soy and corn are both heavily subsidized) . The Pareto garden.
Because I am not interested in maximizing the cash value of my crop. I am also not interested in creating a model of isolated self-sufficiency. I am interested in creating a model that maximizes quality of life (inclusive of a diet that is nutritious and delicious) and sustainability. Defining the permaculture zones when you are in an urban or suburban setting is even more confusing than in a rural setting. Toby Hemenway offers the example of the idiotic redundancy of planting more pear trees on your property when the elderly woman who lives next door to you is not harvesting the pears on the trees in her yard. You should at least make the effort to introduce yourself and offer to help yourself by helping her. So, I am including some level, yet to be determined, of the social opportunity of barter within biking distance in my model. I am also including some yet to be exactly determined sustainable level of foraging in the "wilderness" or public commons in my model. I might even go so far as to figure out the sustainable share of public-access venison I could expect some hunter I was dating to provide me with, and then allow my affluent salaryman BF to provide me with an equivalent amount of Lemongrass Beef at the Vietnamese restaurant to which he transported me in his Chevy Volt -lol. But, the math just gets trickier and trickier. Also, there is a huge amount of expensive infrastructure, such as the road I pedal my bicycle along, which is difficult to take into the accounting. And, it is also difficult to determine what level of the mountain of stuff that is currently being designated as waste, such as brown paper bags full of leaves on the curb, to include in my model long-term. Short-term I am taking any free inputs I can scavenge.
Also, I think Iskra Lawrence's particular charms have very little to do with her diet. Add thirty pounds and she'd still be built like a Paleolithic fertility icon.
True-ish. Her genetic hormonal profile/tendencies and her fitness regimen are both factors in her health, appearance and abilities. I picked her as my icon because I tend towards the same hormonal profile, but not so much and aging. Since her regimen includes a great deal of strength training and individuals who engage in strength-training often consume very high protein diets, it is possible that I can't achieve this goal on a Vegan diet. Dunno.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 2260
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by BRUTE » Fri Oct 14, 2016 3:02 pm

7Wannabe5 wrote:Since her regimen includes a great deal of strength training and individuals who engage in strength-training often consume very high protein diets, it is possible that I can't achieve this goal on a Vegan diet. Dunno.
protein has zero to do with stretching, and stretching has zero to do with Iskra Lawrence's butt. the only benefit of stretching is increased range of motion, which is desirable only if required in a certain sport (high kicks in martial arts, ballet), or if ROM has atrophied enough to inhibit daily life (inability to squat/sit/stand up/lift things overhead). it's been established previously that 7wannabe5 does not suffer from atrophied joints and ROM, and has great squatting and overhead range of motion. insofar, unless she wants to engage in high kicks or ballet, stretching is a complete waste of time with a % of getting hurt.

protein in general is overrated. sure, it's vital, but it's also hard to not eat enough unless the subject is a bodybuilder or otherwise trains with heavy weights at high volume. the medical recommendation that even most athletes follow is 0.8g/lbs of lean body mass. this is agreed upon to be just about the most protein the body can use for rebuilding tissue, anything else is just being converted to glucose for energy and is thus a waste of amino acids.

being vegan is really the only way to even get too low in protein. in brute's not so humble opinion, apart from the moral stand point, there's really no reason to eat vegan or vegetarian at all. the only benefit is that it's not the SAD. anything that doesn't contain 30% of calories from sugar and 30% from wheat fried/baked in PUFAs is going to be an improvement compared to the SAD.

vegan is terrible to get a great butt. the secret of a great butt is the combination of butt muscles and the right amount of butt fat. the former is largely (<- haha) genetics and some training, mostly heavy squats and lunges. the latter is also partly genetics (fat distribution) and basically neither being so fat that the shape of the butt muscles is obscured, nor being so lean that there's nothing to see.

it sounds like 7wannabe5 has pretty good genetics in both regards, as she has previously posted about her waist hip ratio and all that. so the ingredients to 7wannabe5 getting a butt like Iskra Lawrence are probably something along the lines of:

1)some squatting and lunging or similar hip/glute exercises to form and exaggerate the glutes.
2)eating to sustain moderate muscle growth and a moderate amount of fat that looks good on the butt. veganism in general is counter productive to sustaining human life and nutrition, as humans aren't well adapted to eating plant matter, but it can be done. eating meat is easier.
3)ensuring that there isn't too much fat, which would obscure the waist to hip ratio and the shape of the glutes. this can be achieved through a diet controlling insulin and leptin levels and thereby hunger. many diets can achieve this, brute finds that the easiest ones for him are intermittent/prolonged fasting and keto. the nice thing about fasting is that it can be done with any diet.

steveo73
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by steveo73 » Fri Oct 14, 2016 5:59 pm

BRUTE wrote:being vegan is really the only way to even get too low in protein. in brute's not so humble opinion, apart from the moral stand point, there's really no reason to eat vegan or vegetarian at all. the only benefit is that it's not the SAD. anything that doesn't contain 30% of calories from sugar and 30% from wheat fried/baked in PUFAs is going to be an improvement compared to the SAD.
I find this interesting. From the research that I've done the most healthy diet is a vegan diet. Meat definitely leads to diseases like cancer etc.

I'm surprised you state something like that. Are there any facts that you have to back up your opinion.

A high meat diet which would be very different from what you state is unhealthy would also be extremely unhealthy.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 2260
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by BRUTE » Fri Oct 14, 2016 9:22 pm

steveo73 wrote:Meat definitely leads to diseases like cancer etc.
cancer is obviously complicated, but certain types of tumors can actually be prevented, controlled, or destroyed with a ketogenic diet, which is typically heavy in meat and super low in carbs.

many types of tumors can only "digest" sugars, as their fat metabolism is broken. this is actually the way cancer is detected in CAT scans, they look for concentrations of sugar in the body (or something like that, brute's never done it). so a keto diet can starve some types of cancer (e.g. glioblastoma in the brain) by depriving them of glucose.

if steveo73 is really interested, there are lots of book on this. brute recommends The Art and Science of Low-Carbohydrate Living by Phinney and Volek as a starting point.

steveo73
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by steveo73 » Fri Oct 14, 2016 10:46 pm

BRUTE wrote:
steveo73 wrote:Meat definitely leads to diseases like cancer etc.
cancer is obviously complicated, but certain types of tumors can actually be prevented, controlled, or destroyed with a ketogenic diet, which is typically heavy in meat and super low in carbs.

many types of tumors can only "digest" sugars, as their fat metabolism is broken. this is actually the way cancer is detected in CAT scans, they look for concentrations of sugar in the body (or something like that, brute's never done it). so a keto diet can starve some types of cancer (e.g. glioblastoma in the brain) by depriving them of glucose.

if steveo73 is really interested, there are lots of book on this. brute recommends The Art and Science of Low-Carbohydrate Living by Phinney and Volek as a starting point.
I just got this book and I will read it but I'm honestly extremely doubtful. I think the real question is how little meat is acceptable within a diet. My take is that finding that line and choosing the right meats is the real question. I have no idea where that line is or what the right meat is.

It's actually pretty difficult. I was going to eat prawns (shrimp) the other day. I decided I'd look it up and see if they are okay. I get the impression it's one of the worst meats to eat. I chose to eat sardines instead.

Carbohydrates are also extremely good for you. Yes white flour, white rice and white sugar aren't good for you but you can probably have these in moderation without any issues. How many asian cultures eat plenty of rice and are on the whole extremely healthy. Fruit and vegetables and beans are on the whole extremely healthy foods.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 3806
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by Ego » Fri Oct 14, 2016 10:59 pm

A friend of mine who owned a crossfit gym and held an age group record for cycling, died suddenly of a massive coronary a little more than a month ago. He was just a few years older than me. He was a big proponent of low carb paleo. I know... I know... it sounds like BS..... You can ask Jenny. I sent her the obit not long after it happened

These low carb diets seem to be great in the short term with weight loss and apparent performance gains. They are killers longterm.

Dr. Greger rips their underlying premise here: https://youtu.be/es4PFR5GZTY?t=2m12s

There are a few good resources that take the authors of Brute's book and pick them apart piece by piece. Google if necessary.

Also, the diet is anti-ere. They specifically say lentils should be avoided . Need I say more. :D

steveo73
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by steveo73 » Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:11 pm

I was just going to add this one as well:- http://nutritionfacts.org/video/does-ch ... ze-matter/. The same guy who wrote the book that Brute recommended is on this as well.

The problem with all of these low carbohydrate diets to me is that they have no factual backing or maybe better put they find a tiny tenuous study that supports their viewpoint and stick to it even if the evidence against that study is overwhelming.

I don't believe that low carb diets are good for anything. I think the whole premise is wrong. I'm interested in being as healthy as I can be. I'm not interested in being dogmatic. Steve Jobs died from cancer and he was a Vegan. There is no diet that is 100% guaranteed to protect you from the big killers. In stating that don't tell me that lentils and beans and fruit are bad for you or that a diet high in meat is good for you. The evidence against these types of propositions is I think at this point well and truly clear cut.

In stating all of that Dr Gregor is the best talker on diet and health that I've ever seen. He is completely sincere and consistently maintains his cool and composure while also being engaging when he talks. He could be spinning crap to me and I'd buy it.

ThisDinosaur
Posts: 492
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:31 am

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by ThisDinosaur » Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:28 pm

BRUTE wrote: many types of tumors can only "digest" sugars, as their fat metabolism is broken. this is actually the way cancer is detected in CAT scans, they look for concentrations of sugar in the body (or something like that, brute's never done it).
PET scans use radioactive sugar because it's taken up by metabolically active tissues. Cancers light up because unregulated growth requires lots of energy. Not because they can't metabolize fat.

Ketogenic diets kill cancer in vitro, but evidence outside the lab is lacking. I'm a big meat eater, but I'm convinced that for cancer prevention, a MOSTLY plant based diet is the most well supported. If you've already got cancer, diet won't help much.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 2260
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by BRUTE » Sat Oct 15, 2016 2:35 am

steveo73 wrote:The problem with all of these low carbohydrate diets to me is that they have no factual backing or maybe better put they find a tiny tenuous study that supports their viewpoint and stick to it even if the evidence against that study is overwhelming.
there are tons of studies and facts on which these diets are based, but tbh, brute is too lazy to argue this point again and again. everyone has to find things out on their own. brute don't care.

steveo73
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by steveo73 » Sat Oct 15, 2016 2:42 am

BRUTE wrote:
steveo73 wrote:The problem with all of these low carbohydrate diets to me is that they have no factual backing or maybe better put they find a tiny tenuous study that supports their viewpoint and stick to it even if the evidence against that study is overwhelming.
there are tons of studies and facts on which these diets are based, but tbh, brute is too lazy to argue this point again and again. everyone has to find things out on their own. brute don't care.
You should watch the video that I listed. I will read that book you provided but I bet it follows the same proposition. Basically they twist the facts to support their viewpoints.

Nutrition facts did a great one on coconut oil recently. There are a lot of people stating that it's a health food. It's not. What they do is they compare it to butter and state see it causes less problems than butter. That isn't really stating anything. It's a scientific study but the test and the conclusion are gamed to beat the system. The headline is coconut oil is healthy. The reality is that it's not.

Nutrition facts is the best website for factual information on diet and maybe better put it's the best site/book/resource on diet and nothing comes close. At this point I don't listen to anything regarding diet unless I see a clear scientific study that has been completed without any obvious bias.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 2551
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Sat Oct 15, 2016 8:14 am

An expression that is sometimes used to describe somebody who is financially broke-azz is "doesn't know where his next meal is coming from." Part of what I am attempting to do with this thread is to take the discussion about what constitutes a healthy diet beyond the realm of Zone 00 which will be defined as the boundary formed by any given human's skin sack. For instance, if we consider Zone 000 and define it as the boundary in which mental and/or spiritual health is created and maintained, maybe it is worth considering whether the fact that most of us literally do not possess knowledge about the origin of the components of our "next meal" is contributory to the low-buzz of anxiety with hard-to-pinpoint source many of us experience from time to time.

When we look out to Zones 1,2,3,4 and 5 is there any difference between investing in an apple tree that might bear fruit for 30 years, or a T-Bill that might bear interest for 30 years, or a marriage that might last for 30 years, or a roof that might last for 30 years? Are there things that seem to be similar when viewed from one perspective, but are in reality substantively different? Is there a limit to the size and complexity and range of a system in which a frail human can center himself securely?

Like most of you, I have lived as an affluent person in an affluent culture. Therefore, the only sort of decisions about food I have had to frequently make would be along the lines of what to order in the restaurant, what to buy at the well-stocked store, or what to cook for dinner from the well-stocked larder? The constraints being along the lines of "need to lose some weight", "child is picky eater" or "budget is $80/week." I learned to cook "from scratch" when I was quite young because both of my parents were lousy cooks, and I had 3 younger sisters who appreciated any efforts. I've been reading books on self-sufficient living and gardening off and on for decades. One reason why I am interested in attempting to create a model of sustainability is that it is not a solved problem.

So, the question I have for anybody who is proposing any sort of "ideal human diet" for Zone 00 is whether you can create a model that exhibits how this "ideal diet" could be provided to all the members of the current human population while retaining enough spare energy inputs to retain a level of culture that provides for decent performance of community symphony orchestra, and a healthy proportion of land space left to wilderness? I may very well be proven wrong, but my own personal experiments thus far, have led me to believe that adherence to any diet or fitness regime that was created with the primary objective of reducing or treating the temptations or tendencies created in a culture of affluence will prove to be too "expensive" to be included in this model. IOW, both adherence to a very high-protein diet in order to lower appestat, and the practice of riding bicycle to nowhere for no purpose beyond the burning of calories previously consumed will have to be excluded.

EMJ
Posts: 310
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 6:37 pm

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by EMJ » Sat Oct 15, 2016 11:15 am

Here's a "agri-food innovation" European project - 2,000 square meters - grow your own food (http://www.2000m2.eu/story/).
I can't figure out how much food they actually grew.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 2260
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by BRUTE » Sat Oct 15, 2016 11:46 am

steveo73 wrote:Nutrition facts did a great one on coconut oil recently. There are a lot of people stating that it's a health food. It's not. What they do is they compare it to butter and state see it causes less problems than butter.
brute considers butter a health food, too. lots of vitamins, healthy saturated fats (good for cholesterol and testosterone).

@7wannabe5:

brute isn't very often interested in these type of Kantian "could the whole world do it" solutions. the whole world couldn't be a psychoanalyst or philosopher, either, but that doesn't mean those aren't good choices.

chicago81
Posts: 253
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 3:24 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by chicago81 » Sat Oct 15, 2016 12:21 pm

Well, I think it might depend person to person... but for myself, I know my numbers from my doctor have been MUCH better, since severely restricting carbohydrates, and eating a lot more fats.

User avatar
GandK
Posts: 1874
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by GandK » Sun Oct 16, 2016 8:15 am

I suddenly feel as though my diet is under-designed.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 2551
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:58 am

GandK said: I suddenly feel as though my diet is under-designed.
Lol- Well, I am in the empty-nest pre-Grandma phase of life, so I have a lot of spare time on my hands. Seriously, like many of you thoughtful frugal folk, over the years, I have given consideration to such puzzles as "ideal diet for my own health and fitness", "planning menus to feed my family of four on $40/week", and "planning a vegetable garden according to the square foot method, and in alignment with what the people I will be feeding will actually eat ,and what I can actually grow without too much hassle in my micro-climate." On paper, or software, trying to optimize the overall system by maximizing nutrition and meeting personal preferences while minimizing cost and hassle is difficult enough. When you switch into real world mode and have to deal with "hottest June ever", "child who gags on beans", "husband who gets rash from tomatoes", "absent-minded cook who forgets to turn on crock-pot before leaving for work", "major infestation of fruit flies" , "preparing something resembling traditional Thanksgiving dinner for 13 people, including two vegan nieces, one paleo sister who doesn't eat any sugar/white foods, and two terrible foodie snobs for less than $5/person" etc. etc. etc. you learn that you also have to leave a huge margin for error.

One thing I recently re-learned about complexity is that it arises from the repetition of simple rules. Snowflakes, DNA, traffic lights, etc. I am not trying to be holier than thou when I make the observation that if any simple rule or set of rules (whether initial intention is good or evil) regarding what people eat is applied over and over again within a large population, there will be consequences. More like I am thinking "Isn't it interesting how this might work out?"
EMJ said: Here's a "agri-food innovation" European project - 2,000 square meters - grow your own food
Interesting. I especially like this:
Kitchens, canteens, restaurants and supermarkets – these are the places where we manage our 2000m² field: Every meal we eat, every food purchase we make, can be seen as an indirect order to our agricultural producers.
OTOH, IMO,like most models like this (although far better than current reality!), I have seen it errs a bit on the side of conventional organic farming of annual staple crops towards vegan diet. IOW, the part of the model where you either till a field and plant it with corn and feed it to humans, or you till a field and plant it with corn, and then feed it to hogs, is not validated in the real world where many animals can digest foods that humans can't digest. For simple instance, on my tiny urban homestead, I could feed mulberry leaves to meat rabbits, but not to myself. I could also ride my bicycle to the river and forage my fair share of fish from the wilderness. Also, the boxes where I am growing arugula near the kitchen door, the mini-orchard or food forest where I am growing fruit , the rough patch where I am growing potatoes this year, and the patch I might fine till in order to experiment with growing some oats next year, are not most efficiently or healthily managed through application of the same methods.
brute isn't very often interested in these type of Kantian "could the whole world do it" solutions. the whole world couldn't be a psychoanalyst or philosopher, either, but that doesn't mean those aren't good choices.
Well, I was suggesting a model based on parameters of my choosing in alignment with my "Adventure-Cottage-Library" lifestyle ideal. BRUTE and chicago81 might prefer something like these premises suggested as the basis for a Non-Hierarcchical Paleo Permaculture Hunter-Gatherer Intentional Community
Premises
1. A hunter-gatherer lifeway represents a peak in the psychological flourishing (happiness, well-being, etc.) of individuals. [3, 5]
2. Hunter-gatherers represent a peak in human physical health [7, 8, 9]
-- basis for antifragility: genus Homo lived as hunter-gatherers for at least 2,000,000 years, starting in the paleolithic, and some persisting until today. [4, 6]
3. Egalitarian social relationships (anarchy) represents a peak in human social interaction [4, 6]
-- basis for antifragility: genus Homo actively fostered egalitarian and anarchist social relationships for at least 2,000,000 years, starting in the paleolithic, and some persisting until today. [3, 4, 6]
4. Agriculture and its unintended consequences (slavery, the state, patriarchy, hierarchy, feudalism, control culture, false theistic religions, disease, malnutrition) destroy all of the above [5, 6, 7, 8, 9]
-- a. Flourishing
-- b. Health
-- c. Social Relationships
5. Agriculture is inherently destructive, as every farm--by definition--displaces a wild ecosystem.
6. Permaculture can restore human flourishing, health, and social relationships by acting as a bridge over the chasm of agriculture to the restoration of land and lifeways for human and non-human animals.
Okay. Let's assume in the world of the future, I have bequeathed my permaculture project to my two theoretical grandchildren, sturdy Iskra and lithe Woody, who choose to follow the basic dietary/lifestyle models below.

Iskra Dietary Requirements
Basal Metabolism: 180 X10
Agricultural Labor: 900
Squats: 200
Protein: .8 X 180 = 144 grams/day
TOTAL: 2900 dietary calories and 144 grams protein/day

Woody Dietary Requirements
Basal Metabolism: 160 x 10
Cello Practice: 300
Bicycle to Rehearsal Space: 300
Protein: .4 X 180 = 72 grams/day
TOTAL: 2200 dietary calories and 72 grams protein/day

Will they be able to survive on the solar energy that shines down upon the acreage I have bequeathed to them in combination with some sustainable foraging in the surrounding commons? We shall assume that Woody's community symphony cellist stipend is just enough to cover property taxes which are just enough to cover maintenance of community bicycle paths and performance space etc.etc.etc. We must remember that energy must also be allocated for the processing, preparation and storage of foodstuffs, soil must be preserved or amended, some crops should be rotated, even apple trees have a limited productive life-cycle, hoe and cello and variety of other tools must be produced on-site or received in trade, etc. etc. etc.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 2260
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by BRUTE » Wed Oct 19, 2016 2:25 am

7Wannabe5 wrote:Non-Hierarcchical Paleo Permaculture Hunter-Gatherer Intentional Community
brute found out the hard way that intentional communities basically don't work, at least if the common denominator is a single topic of interest.

User avatar
Dragline
Posts: 4281
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by Dragline » Wed Oct 19, 2016 8:28 am

Sounds like you have an interesting tale to tell, but I would suggest a new thread for it.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 2260
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by BRUTE » Thu Oct 20, 2016 11:10 pm

not that interesting, they just usually fall apart pretty quickly.

banker22
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 1:17 pm

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by banker22 » Sat Jan 28, 2017 4:30 am

@steveo73

Did you read the book?

steveo73
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by steveo73 » Sat Jan 28, 2017 4:34 am

banker22 wrote:@steveo73

Did you read the book?
No - I did get it but I haven't read it yet. I will try to read it though.

Farm_or
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2016 8:57 am
Contact:

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by Farm_or » Sat Jan 28, 2017 8:31 am

@7wb5 Thanks for the thought provoking thread. Amazing how one subject can branch in so many directions.

My sheepherding intuition:

Soil health. I like the analogy of the plants plants​themselves as carnivorous. There is a movement in agriculture that considers the soil to be a living organism. It is analogous to the skin on your body. The benefits of this new paradigm is zero fertilizer application. It's not really new, or a fad, but one of those who things rediscovered and enlightened with modern technology.

Gardening and permaculture. The physical and spiritual reconnection with the earth is the best teacher for nutrition. Most of our health problems stem from the industrialization of agriculture. Should we consume it in large quantities because it is cheap and readily available? Back to nature harvesting reveals a lot about foods and how we are supposed to get our nutrition. We wouldn't consume so much honey if we always got stung.

Round sprinkler irrigation. In reality, that is the most expensive form of irrigation. It is only cheap if you compare it to the cost of manually irrigatng and consider all the costly side effects and inefficiency of flood irrigation. That said, there's an average ten years pay back for every big round circle that you see flying over the countryside.

Meat eating? The ultimate shortcut for nutrition. I don't think nature intended for the industrial meat diet. It should be moderated greatly. But there is no better recycler than a free range chicken for two excellent and renewable sources of aminos.

User avatar
jennypenny
Posts: 5195
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Location: Stepford USA

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by jennypenny » Wed Feb 08, 2017 8:51 am

I just finished Gary Taubes's new book The Case Against Sugar. It's good, and I like that he includes some history of sugar use as well as some history of the medical research. One of the terms I hadn't heard before was dopamine downregulation. I'm going to research that more, especially wrt mental health. If anyone knows of any good literature, please post it.

Post Reply