I am done with 'food products'...

[macuser3of5]

Wow this thread got stupid real quick.

 

[SantosLHalper]

Originally Posted by macuser3of5

Wow this thread got stupid real quick.

I would admit to having high hopes for a constructive discussion, as this is something I consider to be a worthwhile issue, but that usually doesn't last too long once here.

 

[whacked]

Originally Posted by macuser3of5

Wow this thread got stupid real quick.

You like it, the circle jerk of the ignorants?

 

[indesertum]

Originally Posted by why

My personal favorite is this obsession with almonds and olive oil. Both have next to NO nutritional value yet they're mentioned as being healthy all the time.

The rest of the stuff I agree with (imitation crab, chemical names of ingredients that sound like additives), but this is just plain ignorance. Almonds and olive oil are foods that have one of the highest content of monounsaturated fats over poly unsaturated and saturated fats. Good monounsaturated fats promote insulin sensitivity, slow down absorption of carboyhydrates into the blood stream as glucose, release CCK to induce satiety, and promote higher HDL:LDL ratio. Almonds and olive oil is the epitome of good monounsaturated fat.

On a side note, how much does membership/stockholding of CSA cost/ how much do you get? Does it vary from city to city?

 

[indesertum]

Originally Posted by why

Lard is over 50% monounsaturated fats.

And if you're eating fat to lower LDL levels you're a ******* idiot. Just another example of confusing the entire issue considering high amounts of dietary fat intake are more responsible for high cholesterol than monounsaturated fat is for lowering it.

Obviously every fat food group has fats of all kinds, but the problem is the amount of each kind of fat it has. Lard may be be 50% monounsaturated fat, but it has little polyunsaturated and shitloads of saturated fat ie lard is almost half saturated fat. saturated fat, not monounsaturated or polyunsaturated has been correlated to higher heart disease, insulin resistance, and you get the point.

And I dunno what's wrong with you, but what's wrong with eating fat to lower LDL levels? It's not fat intake in general than increases cholesterol levels, but the TYPE of fat intake that increases cholesterol levels (saturated and trans). If you eat predominately "good" fats your cholesterol level will go down.

 

[why]

And I dunno what's wrong with you, but what's wrong with eating fat to lower LDL levels? It's not fat intake in general than increases cholesterol levels, but the TYPE of fat intake that increases cholesterol levels (saturated and trans). If you eat predominately "good" fats your cholesterol level will go down.

Saturated fats and monounsaturated fats both have an impact on dietary cholesterol production.

It's a pointless argument in my mind anyway, since the difference between saturated fats increasing LDL levels over monounsaturated fats is negligible.

Olive oil is good with caprese. It has that going for it.

If you're eating any kind of fat commonly used in cooking I'd go with rapeseed (canola) oil. It has a higher smoking point, EFAs, less saturated fat, and is less expensive. If you don't give a **** about what kind of fat you consume then it's a non-issue anyway.

We can quote studies all day and throw them around. But you'd just be proving my point in doing so -- olive oil and almonds are not inherently 'better' for you than any other kind of fat.

This argument could go on for days at that rate.

'Olive oil is good because it has lots of monounsaturated fat.'
'Yeah but canola oil has more.'
'But canola oil lacks phenols.'
'But it has more EFAs.'
'Lard is still bad for you.'
'Yeah, but it's better for pie crusts and saturated fat and monounsaturated fat intake are linked to higher levels of circulating androgens.'
'Yeah, but it'll clog your heart faster.'

 

[SantosLHalper]

Originally Posted by indesertum

On a side note, how much does membership/stockholding of CSA cost/ how much do you get? Does it vary from city to city?

I paid about $800 for the full deal I mentioned early on. It's 28 weeks of vegetables and eggs, then chicken and beef every other week. There are less costly options depending on the size of your family and whether you want the meat and eggs. Compared with our grocery expenditures, it's a pretty good deal, but you have to be able to swallow the upfront cost.

I'm sure it's different elsewhere. The one I belong to is sort of an unusual operation, in that we don't deal directly with a farmer, there is a middleman who deals with different farmers, so we get more produce variety.

The way the laws are in VA, you end up purchasing 1/2 or 1/4 of a cow - as the owner, you are allowed to slaughter and eat it without it being inspected. Farm subsidies, here I come.

 

[indesertum]

Originally Posted by why

Cooking sucrose in liquid unbinds the glucose and fructose molecules (and guess what: this happens in nearly all foods -- what an evil chemical process!). Also, all sugars and starches are metabolized into unbound glucose. The human body runs on ***** acids and glucose. All carbohydrates, some amino acids, and even glycerol in fat is eventually converted into 'unbound glucose'.

That's without even getting into carbonyls which are so omnipresent in the human body that the amount of HFCS ingested represents a tiny fraction of the total carbonyl amount.

You can't just Google random articles and slap them up on the board as proof. You need to understand how things actually work.

Wow. I like this thread. On a side note, why, what do you do for a living?

Ok. Temperature dependent hydrolysis of sucrose has been debated ( Int. J. Chem. Kinet. 17(1) 11-15) and ph dependent hydrolysis of sucrose has been disproved (Int. J. Food. Eng. 40(3) 181-188). Thus cooking sucrose doesnt necessarily mean it hydrolizes to glucose and fructose especially at the relatively low temperatures people cook in (MT of sucrose is like 190 and that's intermolecular bonds. i doubt the glycosidic bonds require less Ea). I don't understand this carbonyl instability related to health issues, but most intermediates of glycolysis and TCA are carbonyls. any carbohydrate you digest eventually becomes carbonyls. But I dont think the carbonyls you and I are talking about (the ones that are ubiquitous) are the ones the quoted chinese phd is talking about. I dont think you could get a phd in food engineering without taking intro biochem courses.

So partly, ad verecundiam is right, but you can't dismiss the phd completely. bladyblah long post no one but hopefully why will read. basically you're partly wrong, partly right, but the article was pretty marsupialed.

High fructose corn syrup can raise both blood sugar and insulin levels [5], both of which play a role in regulating hunger, but it doesn't have the same impact as other forms of carbohydrate such as glucose [6].

obviously HFCS has a lower GI than glucose. GI is based on glucose. anyways sorry for triple post.

 

[indesertum]

Originally Posted by SantosLHalper

I paid about $800 for the full deal I mentioned early on. It's 28 weeks of vegetables and eggs, then chicken and beef every other week. There are less costly options depending on the size of your family and whether you want the meat and eggs. Compared with our grocery expenditures, it's a pretty good deal, but you have to be able to swallow the upfront cost.

I'm sure it's different elsewhere. The one I belong to is sort of an unusual operation, in that we don't deal directly with a farmer, there is a middleman who deals with different farmers, so we get more produce variety.

The way the laws are in VA, you end up purchasing 1/2 or 1/4 of a cow - as the owner, you are allowed to slaughter and eat it without it being inspected. Farm subsidies, here I come.

$800 for 28 weeks is a pretty good deal. I'm lucky if I spend less than $300 a month on food.

 

[globetrotter]

Originally Posted by SantosLHalper

I paid about $800 for the full deal I mentioned early on. It's 28 weeks of vegetables and eggs, then chicken and beef every other week. There are less costly options depending on the size of your family and whether you want the meat and eggs. Compared with our grocery expenditures, it's a pretty good deal, but you have to be able to swallow the upfront cost.

I'm sure it's different elsewhere. The one I belong to is sort of an unusual operation, in that we don't deal directly with a farmer, there is a middleman who deals with different farmers, so we get more produce variety.

The way the laws are in VA, you end up purchasing 1/2 or 1/4 of a cow - as the owner, you are allowed to slaughter and eat it without it being inspected. Farm subsidies, here I come.

that's pretty god. around us we don't have one with meat.

 

[why]

Originally Posted by indesertum

I dont think you could get a phd in food engineering without taking intro biochem courses.
That never stops studies from being conducted, though -- especially if it was funded from a commercial source.

obviously HFCS has a lower GI than glucose. GI is based on glucose. anyways sorry for triple post.

The article mentioned insulin levels which are generally correlative but not equal to GI levels. Minor detail, especially in the case of carbohydrates. It was a dumb article, anyway. Cherry-picked studies all misinterpreted in order to say HFCS is bad. If people want to stop eating HFCS then all they need to do is start putting ethanol into their cars.

 

[hi-val]

Originally Posted by why

If people want to stop eating HFCS then all they need to do is start putting ethanol into their cars.

OK that made me smile!



If you're looking for co-ops, partial ownerships and such, this site may be helpful in finding them:

http://www.eatwild.com/products/index.html

It's more a reference for grassfed beef and truly cage-free chickens. That said, they also list other programs like raw milk cheese. It has references for just about every state. The side appeal is that you can go to the farms yourself if you call ahead and see the conditions, if you're concerned about those things. The producers of these products care about the quality of the food.

 

[SantosLHalper]

Originally Posted by globetrotter

that's pretty god. around us we don't have one with meat.

There's also a farm-raised trout option, which we didn't do.

Our weekly grocery bills go down to about $20 a week when we're on the CSA, and maybe half of that is beer. If you look at what we get for the money versus what we would have paid at Whole Foods for the same stuff, the difference is remarkable.

 

[HORNS]

I encourage "why" to continue eating his/her food that he/she considers healthy. You speak with an unblinking confidence that the heads of the tobacco companies used when in front of the congressional hearings several years ago. Keep doing what you've been doing. . .

As far as eating food that is minimally processed, it is NOT a fad. Our current eating habits in the United States is a flash in the pan when put in context of our history as humans. Eating unprocessed foods that has little involvement with industrialization is simply going back to the habits that we as people had for greater than 90 percent of our existence.

 

[whacked]

Originally Posted by HORNS

As far as eating food that is minimally processed, it is NOT a fad. Our current eating habits in the United States is a flash in the pan when put in context of our history as humans. Eating unprocessed foods that has little involvement with industrialization is simply going back to the habits that we as people had for greater than 90 percent of our existence.

Nobody here argues that. What is under discussion is whether going back eating like our ancestors is a good thing.

I would think that humans tens of thousands year ago were, on average, are shorter than we are now, for example. And not all inventions / advances made in the history of many kind are bad, which seems like what you guys are proposing.