question

~raising hand,

hi!
i hope you don't mind me intruding. i bookmarked this awhile back and
while i read here and there, i am curious about what the group was about
before. i saw you were discussing how it use to be.

is this room a lowcarb or a version of "clean eating"? i have been
interested in this but have no like minded people to talk with about it.
the clean eating i mean. i have the magazine and get frustrated from
all the garbage i've grown up with in regard to diets, etc. that you
find yourself tossing it all to the wind and eating junk.

anyway again, i apologize for intruding but i would like to hear what
type group this once was.

thanks

catnip

On 2009-06-05, Susan wrote:
Some of us, myself included, focus very strongly on eating grass fed
meat and dairy, wild fish and local, organic foods.

Some folks eat Frankenfoods: meal replacement bars, sweets, etc.

Organic unpasteurized honey: frankenfood or sweet?

On Jun 4, 11:30*pm, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2009-06-05, Susan wrote:

Some of us, myself included, focus very strongly on eating grass fed
meat and dairy, wild fish and local, organic foods.

Some folks eat Frankenfoods: meal replacement bars, sweets, etc.

Organic unpasteurized honey: frankenfood or sweet?

It would seem to me the focus of the group is clear from the title. I
don't even know the definition of clean eating, but it doesn't seem
synonymous with LC to me.

In article
,
wrote:

On Jun 4, 11:30*pm, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2009-06-05, Susan wrote:

Some of us, myself included, focus very strongly on eating grass fed
meat and dairy, wild fish and local, organic foods.

Some folks eat Frankenfoods: meal replacement bars, sweets, etc.

Organic unpasteurized honey: frankenfood or sweet?

It would seem to me the focus of the group is clear from the title. I
don't even know the definition of clean eating, but it doesn't seem
synonymous with LC to me.

If you can read, you can learn.

The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals by Michael Pollan
http://www.amazon.com/Omnivores-Dile...ls/dp/01430385
83/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206815576&sr=1-1

pg. 266 - 269

I had made pretty much the same meal on several occasions at home, using
the same basic foodstuffs, yet in certain invisible ways this wasn't the
same food at all. Apart from the high color of the egg yolks, these eggs
looked pretty much like any other eggs, the chicken like chicken, but
the fact that the animals in question had spent their lives outdoors on
pastures rather than in a shed eating grain distinguished their flesh
and eggs in important, measurable ways. A growing body of scientific
research indicates that pasture substantially changes the nutritional
profile of chicken and eggs, as well as of beef and milk. The question
we asked about organic food‹is it any better than the conventional
kind?‹turns out to be much easier to answer in the case of grass-farmed
food.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the large quantities of beta-carotene, vitamin
E, and folic acid present in green grass find their way into the flesh
of the animals that eat that grass. (It's the carotenoids that give
these egg yolks their carroty color.) That flesh will also have
considerably less fat in it than the flesh of animals fed exclusively on
grain‹also no surprise, in light of what we know about diets high in
carbohydrates. (And about exercise, something pastured animals actually
get.) But all fats are not created equal‹polyunsaturated fats are better
for us than saturated ones, and certain unsaturated fats are better than
others. As it turns out, the fats created in the flesh of grass eaters
are the best kind for us to eat.

This is no accident. Taking the long view of human nutrition, we evolved
to eat the sort of foods available to hunter-gatherers, most of whose
genes we've inherited and whose bodies we still (more or less) inhabit.
Humans have had less than ten thousand years‹an evolutionary blink‹to
accustom our bodies to agricultural food, and as far as our bodies are
concerned, industrial agricultural food‹a diet based largely on a small
handful of staple grains, like corn‹is still a biological novelty.
Animals raised outdoors on grass have a diet much more like that of the
wild animals humans have been eating at least since the Paleolithic era
than that of the grain-fed animals we only recently began to eat.

So it makes evolutionary sense that pastured meals, the nutritional
profile of which closely resembles that of wild game, would be better
for us. Grass-fed meat, milk, and eggs contain less total fat and less
saturated fats than the same foods from grain-fed animals. Pastured
animals also contain conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), a fatly acid dial.
some recent studies indicate may help reduce weight and prevent cancer,
and which is absent from feedlot animals. But perhaps most important,
meat, eggs, and milk from pastured animals also contain higher levels of
omega-3s, essential fatty acids created in the cells of green plants and
algae that play an indispensable role in human health, and especially in
the growth and health of neurons‹brain cells. (It's important to note
that fish contain higher levels of the most valuable omega-3s than land
animals, yet grass-fed animals do offer significant amounts of such
important omega-3s as alpha linolenic acid‹ALA.) Much research into the
role of omega-3s in the human diet remains to be done, but the
preliminary findings are suggestive: Researchers report that pregnant
women who receive supplements of omega-3s give birth to babies with
higher IQs; children with diets low in omega-3s exhibit more behavioral
and learning problems at school; and puppies eating diets high in
omega-3s prove easier to train. (All these claims come from papers
presented at a 2004 meeting of the International Society for the Study
of Fatty Acids and Lipids.)

One of the most important yet unnoticed changes to the human diet in
modern times has been in the ratio between omega-3 and omega-6, the
other essential fatty acid in our food. Omega-6 is produced in the seeds
of plants; omega-3 in the leaves. As the name indicates, both kinds of
fat are essential, but problems arise when they fall out of balance. (In
fact, there's research to suggest that the ratio of these fats in our
diet may be more important than the amounts.) Too high a ratio of
omega-6 to omega-3 can contribute to heart disease, probably because
omega-6 helps blood clot, while omega-3 helps it flow. (Omega-6 is an
inflammatory; omega-3 an anti-innammatory.) As our diet‹and the diet of
the animals we eat‹shifted from one based on green plants to one based
on grain (from grass to corn), the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 has gone
from roughly one to one (in the diet of hunter-gatherers) to more than
ten to one. (The process of hydrogenadng oil also eliminates omega-3s.)
We may one day come to regard this shift as one of the most deleterious
dietary changes wrought by the industrialization of our food chain. It
was a change we never noticed, since the importance of omega-3s was not
recognized until the 1970s. As in the case of our imperfect knowledge of
soil, the limits of our knowledge of nutrition have obscured what the
industrialization of the food chain is doing to our health. But changes
in the composition of fats in our diet may account for many of the
diseases of civilization‹cardiac, diabetes, obesity, etc.‹that have long
been linked to modern eating habits, as well as for learning and
behavioral problems in children and depression in adults.

Research in this area promises to turn a lot of conventional nutritional
thinking on its head. It suggests, for example, that the problem with
eating red meat‹long associated with cardiovascular disease‹ may owe
less to the animal in question than to that animal's diet. (This might
explain why there are hunter-gatherer populations today who eat far more
red meat than we do without suffering the cardiovascular consequences.)
These days farmed salmon are being fed like feedlot cattle, on grain,
with the predictable result that their omega- 3 levels fall well below
those of wild fish. (Wild fish have especially high levels of omega-3
because the fat concentrates as it moves up the food chain from the
algae and phytoplankton that create it.) Conventional nutritional wisdom
holds that salmon is automatically better for us than beef, but that
judgment assumes the beef has been grain fed and the salmon krill fed;
if the steer is fattened on grass and the salmon on grain, we might
actually be better off eating the beef. (Grass-finished beef has a
two-to-one ratio of omega-6 to -3 compared to more than ten to one in
corn-fed beef.) The species of animal you eat may matter less than what
the animal you're eating has itself eaten.

The fact that the nutritional quality of a given food (and of that
food's food) can vary not just in degree but in kind throws a big wrench
into an industrial food chain, the very premise of which is that beef is
beef and salmon salmon. It also throws a new light on the whole question
of cost, for if quality matters so much more than quantity, then the
price of a food may bear little relation to the value of the nutrients
in it. If units of omega-3s and beta carotene and vitamin E are what an
egg shopper is really after, then Joel's $2.20 a dozen pastured eggs
actually represent a much better deal than the $0.79 a dozen industrial
eggs at the supermarket. As long as one egg looks pretty much like
another, all the chickens like chicken, and beef beef, the substitution
of quantity for quality will go on unnoticed by most consumers, but it
is becoming increasingly apparent to anyone with an electron microscope
or a mass spectrometer that, truly, this is not the same food.
----

Two other books to help you put your health in perspective:

In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto
by Michael Pollan
http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Food-E...114964/ref=sr_
1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238974366&sr=1-1

and

Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition, and Health,
Revised and Expanded Edition (California Studies in Food and Culture)
by Marion Nestle
http://www.amazon.com/Food-Politics-...lifornia/dp/05
20254031/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244222934&sr=1-2
----

If we had single-payer health care, our farm subsidies, and toxic
environment would change in order to reduce health costs.
----

As Michael Pollan said,"Americans are overfed and under nourished".

Good luck with your learning curve.
--

- Billy
"For the first time in the history of the world, every human being
is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the
moment of conception until death." - Rachel Carson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En2TzBE0lp4

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050688.html

wrote:

It would seem to me the focus of the group is clear from the title.

There's room for picking different levels for where low carb
starts, but there hasn't been much disussion of that wiggle
room recently.

I don't even know the definition of clean eating,

I figure most folks eventually come up with their own idea
of what it means so there's no concensus that I've ever
seen.

but it doesn't seem synonymous with LC to me.

Agreed. Pick any type of plan and it wouldn't be hard to
come up with a clean version of it. Clean low fat, clean
paleo, clean low calorie, clean low carb and so on. Each
would mean something different to each person.

On Jun 5, 1:37Â*pm, Billy wrote:
In article
,

wrote:
On Jun 4, 11:30Â*pm, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2009-06-05, Susan wrote:

Some of us, myself included, focus very strongly on eating grass fed
meat and dairy, wild fish and local, organic foods.

Some folks eat Frankenfoods: meal replacement bars, sweets, etc.

Organic unpasteurized honey: frankenfood or sweet?

It would seem to me the focus of the group is clear from the title. Â*I
don't even know the definition of clean eating, but it doesn't seem
synonymous with LC to me.

If you can read, you can learn.


Nowhere in the entire excerpt that you posted below is the term "clean
eating" even used, let alone defined. I did a bit of googling and
can't even find a consensus on what the term means. But here's an
example of a recipe from the "clean eating club":

http://cleaneatingclub.com/clean-eat...ange-smoothie/

Strawberry Orange Smoothie

Ingredients:

1 cup low-fat strawberry yogurt
1 cup soy milk (or milk of your choosing)
1 cup orange juice
1 pint strawberries, washed and hulled (reserve 2 for garnish)
3 tbsp. honey
1 tsp. vanilla extract

Nutritional Info:

Calories: 394 | Protein: 8g | Carbs: 78g | Fat: 3g | Cholesterol:
2.5mg | Potassium: 827mg | Fiber: 5g

So, that one smoothie has 78g of carb. Sounds like I was right.
Clean eating is very different from low carb. So now who is the one
that needs to read and learn?





The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals by Michael Pollanhttp://www.amazon.com/Omnivores-Dilemma-Natural-History-Meals/dp/0143...
83/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206815576&sr=1-1

pg. 266 - 269

I had made pretty much the same meal on several occasions at home, using
the same basic foodstuffs, yet in certain invisible ways this wasn't the
same food at all. Apart from the high color of the egg yolks, these eggs
looked pretty much like any other eggs, the chicken like chicken, but
the fact that the animals in question had spent their lives outdoors on
pastures rather than in a shed eating grain distinguished their flesh
and eggs in important, measurable ways. A growing body of scientific
research indicates that pasture substantially changes the nutritional
profile of chicken and eggs, as well as of beef and milk. The question
we asked about organic food‹is it any better than the conventional
kind?‹turns out to be much easier to answer in the case of grass-farmed
food.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the large quantities of beta-carotene, vitamin
E, and folic acid present in green grass find their way into the flesh
of the animals that eat that grass. (It's the carotenoids that give
these egg yolks their carroty color.) That flesh will also have
considerably less fat in it than the flesh of animals fed exclusively on
grain‹also no surprise, in light of what we know about diets high in
carbohydrates. (And about exercise, something pastured animals actually
get.) But all fats are not created equal‹polyunsaturated fats are better
for us than saturated ones, and certain unsaturated fats are better than
others. As it turns out, the fats created in the flesh of grass eaters
are the best kind for us to eat.

This is no accident. Taking the long view of human nutrition, we evolved
to eat the sort of foods available to hunter-gatherers, most of whose
genes we've inherited and whose bodies we still (more or less) inhabit.
Humans have had less than ten thousand years‹an evolutionary blink‹to
accustom our bodies to agricultural food, and as far as our bodies are
concerned, industrial agricultural food‹a diet based largely on a small
handful of staple grains, like corn‹is still a biological novelty..
Animals raised outdoors on grass have a diet much more like that of the
wild animals humans have been eating at least since the Paleolithic era
than that of the grain-fed animals we only recently began to eat.

So it makes evolutionary sense that pastured meals, the nutritional
profile of which closely resembles that of wild game, would be better
for us. Grass-fed meat, milk, and eggs contain less total fat and less
saturated fats than the same foods from grain-fed animals. Pastured
animals also contain conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), a fatly acid dial.
some recent studies indicate may help reduce weight and prevent cancer,
and which is absent from feedlot animals. But perhaps most important,
meat, eggs, and milk from pastured animals also contain higher levels of
omega-3s, essential fatty acids created in the cells of green plants and
algae that play an indispensable role in human health, and especially in
the growth and health of neurons‹brain cells. (It's important to note
that fish contain higher levels of the most valuable omega-3s than land
animals, yet grass-fed animals do offer significant amounts of such
important omega-3s as alpha linolenic acid‹ALA.) Much research into the
role of omega-3s in the human diet remains to be done, but the
preliminary findings are suggestive: Researchers report that pregnant
women who receive supplements of omega-3s give birth to babies with
higher IQs; children with diets low in omega-3s exhibit more behavioral
and learning problems at school; and puppies eating diets high in
omega-3s prove easier to train. (All these claims come from papers
presented at a 2004 meeting of the International Society for the Study
of Fatty Acids and Lipids.)

One of the most important yet unnoticed changes to the human diet in
modern times has been in the ratio between omega-3 and omega-6, the
other essential fatty acid in our food. Omega-6 is produced in the seeds
of plants; omega-3 in the leaves. As the name indicates, both kinds of
fat are essential, but problems arise when they fall out of balance. (In
fact, there's research to suggest that the ratio of these fats in our
diet may be more important than the amounts.) Too high a ratio of
omega-6 to omega-3 can contribute to heart disease, probably because
omega-6 helps blood clot, while omega-3 helps it flow. (Omega-6 is an
inflammatory; omega-3 an anti-innammatory.) As our diet‹and the diet of
the animals we eat‹shifted from one based on green plants to one based
on grain (from grass to corn), the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 has gone
from roughly one to one (in the diet of hunter-gatherers) to more than
ten to one. (The process of hydrogenadng oil also eliminates omega-3s.)
We may one day come to regard this shift as one of the most deleterious
dietary changes wrought by the industrialization of our food chain. It
was a change we never noticed, since the importance of omega-3s was not
recognized until the 1970s. As in the case of our imperfect knowledge of
soil, the limits of our knowledge of nutrition have obscured what the
industrialization of the food chain is doing to our health. But changes
in the composition of fats in our diet may account for many of the
diseases of civilization‹cardiac, diabetes, obesity, etc.‹that have long
been linked to modern eating habits, as well as for learning and
behavioral problems in children and depression in adults.

Research in this area promises to turn a lot of conventional nutritional
thinking on its head. It suggests, for example, that the problem with
eating red meat‹long associated with cardiovascular disease‹ may owe
less to the animal in question than to that animal's diet. (This might
explain why there are hunter-gatherer populations today who eat far more
red meat than we do without suffering the cardiovascular consequences.)
These days farmed salmon are being fed like feedlot cattle, on grain,
with the predictable result that their omega- 3 levels fall well below
those of wild fish. (Wild fish have especially high levels of omega-3
because the fat concentrates as it moves up the food chain from the
algae and phytoplankton that create it.) Conventional nutritional wisdom
holds that salmon is automatically better for us than beef, but that
judgment assumes the beef has been grain fed and the salmon krill fed;
if the steer is fattened on grass and the salmon on grain, we might
actually be better off eating the beef. (Grass-finished beef has a
two-to-one ratio of omega-6 to -3 compared to more than ten to one in
corn-fed beef.) The species of animal you eat may matter less than what
the animal you're eating has itself eaten.

The fact that the nutritional quality of a given food (and of that
food's food) can vary not just in degree but in kind throws a big wrench
into an industrial food chain, the very premise of which is that beef is
beef and salmon salmon. It also throws a new light on the whole question
of cost, for if quality matters so much more than quantity, then the
price of a food may bear little relation to the value of the nutrients
in it. If units of omega-3s and beta carotene and vitamin E are what an
egg shopper is really after, then Joel's $2.20 a dozen pastured eggs
actually represent a much better deal than the $0.79 a dozen industrial
eggs at the supermarket. As long as one egg looks pretty much like
another, all the chickens like chicken, and beef beef, the substitution
of quantity for quality will go on unnoticed by most consumers, but it
is becoming increasingly apparent to anyone with an electron microscope
or a mass spectrometer that, truly, this is not the same food.
----

Two other books to help you put your health in perspective:

In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto
by Michael Pollanhttp://www.amazon.com/Defense-Food-Eaters-Manifesto/dp/0143114964/ref...
1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238974366&sr=1-1

and

Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition, and Health,
Revised and Expanded Edition (California Studies in Food and Culture)
by Marion Nestlehttp://www.amazon.com/Food-Politics-Influences-Nutrition-California/d...
20254031/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244222934&sr=1-2
----

If we had single-payer health care, our farm subsidies, and toxic
environment would change in order to reduce health costs.
----

As Michael Pollan said,"Americans are overfed and under nourished".

Good luck with your learning curve.
--

- Billy
"For the first time in the history of the world, every human being
is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the
moment of conception until death." Â*- Rachel Carson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En2TzBE0lp4

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050688.html

In article
,
wrote:

On Jun 5, 1:37Â*pm, Billy wrote:
In article
,

wrote:
On Jun 4, 11:30Â*pm, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2009-06-05, Susan wrote:

Some of us, myself included, focus very strongly on eating grass fed
meat and dairy, wild fish and local, organic foods.

Some folks eat Frankenfoods: meal replacement bars, sweets, etc.

Organic unpasteurized honey: frankenfood or sweet?

It would seem to me the focus of the group is clear from the title. Â*I
don't even know the definition of clean eating, but it doesn't seem
synonymous with LC to me.

If you can read, you can learn.


Nowhere in the entire excerpt that you posted below is the term "clean
eating" even used, let alone defined. I did a bit of googling and
can't even find a consensus on what the term means. But here's an
example of a recipe from the "clean eating club":

http://cleaneatingclub.com/clean-eat...erry-orange-sm
oothie/

Strawberry Orange Smoothie

Ingredients:

1 cup low-fat strawberry yogurt
1 cup soy milk (or milk of your choosing)
1 cup orange juice
1 pint strawberries, washed and hulled (reserve 2 for garnish)
3 tbsp. honey
1 tsp. vanilla extract

Nutritional Info:

Calories: 394 | Protein: 8g | Carbs: 78g | Fat: 3g | Cholesterol:
2.5mg | Potassium: 827mg | Fiber: 5g

So, that one smoothie has 78g of carb. Sounds like I was right.
Clean eating is very different from low carb. So now who is the one
that needs to read and learn?

And we are supposed to be the land of the free. Uh huh.
Once you can separate fact from hyperbole, you
may have a chance at survival.

It may sound like you are right, if that is of any comfort to you, but
when you make a sweeping generalization from a random sample, logic goes
out the window.




The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals by Michael
Pollanhttp://www.amazon.com/Omnivores-Dilemma-Natural-History-Meals/dp/0143.
..
83/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206815576&sr=1-1

pg. 266 - 269

I had made pretty much the same meal on several occasions at home, using
the same basic foodstuffs, yet in certain invisible ways this wasn't the
same food at all. Apart from the high color of the egg yolks, these eggs
looked pretty much like any other eggs, the chicken like chicken, but
the fact that the animals in question had spent their lives outdoors on
pastures rather than in a shed eating grain distinguished their flesh
and eggs in important, measurable ways. A growing body of scientific
research indicates that pasture substantially changes the nutritional
profile of chicken and eggs, as well as of beef and milk. The question
we asked about organic food‹is it any better than the conventional
kind?‹turns out to be much easier to answer in the case of grass-farmed
food.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the large quantities of beta-carotene, vitamin
E, and folic acid present in green grass find their way into the flesh
of the animals that eat that grass. (It's the carotenoids that give
these egg yolks their carroty color.) That flesh will also have
considerably less fat in it than the flesh of animals fed exclusively on
grain‹also no surprise, in light of what we know about diets high in
carbohydrates. (And about exercise, something pastured animals actually
get.) But all fats are not created equal‹polyunsaturated fats are better
for us than saturated ones, and certain unsaturated fats are better than
others. As it turns out, the fats created in the flesh of grass eaters
are the best kind for us to eat.

This is no accident. Taking the long view of human nutrition, we evolved
to eat the sort of foods available to hunter-gatherers, most of whose
genes we've inherited and whose bodies we still (more or less) inhabit.
Humans have had less than ten thousand years‹an evolutionary blink‹to
accustom our bodies to agricultural food, and as far as our bodies are
concerned, industrial agricultural food‹a diet based largely on a small
handful of staple grains, like corn‹is still a biological novelty.
Animals raised outdoors on grass have a diet much more like that of the
wild animals humans have been eating at least since the Paleolithic era
than that of the grain-fed animals we only recently began to eat.

So it makes evolutionary sense that pastured meals, the nutritional
profile of which closely resembles that of wild game, would be better
for us. Grass-fed meat, milk, and eggs contain less total fat and less
saturated fats than the same foods from grain-fed animals. Pastured
animals also contain conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), a fatly acid dial.
some recent studies indicate may help reduce weight and prevent cancer,
and which is absent from feedlot animals. But perhaps most important,
meat, eggs, and milk from pastured animals also contain higher levels of
omega-3s, essential fatty acids created in the cells of green plants and
algae that play an indispensable role in human health, and especially in
the growth and health of neurons‹brain cells. (It's important to note
that fish contain higher levels of the most valuable omega-3s than land
animals, yet grass-fed animals do offer significant amounts of such
important omega-3s as alpha linolenic acid‹ALA.) Much research into the
role of omega-3s in the human diet remains to be done, but the
preliminary findings are suggestive: Researchers report that pregnant
women who receive supplements of omega-3s give birth to babies with
higher IQs; children with diets low in omega-3s exhibit more behavioral
and learning problems at school; and puppies eating diets high in
omega-3s prove easier to train. (All these claims come from papers
presented at a 2004 meeting of the International Society for the Study
of Fatty Acids and Lipids.)

One of the most important yet unnoticed changes to the human diet in
modern times has been in the ratio between omega-3 and omega-6, the
other essential fatty acid in our food. Omega-6 is produced in the seeds
of plants; omega-3 in the leaves. As the name indicates, both kinds of
fat are essential, but problems arise when they fall out of balance. (In
fact, there's research to suggest that the ratio of these fats in our
diet may be more important than the amounts.) Too high a ratio of
omega-6 to omega-3 can contribute to heart disease, probably because
omega-6 helps blood clot, while omega-3 helps it flow. (Omega-6 is an
inflammatory; omega-3 an anti-innammatory.) As our diet‹and the diet of
the animals we eat‹shifted from one based on green plants to one based
on grain (from grass to corn), the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 has gone
from roughly one to one (in the diet of hunter-gatherers) to more than
ten to one. (The process of hydrogenadng oil also eliminates omega-3s.)
We may one day come to regard this shift as one of the most deleterious
dietary changes wrought by the industrialization of our food chain. It
was a change we never noticed, since the importance of omega-3s was not
recognized until the 1970s. As in the case of our imperfect knowledge of
soil, the limits of our knowledge of nutrition have obscured what the
industrialization of the food chain is doing to our health. But changes
in the composition of fats in our diet may account for many of the
diseases of civilization‹cardiac, diabetes, obesity, etc.‹that have long
been linked to modern eating habits, as well as for learning and
behavioral problems in children and depression in adults.

Research in this area promises to turn a lot of conventional nutritional
thinking on its head. It suggests, for example, that the problem with
eating red meat‹long associated with cardiovascular disease‹ may owe
less to the animal in question than to that animal's diet. (This might
explain why there are hunter-gatherer populations today who eat far more
red meat than we do without suffering the cardiovascular consequences.)
These days farmed salmon are being fed like feedlot cattle, on grain,
with the predictable result that their omega- 3 levels fall well below
those of wild fish. (Wild fish have especially high levels of omega-3
because the fat concentrates as it moves up the food chain from the
algae and phytoplankton that create it.) Conventional nutritional wisdom
holds that salmon is automatically better for us than beef, but that
judgment assumes the beef has been grain fed and the salmon krill fed;
if the steer is fattened on grass and the salmon on grain, we might
actually be better off eating the beef. (Grass-finished beef has a
two-to-one ratio of omega-6 to -3 compared to more than ten to one in
corn-fed beef.) The species of animal you eat may matter less than what
the animal you're eating has itself eaten.

The fact that the nutritional quality of a given food (and of that
food's food) can vary not just in degree but in kind throws a big wrench
into an industrial food chain, the very premise of which is that beef is
beef and salmon salmon. It also throws a new light on the whole question
of cost, for if quality matters so much more than quantity, then the
price of a food may bear little relation to the value of the nutrients
in it. If units of omega-3s and beta carotene and vitamin E are what an
egg shopper is really after, then Joel's $2.20 a dozen pastured eggs
actually represent a much better deal than the $0.79 a dozen industrial
eggs at the supermarket. As long as one egg looks pretty much like
another, all the chickens like chicken, and beef beef, the substitution
of quantity for quality will go on unnoticed by most consumers, but it
is becoming increasingly apparent to anyone with an electron microscope
or a mass spectrometer that, truly, this is not the same food.
----

Two other books to help you put your health in perspective:

In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto
by Michael
Pollanhttp://www.amazon.com/Defense-Food-Eaters-Manifesto/dp/0143114964/ref.
..
1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238974366&sr=1-1

and

Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition, and Health,
Revised and Expanded Edition (California Studies in Food and Culture)
by Marion
Nestlehttp://www.amazon.com/Food-Politics-Influences-Nutrition-California/d.
..
20254031/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244222934&sr=1-2
----

If we had single-payer health care, our farm subsidies, and toxic
environment would change in order to reduce health costs.
----

As Michael Pollan said,"Americans are overfed and under nourished".

Good luck with your learning curve.
--

- Billy
"For the first time in the history of the world, every human being
is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the
moment of conception until death." Â*- Rachel Carson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En2TzBE0lp4

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050688.html
--

- Billy
"For the first time in the history of the world, every human being
is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the
moment of conception until death." - Rachel Carson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En2TzBE0lp4

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050688.html

1. there are different ideas vs low carb and clean eating
2. the FAQs were helpful and it will take awhile to go through them.
sometimes too much info is a bad thing though
3. my idea of low carb is the same as susan mentioned, natural foods
and low carbing. i think frankenfood is a bad idea for me as proved when
i've tried low carbing that way
4. clean eating to me is cutting out foods in boxes, added ingredients,
etc. as another person stated, you can clean eat on any diet and i
always think that is what most diets are trying to have us do but we
always want to suit it to our needs (i.e. pork skins, lots of cheese,
etc)
5. i hoped to find kind people to share their experiences with me to
help me start my own life journey in eating simply and healthy.
6. the room wasn't what i guess i was expecting.

thanks for everyone's input. take care

catnip