Anti-Sugar Elitism

Health, Fitness, Insurance, ...
MZMpac
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2016 6:36 pm

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by MZMpac »

Touchy topic--like politics almost.

Excess sugar is the bane of the western diet, make no mistake. Evidence is quickly mounting, and the studies that demonized fats a few decades ago were lobbied and leveraged by the sugar industry.

There's nothing wrong with a plant-based diet per se, but the issue it tends to be mostly carbs for those who follow it.

One thing I quickly noticed about "ERE" diets is how carbohydrate-dominant they are. And anyone who has tried to cut the grocery bill will notice that you either need to cut back the quantity of food you eat, or the quality, e.g. start eating cheap abundant carbs for just about every meal.

So for those of us who dont want to pump bread, legumes, rice, and other sugars into our body everyday, we have to pay a bit more for food or find other solutions.

Hunting is great, but poses some opportunity cost problems. 1) you need to know how to hunt; 2) you need to have land access to a productive area without too much public competition; 3) you need to have a strategy WRT when and how you hunt; and 4) hunting trips cost money.

chicago81
Posts: 281
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 3:24 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by chicago81 »

I used to eat a lot of cheap carbohydrates (such as rice, pasta, corn, beans, etc) for the majority of my calories. But I noticed my health was declining quite a bit. Always sluggish, always feeling bad, always hungry, sores on my skin would take forever to heal, I began to gain some weight (not obese, but more weight than normal.) After I switched to a diet much higher in fat, and with almost no sugar or carbs (except from nutrient-dense green veggies), it cleared up just about all of those issues. My diet now is slightly more expensive, but not outrageous since I hardly ever feel hungry and I eat less overall.

Some of the reading I've done online leads me to believe that the ability of one's body to cope with carbohydrates can vary widely based on genetics from person to person. The stuff I've seen suggests that the high-carb/sugar diets we have in western societies today may be playing a major part in the large incidents of diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. From my own anecdotal experience, I tend to believe it. (When I see something in the grocery store like a canister of oatmeal with a big "Heart Healthy" logo on it from the American Heart Association, I kind of laugh inwardly, thinking it is such a big lie.... at least for me.)

BRUTE
Posts: 3803
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by BRUTE »

has 7wannabe5 checked out Joel Salatin's books about farming grass fed beef and chickens? it's pretty low cost, low impact, and it can be done on lots of land that can't grow crops well due to soil or logistics (can't walk a bunch of corn plants up a mountain).

and as brighteye said, the nutritionism-based view that "animals==protein" and "plants==carbohydrate" is unproductive. animals have tons of fat, which is very healthy and contains more than 2x the energy per weight that carbohydrates or proteins contain. there are also some healthy plant fats that can be used to supplement energy, like coconut oil, avocado, olive oil..

thirdly, the government heavily subsidizes corn, wheat, and sugar because they are considered "staples". of course, this makes them much cheaper and helps ignore the negative externalities of such practices, like leaching the soil of nutrients. to a degree, meat is also subsidized, but likely not to such a degree.

Riggerjack
Posts: 2906
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by Riggerjack »

My point was that if you look at marginal farm country, you will see circular crops. It's not that the land is in short supply, but that the cheapest irrigation system is just a sprinkler system on a pipe that moves in a circle. We are nowhere near capacity in agriculture. When prices go up, irrigation will improve. There is no need to factor calories per acre to feed the masses. Farmers will just grow whatever they think will make them money with the fewest risks. When rainfalls get less dependable, irrigation systems will advance. And then farmland will expand.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 6104
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am
Location: Clinton River Watershed

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Ego said: The op is nothing more than a magnificent rationalization for self-harm.
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. IOW, part of what I am doing is trying to figure out which particular version of Elitist Diet will not prove counter-productive to the above goals, and be in best alignment with my other preferences. At the moment, it's looking something like Fructo-Pescetarian-Freegan/Scavenger.

OTOH, according to the internet, table sugar (from cane and beets, not even including corn syrup etc.) currently accounts for 325 calories/day of the average American's diet. Since the average American is probably 20 or 30 lbs overweight, in theory, dependence on table sugar could simply be eliminated and both the health of American's and the health of the rain forests (level of atmospheric CO2 processing) could be improved. However, since the U.S. only imports around 15% of the table sugar we eat, most of the massive world-wide production of cane sugar must be consumed mostly by poorer residents of poorer countries. If sugar cane currently provides just 10% of the calories of the average human, and those calories were to be replaced by lentil calories, since lentils are 1/10th as efficient at photosynthesis, overall agricultural land use would have to be doubled!!!
ThisDinosaur said: 7, what else, besides sugar, are you growing in your permaculture project? How much land do you have and how many people are you planning to support? (I think you had said just yourself +/- one maybe grandkid.)
I am way too lazy to process sugar beets, so I have no plans to grow them. I currently own about 1/3 acre which is almost all vacant and sunny except for my small camper footprint. My goal is to meet the nutritional needs of 2 humans with a mostly closed loop system on this small acreage. It is not my intention to only eat what I grow or raise, but I am currently experimenting with altering my diet to maximize self or local-within-bike distance food-sufficiency.

The sugar issue comes into the equation(s) because I am already successfully growing a heck of a lot of fruit, and I have foraging/scavenging access to even more. So far, I have sour cherries, apples, wild plums, black raspberries, blackberries, red raspberries, gooseberries, black currants, mulberries, apricots, blueberries, grapes, strawberries, hardy figs, hardy kiwis, olives (marginal greenhouse),hops and rhubarb . My annual crops this year were tomatoes, peppers, eggplant, potatoes, arugula, mesclun mix, onions, shallots, basil, acorn squash, patty pan squash, mystery squash, bush beans, variety herbs. I tried to establish almonds, hazelnuts and heart nut (Japanese sport walnut), but only the heart nuts survived. Next year, I intend to establish more nuts, asparagus, paw-paws and a variety of vines and ground-cover crops. On my third lot which I didn't even touch this year, I plan to try staple crops of hull-less oats, corn and beans that are good for drying, and more winter squash.

So, I am going to have very little problem meeting the nutritional requirement of 16 servings /day of variety of fruits and vegetables needed by two humans. I am going to have some problem coming up with the total calories required by two humans (especially if 1 human is doing some manual labor to grow/harvest/process food), and meeting fat and protein needs is almost certainly going to be problematic (especially if 1 human wants to attain elite fitness profile of Iskra Lawrence) unless something like fishing the Detroit river or raising meat rabbits is added to the cycle.
IlliniDave said: I think using sugar cane's energy efficiency to make electricity to electrify fences to keep the beef cattle from getting away would be a happy compromise :)
They won't let me keep a cow in the city. Photo-voltaic cells are much more efficient at converting sunlight into electricity than photosynthesis followed by burning. Although, of course, as Jacob noted, producing the cells is energy intensive, so they are expensive to purchase. So far, I only have a 60 watt portable unit, 85Whr lithium battery bank, a crude makeshift solar food drying unit, and a clothes-line. I eventually plan on adding a water pump and gravity battery, because it would be super-cool, although not very efficient. If I want to survive the Michigan winter in my camper, I will have to use propane. So, I am thinking I will migrate south via Megabus and bike, but I haven't done the math yet.
MZMpac said: Hunting is great, but poses some opportunity cost problems. 1) you need to know how to hunt; 2) you need to have land access to a productive area without too much public competition; 3) you need to have a strategy WRT when and how you hunt; and 4) hunting trips cost money.
True. In theory, there are enough deer in Michigan that every citizen could cull a goodly portion of venison per year, but I do not see me doing that. However, if I am successful at even closely approximating my fitness goal, I see little problem in continuing to engage in primal barter with the men of my region to acquire some of my protein requirements until I reach the age at which I am due to collect Social Security payments. I also own a copy of a book entitled "Basic Fishing: A Beginner's Guide", and it is possible that I will raise quail and/or rabbits.
chicago81 said: After I switched to a diet much higher in fat, and with almost no sugar or carbs (except from nutrient-dense green veggies), it cleared up just about all of those issues.
BRUTE said: and as brighteye said, the nutritionism-based view that "animals==protein" and "plants==carbohydrate" is unproductive. animals have tons of fat, which is very healthy and contains more than 2x the energy per weight that carbohydrates or proteins contain. there are also some healthy plant fats that can be used to supplement energy, like coconut oil, avocado, olive oil..
I am planning on growing nuts and sunflower and squash seeds, and experimenting with processing them into oil, although it does seem like a lot of work for somebody as lazy as me. I have a friend within biking distance who raises goats, chickens and hogs on his urban farm, so barter is another possibility.
RiggerJack said: My point was that if you look at marginal farm country, you will see circular crops. It's not that the land is in short supply, but that the cheapest irrigation system is just a sprinkler system on a pipe that moves in a circle. We are nowhere near capacity in agriculture. When prices go up, irrigation will improve. There is no need to factor calories per acre to feed the masses. Farmers will just grow whatever they think will make them money with the fewest risks. When rainfalls get less dependable, irrigation systems will advance. And then farmland will expand.
Where will the water for irrigation come from? Studies have already been done to research ridiculous mega-projects such as somehow funneling the fresh water from the Great Lakes westward, and they have been found to be not viable. Conventional agriculture wastes a lot of water and soil due to run-off. The first objective in any permaculture project is to figure out how to increase the water vector and close the water cycle. This is relatively easy to do in Michigan due to steady moderate precipitation throughout the year, and ready availability of materials with which to amend soils towards humus/loam, but much more difficult in other regions. Storing water in the soil itself, which is possible if it is amended towards humus, sponge-like consistency, is the best method. Creating swales, ponds and other reservoir systems can also help. Thickly planted perennial tree crops also create micro-systems that greatly conserve and recycle water due to alteration of evaporation/respiration processes versus conventional annual mono-crop. That's why a human diet that is more heavily based on fruits (fructose) and nuts may prove more sustainable.

ThisDinosaur
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:31 am

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by ThisDinosaur »

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: 4809
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by Ego »

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: 6104
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am
Location: Clinton River Watershed

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

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.

BRUTE
Posts: 3803
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by BRUTE »

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: 1432
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by steveo73 »

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.

BRUTE
Posts: 3803
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by BRUTE »

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: 1432
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by steveo73 »

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: 4809
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by Ego »

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: 1432
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by steveo73 »

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: 997
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:31 am

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by ThisDinosaur »

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.

BRUTE
Posts: 3803
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by BRUTE »

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: 1432
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by steveo73 »

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: 6104
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am
Location: Clinton River Watershed

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

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: 354
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 6:37 pm

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by EMJ »

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.

BRUTE
Posts: 3803
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by BRUTE »

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.

Post Reply