I want to expand a bit on the passing reference I made the other day to people taking food too seriously.
A lot of bloggers I read are trying to reduce carbs in their diet. Some have discussed the merits of the Paleolithic diet, which is supposed to replicate the food humans ate before the advent of agriculture. The reasoning is that humans have not physically adapted away from that diet, and that newer food such as grains, refined sugars, dairy, and processed oils are not digested or metabolized easily (or in some cases, properly), causing all manner of health problems. "Good" foods include meat, vegetables, fruit, roots, and nuts.
The paleo diet happens to be a very low carb diet, compared with the FDA recommended diet - you know, the old Food Pyramid, with grains being the foundation. (I can't link to the FDA's web site about the Food Pyramid - it seems to be down...hmmmmm.)
My position on the paleo diet is that it is a fad based on anti-man premises. The idea that man might not yet have adapted to grains and dairy is an intriguing hypothesis, but the champions of the paleo diet (not the bloggers I read, I want to emphasize) do not act as if this is something to be studied. They act morally righteous about their eating habits and seem to be on a quest to condemn particular foods because they are man made. I've done enough reading to convince me that there is no evidence or reason to follow the paleo diet, as such. The promoters of the diet lose all credibility with me when they start claiming that every single health problem can be solved by changing one's diet.
However, I also believe, based on first-hand experience, observations of the eating habits in our culture, and a little bit of science, that there is a "grain" of truth in the paleo diet, in that that the Standard American Diet (the Food Pyramid) is way out of whack. I'll just talk about my personal experience here. I have read much more about this subject than this post might indicate, but a lot less than some of the people I'm criticizing. I don't think you need to judge every study about food to use common sense and to catch on to the fact that we still really don't know much about proper diet.
To me, grains are not "real food." First of all, they have almost no flavor. I've never understood why people love rice, bread, cereal, and pasta. Even pastries leave me cold. I'll eat these things, but only as carriers for something that has flavor and substance. Bread is great for holding meat and mayonnaise, but the less of it, the better. Sweet, sugary deserts are nice sometimes, but again, I never used to crave them and I don't think of them as real food. (I use the past tense because under my husband's influence I've been eating more chocolate and sweets, and the more I eat them, the more I crave them.)
When I first started cooking (instead of eating frozen dinners or soup for almost every meal) I made a lot of pasta. I like making sauces, and it was an easy way to get started: add some meat, vegetables, and sauce to a bunch of pasta. Cooking steaks or fish was intimidating. Even though I had always been thin to normal weight and I was exercising, I gained a lot of weight on this diet.
I also seem to be sensitive to blood-sugar dips. My father calls it being hypoglycemic, but I'm not sure if that is really accurate. What I do know is that if I eat carbs with no protein, especially in the morning, I crash within an hour or so. I start to shake and sometimes come close to blacking out. I can go much longer eating nothing at all that eating something like a bagel first thing in the morning.
It takes effort to reduce the grains and carbs in your diet, especially at breakfast. We all were told to stop eating bacon and eggs because of cholesterol (which I think is a huge mistake) and told to eat cereal with skim milk or a whole grain muffin. I'm sorry, but those things just have no "meat" in them - they do nothing to sustain me. My body knows this. Some people don't have the strong reaction I do to eating pure carbs, but I suspect they suffer in the long-term for it.
So I'm making a conscious effort to reduce carbs and add protein to my family's diet, but it's not always easy. Most convenience food is based on grains. If you want to make a quick, easy dinner, there is spaghetti, macaroni and cheese, etc., or you can order a pizza. Grains last much longer than meat and vegetables, so it's easy to keep them handy on the shelf for emergencies. I still use these types of foods in a pinch, but I try to plan meals of meats and vegetables for most dinners, and I make enough so that we can eat some leftovers for breakfast and lunch.
But there is no way that I'm going to have steamed mussels without bread, or curry without rice. Those grains are great to sop up the yummy sauce. And that leads me to my original point, which is that I think a lot of people are way too uptight about carbs in the same way they used to be uptight about fat and cholesterol. I think moderation is the key, along with a healthy dash of skepticism about anything the government recommends. This article talks about how kids are being affected by this latest food fad. Whether you believe that "orthorexia" is a legitimate new diagnosis or not, it's pretty easy to see that eating disorders can take many forms, one being obsession with "health" food. I think it's a shame when adults are so consumed with eating the "right" foods that they give their kids a complex.
I also think it's a shame to outlaw any particular food in your home, labelling it "unhealthy." This includes cake, cookies, ice cream, and even candy. These foods are fun, and fun is good.
As the only member of the family in which I grew up who does not have diabetes, I've tried to understand the contributions of the foods we eat to our overall health. There is a lot of conflicting information out there about fats, particularly - including what has come from my primary care physician - and new results from studies are reported almost daily.
ReplyDeleteWith all this information, I think there are at least two things which are not controversial: your nutritional intake affects how your body operates on all levels; and you gain more nutritional value from whole foods.
While I can't see my cells partying under the influence of a good piece of beef, I can certainly feel the sluggishness setting in after indulging in pasta, bread, or even - yes - Thin Mints (not whole foods) without protein or fat to slow down the absorption of the carbohydrates . I am able to now mostly avoid these temptations by thinking of the cellular-level damage which must be occuring in order for me to feel so crappy. I have been trying to increase the intake of protein by my carbohydrate-loving children.
I'm not sure I've outlawed any foods in the house (maybe Tootsie Rolls which pull out our fillings), but I have found the fewer prepared treats we keep, the more the children are willing to learn how to cook (or make Jello - an interesting foodstuff) for themselves. That, at least, is a good thing.
LB: What is the definition of "whole foods?"
ReplyDeleteI agree with the idea of having good quality snacks on-hand, and that is very challenging! As kids, we were always told to eat fruit, but fruit is another thing that I find good in moderation, especially as a complement to a meal, but not by itself. It does nothing to satisfy my hunger, and puts me in danger of a sugar crash. I have to limit Samantha's fruit consumption or she'd be eating way too much.
Eggs, cheese, and yogurt seem to be the go-to protein snacks around here. Any suggestions for variety? Avocados are great but it's almost impossible to keep them in the house. I buy one each time I shop and watch it like a hawk for that 12 hour window where it is ripe but not rotten. If I buy more than one I always end up throwing some away because they all get ripe at once and there's only so much avocado you want to eat in a 12 hour period.
Good question - you can see a big description from Wikipedia. I think of it as food closest to its natural form - food without fuss. This does not mean that there is no preparation involved - au contraire! - but rather that the processing is done in the cooking, not the stabilization of the food product.
ReplyDeleteEggs, cheese, and yogurt are the big hitters for snacks here, too (and fruit in moderation). I actually like to keep some cooked ground turkey on hand - it's very convenient to add to what I'm eating. The youngest will make her own mini pizzas with whole wheat English muffins and can talked into adding some of this extra protein. And we usually have some terrifically prepared meats on hand for leftovers thanks to Stephen.
Avocados are a real challenge!
Hear, hear! I've been meaning to do a blog entry about this very subject but I don't feel comfortable arguing extensively on the subject because I am not well-versed in nutrition and I don't keep up on the literature.
ReplyDeleteI will say that I am extremely dubious about the "eat like our ancestors" proposition. I see the same anti-man and environmentalist premises that you do. I believe the key to a good diet and healthy living is moderation and variety. Those seem like the only uncontroversial points common to all diets. Gussying it up with arbitrary rules and biological explanations does not alter the fundamental kernel of truth--it just gives it the air of pseudo-science.
The best, most effective diet I've ever been on (and I lost a lot of weight) is the No-S Diet. Why did it work so well? Because it was easy to follow and enforced moderation at its core.
Our ancestors exercised moderation because of the inherent privation of their lives. If there's any evolutionary aspect to diet, it's that you eat until you're full as often as you're able because you never know when the next lean time would come. But we've eliminated the limits imposed by a hand-to-mouth existence and this evolutionary directive has resulted in gluttony.
So to tie this back to parenting, here's what we do in our household. We limit our children to three meals a day plus interstitial snacks. They may have anything they want for snack but we encourage healthy options (sold as "if you want to grow big, you should eat this sort of food"). If they don't eat their meals, they don't get snacks. (We tried the other way, but we have at least one member that could subsist entirely on snack time.) They're active and don't have big appetites period, so we have yet to confront the problem of overeating. (Except in the parents, unfortunately.)
My husband and I are both overweight and it's certainly due to too many carbs. (There are other factors involved, of course.) I find that when I eat protein with my carbs, and limit grains, I feel better--so that's what I've been doing for the most part. I can't eat a really carb-limited diet right now because I'm nursing a baby, but I will once he is a little less dependent on me.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the kids go--there is only one banned food from our house, and of course, that's peanuts. (Avoiding that food actually results in many, many diet restrictions in terms of the food we can buy.) In a way, having that enormous restriction makes it easier for me to buy healthier--we do buy candy, but usually only have it on hand for special occasions--like holidays and birthdays coming up--because it's expensive to buy peanut-free chocolate. I think if I didn't have to be so careful, it would be much easier to have candy and other crap on hand.
We have really gotten away from food restrictions in terms of when and what you can eat. I want my kids to learn to understand the hunger cues of their bodies. Eat when you want, from our mostly-crap-free selection, as much as you want, stop when you're feeling full. This is important to me because it's something I never learned how to do--we always had to have a "clean plate" and were rewarded when we had one, and shamed when we didn't.
Now I do try to hold the kids off from filling up if we're going out to dinner in 5 minutes, or we're about to leave the park, etc. But for the most part, I let them be independent about choosing their food. Incidentally, last spring I rearranged our pantry to make it easier for them to get their own food--and it was the best idea I ever had!
Bill: I love the No-S-Diet, that's great.
ReplyDeleteLB: I like the ground turkey idea - I guess ground meat counts as whole food?
Jenn: I thought of you when I wrote that line about not banning foods. It must be such a challenge. I'm thinking that I'll do "snacks in a bag" for Sam first, where I portion out a reasonable (generous) amount of snacks for a day and put it on a low shelf. When she's out, she's out. But that would probably lead quickly to letting her eat what she wants. We might have to put the cereal up high in that case, though, or she might eat it all day.
"I guess ground meat counts as whole food?"
ReplyDeleteOnly when you raise and kill the turkey and grind the meat yourself. All right, we don't do that - but we could if we wanted to!
Other protein suggestions: bacon and pepperoni. I make tons of bacon all at once and then the kids snack on it for a couple of days. Pepperoni is always a hit, though not exactly "whole" and beef jerky is good when I can find decently made jerky without tons of chemicals. And of course eggs, cheese, and yogurt (and kefir) too!
ReplyDeleteFurther, Bill, let's be fair and honest about who all the environmentalists are when it comes to diet. Environmentalists come in many different classes and shapes. There are rational and irrational concerns about the environment when it comes to our food. Some of the real environmentalists are plant breeders and biotech companies bent on the idea that the earth can't provide enough meat for everyone, and that most of the world's population has to subsist on grains. And many of the environmentalists are vegans.
ReplyDeleteIt stretches the imagination a bit to hear someone say that advocates of the paleo diet, which calls for more meat protein than the standard American diet recommends sensu USDA, are environmentalist or anti-man. And to the extent that anyone thinks their particular diet is more healthful (that would even some of the vegans) and thus, *promoting human life*, they don't adopt anti-man premises.
What's "anti-man" about advocating that men eat what men have eaten for 99.99% of their history?
ReplyDeleteIf everyone sprung for the Paleodiet, sure, the First World would no longer be able to feed the Second and Third Worlds, but it sure would be able to feed itself. All of the land that is currently devoted to carbohydrate production for human consumption would be consumed by likestock.
Or, if that wasn't the solution (alot of Paleodieters who know more about biological science than I do say that eating grain-fed meat is still bad for you), then that land would be converted into ranch land. In fact, if this were to happen, it would probably require even more land for agricultural uses than are currently available. So much for the notion that Paleodieters are environmentalists.
[...] the food issue, but there is something that is bothering me. While responding to comments on my earlier post, I realized that I may have implied something in my last post that I didn’t [...]
ReplyDeleteMonica, Thank you for this comment! You have not changed my mind, but what I'm thinking is that I've probably gotten most of my information from secondary sources on Paleo, and that those are the man-haters who pick it up to bash anything man-made. When I see a web site like Al Sears', I do not waste my time on the details. That man is a quack.
ReplyDeleteWhat I would like to know is, what is the evidence for the "diseases of civilization" theory. I have never seen anything but bald assertions on this issue. (This is an honest question, please let me know where I can look.) If what you are saying is true, I would say that that consitutes evidence for the benefits of a pre-modern diet (although not proof - but sometimes you don't need full proof to act on something). I already agree with you about diabetes, and that the medical "industry" is negligent in its dismissal of how diet affects health. (I think that is a problem of not enough "generalists" in medicine).
But the idea that moderate amounts of these "bad" foods can cause big problems in most people goes counter to the sum of all my other knowledge, especially the resilience and adaptiveness of the human body. As it is stated in what might be the exaggerated literature that I've read, it does not make sense.
I think a lot of my quesions will be answered by GCBC, so I'll pick that up for my next read.
Monica, diet is an optional thing. The principle is that man needs to eat in order to live. But does that mean that you must eat the most optimal, nutritious food possible or you're acting against your interests? Am I immoral because I drink *a lot* of Diet Mountain Dew? Am I an evader because I do not pay one iota of attention to the labels on the foods I eat? From what I can gather of you and your ilk, I am both and probably anti-life and anti-science to boot. From what I can gather, you would regard my food choices as essentially deciding to eat poison.
ReplyDeleteBut I'm not. Sure, our bodies are "designed" to process foods that our ancestors hunted and gathered. So what? Given my diet, my body seems to be doing a pretty capable job of processing what I eat and drink. I only qualify it with "seems" because I can't say that I know how my organs look but I am healthy, of normal weight (not overweight), and in decent condition. Could I be in perfect health if I worked out three times a week, drank only water, ate only meat and other health foods, studied nutrition, pored over food labels, maximized my vitamin intake, and slept eight hours a night? Definitely, but *my* quality of life would suffer in so many respects.
That's the rub. It's optional once you get past the basic needs of life. But you don't seem to regard it as such and so you take *every* opportunity to correct anyone who doesn't follow a low-carb diet and browbeat them with talk of "serious scientific literature" touting the benefits of your approach. I'm sure that there's ample support for your position and I'd be just as certain that it exists for the exact opposite of your diet. Because being conscientious about moderation, variety, and exercise will get you awfully far in being healthy. In the prehistoric times and in the Third World, one needn't be conscientious because the facts of reality force a confrontation. In the First World, though, immoderation is prevalent and that leads to obesity and its concomitant problems.
Bill, thanks for reminding me about variety, as well as moderation. That is another principle that I am able to integrate into the sum of my knowledge, unlike the idea that all processed foods are "bad."
ReplyDeleteThanks for bringing up context and the optional as well. I'd kind of lost track of that argument, but that's how I started the whole thread.
[...] on my blog the most often is, by far, “Al Sears quack” or some variation thereof. I mentioned this guy one time (and called him a quack), and I still get a hit or two every day from people who apparently agree [...]
ReplyDelete