Anti-Sugar Elitism

Health, Fitness, Insurance, ...
halfmoon
Posts: 713
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:19 pm

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by halfmoon »

7Wannabe5 wrote: Aggressive gardening was suggested as one possible activity in the article you linked which I also highly recommend, but I think what I refer to as "scavenge walking" is another good choice which also lends itself to frugality, improvement of environment and mental acuity. The way I do it is that I have to dress appropriately for whatever weather, and bring some bags/pack or a cart, and something on which to take notes. Then I have to go out scavenging for at least an hour or two, and I have to find at least 10 useful things, some of which may be information.
If you lived in Seattle, I'm pretty sure I would have handed you some cash on the street. :D

Seriously, I'm very inspired by your posts. I hugely respect your adaptation and survival skills (this is aside from appreciation for your quirky analysis, which I won't address for fear of being stalker-level fan).

I do have to ask, though: what is 'ben turkey'? I tried googling it and just came up with a bunch of Ben Franklin references.

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

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by EMJ »

'ben turkey'
isn't that hen turkey?

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

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@halfmoon: lol- One time when I was a bit disheveled, because walking home after water aerobics class, a kid pulled up in front of me on his bike and offered to sell me some Xanax, but it only took him about 3 seconds after making eye contact, to realize his error and blurt out "Oh, you're straight, aren't you? Don't tell the cops." and zip quickly away. I've also been mistaken for a prostitute when approached from behind. However, the vast majority of people I encounter quickly peg me as some variety of middle-class, middle-aged, sober-and-not-mentally-ill Mumsy environmentalist-social-worker-do-gooder, like a slightly updated version of one of the characters in "Call the Midwife." Since I spend a certain amount of my time engaged in activities such as teaching 6 year old children recently immigrated from Yemen how to sing "Where is Thumbkin?" and planting heritage apricots, this stereo-typing is possibly not entirely undeserved (sigh.) One day last summer when I was parking my bike, which has a woven basket in front and a hauling cart attached behind, at the rack in front of the Dollar Tree, an ancient woman who was walking with a cane, squinted her eyes at me and said "You must be Canadian."

The internet clearly can not be trusted to preserve all knowledge once known to humans. That is why I have set aside a portion of my remaining life energy to the conservation of printed works on the subject of lost arts and crafts. I do not know for certain what a "ben turkey" (the original printing clearly indicated "ben" not "hen") might be, but since "ben" referred to an inner room in a cottage, maybe it refers to some inner portion of a turkey. It might also be derived from biblical language root of "bin" meaning son, so "young male" turkey.

halfmoon
Posts: 713
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:19 pm

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by halfmoon »

7Wannabe5 wrote:One day last summer when I was parking my bike, which has a woven basket in front and a hauling cart attached behind, at the rack in front of the Dollar Tree, an ancient woman who was walking with a cane, squinted her eyes at me and said "You must be Canadian."
This made me laugh immoderately.

Farm_or
Posts: 412
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2016 8:57 am
Contact:

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by Farm_or »

Minced pie. Must have been commonplace for that generation.

My mother likes to tell the story of her mother's minced meat pie. My grandmother came from the sticks and grew up in the great depression so their version of minced meat pie was something rancid by our standards.

My father coming from the Basque country and growing up in similar hardship conditions thought himself to stomach anything. My mother warned him aside, "don't eat the minced pie." But my father wanted to make a good first impression.

"Yech!" Is how he describes it now, but he choked it down with a smile back then

halfmoon
Posts: 713
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:19 pm

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by halfmoon »

My family called it mincemeat (small variation), but my grandmother's version actually featured meat as opposed to the stuff you buy off the shelf now that's all candied fruit and...whatever. I'm not sure whether the mincemeat was beef or pork; since my grandmother was Pennsylvania Dutch (German), I'm guessing pork. She mixed up her recipe and canned it every year.

Did your family make shoo-fly pie? This was a concoction of molasses and lard (probably some other ingredients) in an pie shell. I've always thought of it as a Pennsylvania thing, because you could buy them everywhere when I grew up.

Dragline
Posts: 4450
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by Dragline »

halfmoon wrote: Seriously, I'm very inspired by your posts. I hugely respect your adaptation and survival skills (this is aside from appreciation for your quirky analysis, which I won't address for fear of being stalker-level fan).
And another ERE friendship takes root. +1

I enjoy learning about the experiences and perspectives of you both. The series will be called "The Avant Garde and the Beautiful."

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

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@Dragline and halfmoon: I very much enjoy your contributions to the forum also.

@To Whom It May Concern: Ego and BRUTE :

After continued frenzied reading of some of the most popular books of the 19th century, such as "Ishmael; or In the Depths" by Mrs. E.D.E.N. Southworth (a page-turner of moral victory over poverty and false accusations of shameful circumstances of birth inclusive of detailed description of dietary habits of residents of rural Maryland and Washington D.C. circa 1830-1870) and assorted superficial research on the history of foodstuffs, the science of human metabolism and viewing several horrifying episodes of "Supersize vs. Super-skinny", I have swung my pendulum back towards "SUGAR IS EVIL!" with caveat.

First, I must admit that as soon as I assigned likelihood of inaccuracy and bias in the above-posted report/chart prepared by Modern Whole Foods advocate, I recalled that the human body is a complex system, so the huge difference in sugar consumption in the report/chart would not even be necessary to result in grave effects, especially when considered over a population.
And yet there was no stopping the boom. Sugar was the oil of its day. The more you tasted, the more you wanted. In 1700 the average Englishman consumed 4 pounds a year. In 1800 the common man ate 18 pounds of sugar. In 1870 that same sweet-toothed bloke was eating 47 pounds annually. Was he satisfied? Of course not! By 1900 he was up to 100 pounds a year. In that span of 30 years, world production of cane and beet sugar exploded from 2.8 million tons a year to 13 million plus. Today the average American consumes 77 pounds of added sugar annually, or more than 22 teaspoons of added sugar a day.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/ ... cohen-text

The fact revealed in this paragraph, that the average Englishman in 1900 ate 100 lbs. of sugar/year, whereas a modern American "only" eats 77 lbs./year is what was previously driving my disbelief. Now it all starts to make better sense. My caveat has to do with this part of the article:
Then one day that ape, with its mutant gene and healthy craving for rare, precious fruit sugar, returned to its home in Africa and begot the apes we see today, including the one that has spread its sugar-loving progeny across the globe. “The mutation was such a powerful survival factor that only animals that had it survived,” Johnson said, “so today all apes have that mutation, including humans. It got our ancestors through the lean years. But when sugar hit the West in a big way, we had a big problem. Our world is flooded with fructose, but our bodies have evolved to get by on very, very little of it.”
It neglects to mention the fact that the primary mechanism through which efficient storage of sugar calories as fat aided in the survival of the human species was storage of fat on the hips of human females leading to increased survival of infants. Until very, very recently infant mortality was absolutely number one with a bullet arena for survival-towards-transmission of genetic tendencies in humans (NOT adult males fighting like sabre-tooth tigers or stallions for foodstuffs or females or monopolistic dominance of some realm of capitalism :roll: ) Humans who naturally (due to hormone levels) tend towards being built more like monkeys (narrow hips, powerful upper bodies) tend towards developing metabolic syndrome at relatively lower BMI and/or body-fat-percentage than humans who tend towards being built like Iskra Lawrence. For instance, a tall curvy female of Russian/Polish/Anglo/Irish (cold lands) heritage who is still pre-menopausal, such as myself, can carry up to 40 extra lbs.!!! while maintaining extremely healthy sugar-ingestion tolerance, blood cholesterol, and blood pressure results (although perhaps simultaneously hovering on edge of desire to be seen on public beach in bathing attire.)

Anyways, what I find most interesting about all of this in terms of systems theory, is the different levels on which the concept of "efficiency" comes into play. Sugar Cane is the most efficient processor of CO2 into kilo-calories and the human brain is probably the most efficient processor of glucose into storage-of-information. Two of our biggest problems right now have to do with dealing with the toxic waste products resulting from marginally too much burning of Sucrose and Petroleum, and this is not unrelated to the greatly increased survival rate of human infants over the last 200 years. From a very simplistic perma-culture perspective, the solution would be for humans to choose to favor trees and shrubs (relatively inefficient processors of CO2) over grasses, even though much of the food produced by trees and shrubs (fruit) is relatively high in fructose, and meat from animals that can forage in relatively wooded environment over animals that tend towards heavy grass diet. IOW, I would posit that moderate solution along the lines of substituting roughly half of corn-syrup/sugar-cane intake (by mass) for fresh fruit and half of beef/pork intake for fish/venison/nuts might prove sufficient. Dunno.

halfmoon
Posts: 713
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:19 pm

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by halfmoon »

7Wannabe5 wrote:It neglects to mention the fact that the primary mechanism through which efficient storage of sugar calories as fat aided in the survival of the human species was storage of fat on the hips of human females leading to increased survival of infants.
@7Wb5, can you link or quote something about this? My utterly uneducated belief was always that pelvic width alone allowed for more successful childbirth, but I'm pretty sure pelvic width doesn't equal storage of hip fat any more than successful childbirth equals infant survival. I tried googling the subject without finding anything useful (see your warning about not all wisdom being online ;) ).

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

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by BRUTE »

7Wannabe5 wrote:Sugar Cane is the most efficient processor of CO2 into kilo-calories and the human brain is probably the most efficient processor of glucose into storage-of-information.
brute would consider this lying with facts. while (presumably, brute hasn't checked the numbers) true, is CO2 really the bottleneck? are kilo-calories really the goal? is using glucose the only way to store information?

other facts:
- the human brain is the most efficient processor of ketone bodies (made from body and dietary fats) into storage of information
- ruminant-grass-systems are the most efficient processor of sunlight into kilo-calories if the bottleneck is human effort, not global CO2

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

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@halfmoon: It's not correlated with maternal survival at childbirth except in cases where central body obesity of mother is correlated with gestational diabetes leading to overly high birth weight of infant. Gluteofemoral fat is accumulated and metabolized through entirely different mechanisms than central body visceral fat. Omega-3 fat and glucose are the primary nutritional elements that are able to penetrate the blood brain barrier. Human females store DHA in gluteofemoral fat stores and this particularly aids in the development of the nervous system of infants during pregnancy and breast-feeding. This is why females with low waist-to-hip ratios have higher IQ offspring, particularly first-born offspring. A simplistic way to look at it is that hip and thigh fat on human females is more like the Omega 3 rich fat found in fish such as salmon whereas visceral central body fat stores is more like the Omega 6 fat found in corn oil margarine. As any curvy female knows, thigh and buttock fat is much more resistant to thermogenic mass loss (diet/aerobic exercise), because it is meant to be reserved for infant brain development. Females (and all males) who tend towards "apple" shape lose mass more rapidly through diet and exercise, but they also suffer more ill effects from metabolic syndrome at relatively lower BMI due to the inert-towards protective effect of gluteofemoral stores. Heart disease and other metabolic syndromes in females are strongly correlated with weight gain in the 10 years following menopause, because this is the period during which females, due to lowered levels of estrogen, start to accumulate more visceral fat. This is why each year menopause (complete cessation of menstruation for 12 months) is delayed past average of 51 is correlated with average of 1.8 years of increase in longevity. This is why I personally believe (based on much, much sketchier evidence) that purposeful choice to continue to engage in regular vigorous sexual activity during peri-menopause can contribute to increased longevity in females due to hormonal influence of exposure to androgens/pheromones of male partners and/or orgasm and/or circular feedback mechanism related to correlation of estrogen levels to vaginal lubrication.

http://www.nature.com/nrendo/journal/v1 ... bal=remove

http://www.zmescience.com/medicine/babi ... -20012015/

Image

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

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

I said:
Sugar Cane is the most efficient processor of CO2 into kilo-calories and the human brain is probably the most efficient processor of glucose into storage-of-information.
brute : would consider this lying with facts. while (presumably, brute hasn't checked the numbers) true, is CO2 really the bottleneck? are kilo-calories really the goal? is using glucose the only way to store information?

other facts:
- the human brain is the most efficient processor of ketone bodies (made from body and dietary fats) into storage of information
- ruminant-grass-systems are the most efficient processor of sunlight into kilo-calories if the bottleneck is human effort, not global CO2
I don't think we are in complete disagreement. Grasses evolved and thrived during a period when the Earth's atmosphere was relatively low in CO2. Trees and shrubs require, and therefore process, relatively more CO2 per acre of coverage. IOW, an acre of rain forest cut down and covered with cement is not equivalent to an acre of grassland cut down and covered with cement. OTOH, I do think a fruit/nut orchard with under-story of pea-shrub and clover combined with feeding waste fruit to free-range hogs and legume/clover mix to meat rabbits would likely be an example of the most sustainable sort of kilo-calorie to human effort system at or around a human population level of approximately 5 to 10 billion.

Ketosis induced through starvation or high-fat diet is in some ways more like the metabolism of gluteofemoral fat stores. It increases the level of DHA in the bloodstream. Likely this is due to the fact that during time of starvation preservation of brain of individual would be preferred evolutionary mechanism, just like development of brain of infant is preferred evolutionary mechanism. However, I would hypothesize that this would vary with ratios of visceral/subcutaneous/gluteofemoral/lean tissue available for metabolism and also ratio of omega-3 vs. omega-6 fat sources in diet. IOW, a relatively lean male eating a diet composed exclusively of salmon would exhibit higher DHA levels than a man metabolizing large deposits of visceral fat while eating a diet composed exclusively of corn oil margarine.

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

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by BRUTE »

after reading "the vegetarian myth", brute is convinced that ruminants like cows and sheep are much more efficient. the argument is basically that if kept right (in tight groups) they mimic the herding behavior of paleolithic beasts (mammoths etc) through their eating patterns and trampling action, which is required to keep the right kind of stress on grass lands to keep them growing. this allows for lots of meat to be grown relatively easily, with little oversight, without much animal cruelty, and it's pretty much the most healthy source of fat there is. hogs are good too.

it's also a weird comparison to say that 1 acre of tropical rainforest binds more CO2 than 1 acre of savanna grassland - maybe, but humans don't exactly have a choice between those 2 in most places. there need to exist very specific conditions for rainforests, they are not as well-suited for food production, and there are lots of places where humans could easily let cattle graze that could never sustain a rainforest due to the local climate.

halfmoon
Posts: 713
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:19 pm

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by halfmoon »

@7wb5, thank you for taking the time to explain the link between maternal body type and infant survival/IQ. This is remarkable. Since the only pants that really fit me are made for teenage boys, it's a very good thing I didn't have children; they would probably have single-digit IQs. :(

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

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@halfmoon: It's the ratio that is relevant, not the absolute size of hips. Twiggy had healthy ratio. Human infants only weigh around 7.5 lbs., so thigh and hip fat equivalent to around 8 sticks of butter would probably be adequate. Also, females with phenotype indicative of high fertility tend towards greater incidence of cancer of reproductive organs, especially if they do not have children or breastfeed. Very high incidence of uterine cancer in older domesticated doe rabbits that are not neutered or have never been bred to a proven buck.


@BRUTE: I agree that humans are omnivorous scavengers, not herbivores. However, given that in the realm of health, modern, affluent humans are mostly attempting to facilitate fit survival of themselves as individuals as long as possible past the age of likely reproduction (40 for females, 60 for males roughly), "natural" diet of our ancient ancestors is only semi-relevant.

That said, I think it would be possible to create a sustainable closed loop (except for flows such as solar energy)system in which a number of humans primarily consumed beef and dairy products. I would have to do some math to determine the population that could be supported with such a system.
Last edited by 7Wannabe5 on Wed Mar 01, 2017 8:48 am, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by BRUTE »

7Wannabe5 wrote:"natural" diet of our ancient ancestors is only semi-relevant.
brute does not give a rodent's behind about the "natural diet of ancient ancestors". the argument from the book is that herding behavior of megafauna (==big animals) is what sustains the ecosystem.

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

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@BRUTE: Many levels and players are necessary in diverse sustainable eco-system. In a primary beef/dairy consumption systems, it is likely that dilution of methane emissions would be the primary limiting factor on minimizing acreage per human. Much easier to close cycle of methane sequestered in manure of hogs, ruminants and chickens than that released in farts and burps of cattle. Omnivores emit less methane than ruminants and small herbivores release less methane/BM than large herbivores.

Human effort can be reduced to near zero in any system that is inclusive of slave agricultural worker robots that are powered with renewable source of energy. I think the energy necessary for some human to use its brain to design the system would be the minimum. Of course, some "exercise" of the human body would also be necessary if human did no "work" and wished to maintain health.

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

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

More evidence of varied (towards resilience) human dietary intake practices and strategies in earlier era.

http://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/1.772111

enigmaT120
Posts: 1176
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:14 pm
Location: Falls City, OR

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by enigmaT120 »

BRUTE wrote:after reading "the vegetarian myth", brute is convinced that ruminants like cows and sheep are much more efficient. the argument is basically that if kept right (in tight groups) they mimic the herding behavior of paleolithic beasts (mammoths etc) through their eating patterns and trampling action, which is required to keep the right kind of stress on grass lands to keep them growing. this allows for lots of meat to be grown relatively easily, with little oversight, without much animal cruelty, and it's pretty much the most healthy source of fat there is. hogs are good too.
That book was written by a different guy, but here's a link to an article in Sierra magazine (not a science magazine) that discusses similar, if not the same issue:

http://sierraclub.org/sierra/2017-2-mar ... ate-change

I don't think there's enough clean water for all the animals he's proposing we raise.

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

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@enigmaT120: Interesting. On the surface, it's not all that different than the concept of a chicken tractor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09MDwSMQEs0

One cow can be fed on one acre for 80 days or 80 cows can be fed on one acre for one day, was the maximum given excellent pasture conditions numbers I was able to find. It makes clear sense that moving 80 cows from acre to acre over course of 80 days would produce different results than having each cow in its own one acre enclosure. For example, crimson clover takes around 70 days to grow to maturity. So, if we imagine a very simple eco-system composed of humans, cows, crimson clover, honey bees and peaches, there would exist a scant 10 day window before cow herd arrived again, in which newly germinated clover might bloom, and provide alternate energy source to honey bees, human might desire to help pollinate peaches.

However, this seems like a ridiculous amount of trouble to go to just so humans can avoid consuming a varied diet with beef and dairy products in reasonable proportion. Right now there is around 1 cow for every 5 humans on the planet. In order for all humans to primarily consume beef and dairy, there would have to be around 2 cows for every 1 human (10X more cows!) I don't think that is going to work.

Post Reply