Nix the 'shrooms, we need another M for the evil list

Nix the 'shrooms, we need another M for the evil list

I came across a strange book. A 28 day detox diet and exercise book. It
was written by a female journalist, this was the full extent of her
credentials, the sole reason why women should trust her advice. It
explained which foods are full of toxins and make women fat and which
are safe, without ever mentioning what these “toxins” were or why they
might be accumulating in women's bodies in a way that requires them not
to eat tomatoes, peanuts (but any other nut you might have heard of is
OK), red meat, alcohol, cow's milk (any other species is fine apparently
- water vole?) “additives”, mushrooms, bread, lentils, oranges or sugar.
There was no adequate explanation also for why it is recommended to eat
tuna, raspberries, monkfish, spring onions, alfalfa, dill, chillies,
mackerel, seaweed, walnut oil, miso mustard (whatever that is) and
balsamic vinegar.

Why should balsamic vinegar be recommended, isn't it full of these
mysterious unnamed toxins? If you know anything about how it is made it
should be obvious that it contains lots of substances that, in the food
of the urban poor, would be called contaminants and toxins. Why would
cider vinegar be recommended but no mention given of regular (barley ale
derived) vinegar? Is there any science in this stuff at all or is it all
Hocus Pocus?

Foods seem to be listed if they contain “an abundance of vitamins and
minerals” and put on the blacklist if they contain “toxins and
additives”. If toxins are a problem why is there a recommendation that
“smoked fish is fine provided it has been treated naturally.” What does
that mean? Naturally soaked in salt and saltpetre (the nice old
fashioned name for potassium nitrate, an “evil preservative”, E252, and
active ingredient in gunpowder) then hung up in a rat-infested old
smokehouse while carcinogenic wood-smoke is played over it. Apparently
freezing depletes fish of its essential nutrients, I can only guess that
this is the work of freezer goblins, I wonder if Captain Birds Eye knows
about it.

On the recommended foods list are lemons, limes and grapefruit. Oranges
are on the foods to avoid list, along with both sugar and artificial
sweeteners, no explanation is offered for this. Enjoy your unsweetened
lemons girls. The text of the book says lentils are to be avoided, the
photos feature lentils. Spinach is the only green vegetable on the foods
to avoid list, with not one word of explanation as to why. Neither is
there any explanation of what terrible toxins are to be found in bananas
(banned) but not in plantains (recommended).

Further on in the book that says oranges, bananas and red meat are to be
avoided are recipes for chilli con carne and the suggestion that people
should eat fruit, such as oranges or a banana whenever they feel peckish
during the day rather than crisps, despite the fact that it recommends
potatoes and sunflower seeds as good food.

Peanuts and salt are not to be eaten, you are supposed to make a body
scrub out of peanut butter and sea salt instead. The fat spirits can't
diffuse through the skin it seems.

I picture a meeting in a smoke filled office, as a group of female
journalists, Ab Fab types, one says “what about mushrooms?” Patsy pouts,
stubs out her fag and says “Nix the 'shrooms, we need another M for the
evil list. Is there any more Bolly left in that bucket darling?”

Another thing these women's magazine scientists never explain is how the
body knows whether something rubbed onto the skin is supposed to be
absorbed into the skin, diffuse into the bloodstream or wash away
surface impurities. Does it depend which way you rub it in? Apparently
rubbing aromatherapy oils on the skin leads to the substances being
absorbed by the body, which does not happen for ingredients in
cosmetics, or even the very same chemicals when used as perfumes. I
suppose because when she drew the diagram the woman who came up with the
idea put the arrows on one and not on the other. The same goes for hair
products; rubbing a shampoo into the hair removes stuff from the hair,
rubbing a conditioner adds stuff into the hair, it is all down to the
arrows on the diagram they take down in beauty college when they don't
get the right qualifications to study a science subject.

I found another food book, The Food Doctor, written by a man (!) and a
woman who are both "Dip ION"s which I presume means a Diploma from the
Institute of Nutrition. A Diploma is of a lesser category than a degree.
If a Diploma in nutrition makes them Food Doctors my BA must make me a
Consultant Political Artist.
It seems to me that much of this “woman's wisdom” is based on outdated
philosophies of dualism. Food contains good or bad spirits. If you take
sunflower seeds and potatoes from mother nature's larder they are full
of good spirits. Put them into a factory staffed by fat working class
people from your country and equipped with stainless steel vats the good
spirits leave the food and evil science spirits and urban poor spirits
get in to take their place. (You can call these toxins, nobody knows
what it means, you're safe.) In contrast if you take mother nature's
bounty from another part of the world and put it in a “traditional
craftsman's kitchen” (rat infested rural outhouse) staffed by working
class people who don't speak your language (or at least don't have the
same accents as the poor kids who used to pick on you in the street)
then the good spirits in the food are joined with new good spirits,
especially those that reside in the inedible wood of crusted old casks.


The people who first made balsamic vinegar, or wine, or whisky didn't
put it in wooden casks to enhance the flavour, they did it because cheap
easy to sterilize stainless steel tanks weren't available. We can do
better now. We don't have to contaminate our food with tannins from
inedible wood and carcinogenic traces from burning the bloody things as
being the only way to maintain hygiene.

When there is odourless methane gas available by the gigalitre off the
Scottish coast why do the scotch whisky makers insist on contaminating
their malted barley with carcinogenic smoke from burning peat? So their
falling down juice is seen to be inhabited with tradition and rural
craftsmanship spirits. This is even more of a scandal because the peat
is a declining habitat for threatened flora and fauna. Whisky was made
with peat-smoke cured barley and peaty water for the same reason prison
hooch is made from potato peelings: it's all they had and they wanted to
get drunk cheaply. Can't we do any better now?

What the hell is cider vinegar anyway? Nobody made cider vinegar on
purpose, if some yokel's hygiene standards weren't up to scratch he'd
lose a batch of his much needed tipple to the ever-present menace of the
vinegar flies (Class: Insecta Order: Diptera Family: Drosophilidae) and
give the muck to his wife to clean the drains or whatever she wants to
do with the bloody undrinkable stuff. People didn't make cider vinegar
on purpose just as they didn't make stale bread, cold tea, sour cream or
horse manure on purpose.

Why if you appreciate the taste of berries in your wine don't you make
the stuff with a few of those berries you like the taste of? No, berries
don't have the right bull**** tradition spirit, do they? The skill in
winemaking apparently comes in making fermented pure grape juice taste
contaminated with something else that isn't there. Barking mad. The
world is barking mad.

--

Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org/

Martin Willett wrote:
Nix the 'shrooms, we need another M for the evil list

I came across a strange book. A 28 day detox diet and exercise book. It
was written by a female journalist, this was the full extent of her
credentials, the sole reason why women should trust her advice. It
explained which foods are full of toxins and make women fat and which
are safe, without ever mentioning what these "toxins" were or why they
might be accumulating in women's bodies in a way that requires them not
to eat tomatoes, peanuts (but any other nut you might have heard of is
OK), red meat, alcohol, cow's milk (any other species is fine apparently
- water vole?) "additives", mushrooms, bread, lentils, oranges or sugar.
There was no adequate explanation also for why it is recommended to eat
tuna, raspberries, monkfish, spring onions, alfalfa, dill, chillies,
mackerel, seaweed, walnut oil, miso mustard (whatever that is) and
balsamic vinegar.

Why should balsamic vinegar be recommended, isn't it full of these
mysterious unnamed toxins? If you know anything about how it is made it
should be obvious that it contains lots of substances that, in the food
of the urban poor, would be called contaminants and toxins. Why would
cider vinegar be recommended but no mention given of regular (barley ale
derived) vinegar? Is there any science in this stuff at all or is it all
Hocus Pocus?

Foods seem to be listed if they contain "an abundance of vitamins and
minerals" and put on the blacklist if they contain "toxins and
additives". If toxins are a problem why is there a recommendation that
"smoked fish is fine provided it has been treated naturally." What does
that mean? Naturally soaked in salt and saltpetre (the nice old
fashioned name for potassium nitrate, an "evil preservative", E252, and
active ingredient in gunpowder) then hung up in a rat-infested old
smokehouse while carcinogenic wood-smoke is played over it. Apparently
freezing depletes fish of its essential nutrients, I can only guess that
this is the work of freezer goblins, I wonder if Captain Birds Eye knows
about it.

On the recommended foods list are lemons, limes and grapefruit. Oranges
are on the foods to avoid list, along with both sugar and artificial
sweeteners, no explanation is offered for this. Enjoy your unsweetened
lemons girls. The text of the book says lentils are to be avoided, the
photos feature lentils. Spinach is the only green vegetable on the foods
to avoid list, with not one word of explanation as to why. Neither is
there any explanation of what terrible toxins are to be found in bananas
(banned) but not in plantains (recommended).

Further on in the book that says oranges, bananas and red meat are to be
avoided are recipes for chilli con carne and the suggestion that people
should eat fruit, such as oranges or a banana whenever they feel peckish
during the day rather than crisps, despite the fact that it recommends
potatoes and sunflower seeds as good food.

Peanuts and salt are not to be eaten, you are supposed to make a body
scrub out of peanut butter and sea salt instead. The fat spirits can't
diffuse through the skin it seems.

I picture a meeting in a smoke filled office, as a group of female
journalists, Ab Fab types, one says "what about mushrooms?" Patsy pouts,
stubs out her fag and says "Nix the 'shrooms, we need another M for the
evil list. Is there any more Bolly left in that bucket darling?"

Another thing these women's magazine scientists never explain is how the
body knows whether something rubbed onto the skin is supposed to be
absorbed into the skin, diffuse into the bloodstream or wash away
surface impurities. Does it depend which way you rub it in? Apparently
rubbing aromatherapy oils on the skin leads to the substances being
absorbed by the body, which does not happen for ingredients in
cosmetics, or even the very same chemicals when used as perfumes. I
suppose because when she drew the diagram the woman who came up with the
idea put the arrows on one and not on the other. The same goes for hair
products; rubbing a shampoo into the hair removes stuff from the hair,
rubbing a conditioner adds stuff into the hair, it is all down to the
arrows on the diagram they take down in beauty college when they don't
get the right qualifications to study a science subject.

I found another food book, The Food Doctor, written by a man (!) and a
woman who are both "Dip ION"s which I presume means a Diploma from the
Institute of Nutrition. A Diploma is of a lesser category than a degree.
If a Diploma in nutrition makes them Food Doctors my BA must make me a
Consultant Political Artist.
It seems to me that much of this "woman's wisdom" is based on outdated
philosophies of dualism. Food contains good or bad spirits. If you take
sunflower seeds and potatoes from mother nature's larder they are full
of good spirits. Put them into a factory staffed by fat working class
people from your country and equipped with stainless steel vats the good
spirits leave the food and evil science spirits and urban poor spirits
get in to take their place. (You can call these toxins, nobody knows
what it means, you're safe.) In contrast if you take mother nature's
bounty from another part of the world and put it in a "traditional
craftsman's kitchen" (rat infested rural outhouse) staffed by working
class people who don't speak your language (or at least don't have the
same accents as the poor kids who used to pick on you in the street)
then the good spirits in the food are joined with new good spirits,
especially those that reside in the inedible wood of crusted old casks.


The people who first made balsamic vinegar, or wine, or whisky didn't
put it in wooden casks to enhance the flavour, they did it because cheap
easy to sterilize stainless steel tanks weren't available. We can do
better now. We don't have to contaminate our food with tannins from
inedible wood and carcinogenic traces from burning the bloody things as
being the only way to maintain hygiene.

When there is odourless methane gas available by the gigalitre off the
Scottish coast why do the scotch whisky makers insist on contaminating
their malted barley with carcinogenic smoke from burning peat? So their
falling down juice is seen to be inhabited with tradition and rural
craftsmanship spirits. This is even more of a scandal because the peat
is a declining habitat for threatened flora and fauna. Whisky was made
with peat-smoke cured barley and peaty water for the same reason prison
hooch is made from potato peelings: it's all they had and they wanted to
get drunk cheaply. Can't we do any better now?

What the hell is cider vinegar anyway? Nobody made cider vinegar on
purpose, if some yokel's hygiene standards weren't up to scratch he'd
lose a batch of his much needed tipple to the ever-present menace of the
vinegar flies (Class: Insecta Order: Diptera Family: Drosophilidae) and
give the muck to his wife to clean the drains or whatever she wants to
do with the bloody undrinkable stuff. People didn't make cider vinegar
on purpose just as they didn't make stale bread, cold tea, sour cream or
horse manure on purpose.

Why if you appreciate the taste of berries in your wine don't you make
the stuff with a few of those berries you like the taste of? No, berries
don't have the right bull**** tradition spirit, do they? The skill in
winemaking apparently comes in making fermented pure grape juice taste
contaminated with something else that isn't there. Barking mad. The
world is barking mad.

--

Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org/

I know what you mean. I hate that when people don't even explain why
they recommend something. Most likely, she has no GOOD science or even
anecdotal evidence to recommend many of her pros and cons. I know cows
milk, followed by peanuts are the 2 foods mostly likely to cause
allergic reactions, but if you aren't allergic, I don't know of any
good reason to avoid them, especially in moderation due to the fat
content. You can always drink nonfat milk and even lactose fat-free
milk if you are lactose intolerent and wanting to avoid so much fat.

I also remember about 15 years ago, one of the major network news TV
channels kept teasing about the no. 1 best food recommended by some
nutritionist (at that time and for that study or opinion poll, whatever
it was). Finally, they came up with mushrooms. Unfortunately, just
like your book, the news reporter failed to say WHY mushrooms were so
good. I can remember eating a lot of them..morels from Indiana years
ago. My mother used to cut them lengthwise, wash and soak them in water
overnight, then dip them in an egg batter, followed by a flower bath,
then saute them in butter. I doubt there were quite so good for you
with all the fat and cholesterol after that though, but man were they
delicious. Of course many foods are delicious if you put egg on them
and saute them in butter. dkw

I believe this messages are off-topic for the newsgroups:
alt.food.wine,rec.crafts.winemaking. And I'd like to ask you all to
stop crossposting.

Thanx

wrote:
I believe this messages are off-topic for the newsgroups:
alt.food.wine,rec.crafts.winemaking. And I'd like to ask you all to
stop crossposting.


The original post was on-topic to all the groups posted as it was about
food and wine and some of the preposterous ideas that are wrapped up in
these subjects that deserve to be challenged.

If you want your world to become ever smaller and more on-topic to an
ever more closely defined topic you might be happier with a private
membership-only forum or email newsletter rather than a newsgroup.

Just a thought.
--

Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org/

In article .com,
" wrote:

Martin Willett wrote:
Nix the 'shrooms, we need another M for the evil list

I came across a strange book. A 28 day detox diet and exercise book. It
was written by a female journalist, this was the full extent of her
credentials, the sole reason why women should trust her advice. It
explained which foods are full of toxins and make women fat and which
are safe, without ever mentioning what these "toxins" were or why they
might be accumulating in women's bodies in a way that requires them not
to eat tomatoes, peanuts (but any other nut you might have heard of is
OK), red meat, alcohol, cow's milk (any other species is fine apparently
- water vole?) "additives", mushrooms, bread, lentils, oranges or sugar.
There was no adequate explanation also for why it is recommended to eat
tuna, raspberries, monkfish, spring onions, alfalfa, dill, chillies,
mackerel, seaweed, walnut oil, miso mustard (whatever that is) and
balsamic vinegar.

Why should balsamic vinegar be recommended, isn't it full of these
mysterious unnamed toxins? If you know anything about how it is made it
should be obvious that it contains lots of substances that, in the food
of the urban poor, would be called contaminants and toxins. Why would
cider vinegar be recommended but no mention given of regular (barley ale
derived) vinegar? Is there any science in this stuff at all or is it all
Hocus Pocus?

Foods seem to be listed if they contain "an abundance of vitamins and
minerals" and put on the blacklist if they contain "toxins and
additives". If toxins are a problem why is there a recommendation that
"smoked fish is fine provided it has been treated naturally." What does
that mean? Naturally soaked in salt and saltpetre (the nice old
fashioned name for potassium nitrate, an "evil preservative", E252, and
active ingredient in gunpowder) then hung up in a rat-infested old
smokehouse while carcinogenic wood-smoke is played over it. Apparently
freezing depletes fish of its essential nutrients, I can only guess that
this is the work of freezer goblins, I wonder if Captain Birds Eye knows
about it.

On the recommended foods list are lemons, limes and grapefruit. Oranges
are on the foods to avoid list, along with both sugar and artificial
sweeteners, no explanation is offered for this. Enjoy your unsweetened
lemons girls. The text of the book says lentils are to be avoided, the
photos feature lentils. Spinach is the only green vegetable on the foods
to avoid list, with not one word of explanation as to why. Neither is
there any explanation of what terrible toxins are to be found in bananas
(banned) but not in plantains (recommended).

Further on in the book that says oranges, bananas and red meat are to be
avoided are recipes for chilli con carne and the suggestion that people
should eat fruit, such as oranges or a banana whenever they feel peckish
during the day rather than crisps, despite the fact that it recommends
potatoes and sunflower seeds as good food.

Peanuts and salt are not to be eaten, you are supposed to make a body
scrub out of peanut butter and sea salt instead. The fat spirits can't
diffuse through the skin it seems.

I picture a meeting in a smoke filled office, as a group of female
journalists, Ab Fab types, one says "what about mushrooms?" Patsy pouts,
stubs out her fag and says "Nix the 'shrooms, we need another M for the
evil list. Is there any more Bolly left in that bucket darling?"

Another thing these women's magazine scientists never explain is how the
body knows whether something rubbed onto the skin is supposed to be
absorbed into the skin, diffuse into the bloodstream or wash away
surface impurities. Does it depend which way you rub it in? Apparently
rubbing aromatherapy oils on the skin leads to the substances being
absorbed by the body, which does not happen for ingredients in
cosmetics, or even the very same chemicals when used as perfumes. I
suppose because when she drew the diagram the woman who came up with the
idea put the arrows on one and not on the other. The same goes for hair
products; rubbing a shampoo into the hair removes stuff from the hair,
rubbing a conditioner adds stuff into the hair, it is all down to the
arrows on the diagram they take down in beauty college when they don't
get the right qualifications to study a science subject.

I found another food book, The Food Doctor, written by a man (!) and a
woman who are both "Dip ION"s which I presume means a Diploma from the
Institute of Nutrition. A Diploma is of a lesser category than a degree.
If a Diploma in nutrition makes them Food Doctors my BA must make me a
Consultant Political Artist.
It seems to me that much of this "woman's wisdom" is based on outdated
philosophies of dualism. Food contains good or bad spirits. If you take
sunflower seeds and potatoes from mother nature's larder they are full
of good spirits. Put them into a factory staffed by fat working class
people from your country and equipped with stainless steel vats the good
spirits leave the food and evil science spirits and urban poor spirits
get in to take their place. (You can call these toxins, nobody knows
what it means, you're safe.) In contrast if you take mother nature's
bounty from another part of the world and put it in a "traditional
craftsman's kitchen" (rat infested rural outhouse) staffed by working
class people who don't speak your language (or at least don't have the
same accents as the poor kids who used to pick on you in the street)
then the good spirits in the food are joined with new good spirits,
especially those that reside in the inedible wood of crusted old casks.


The people who first made balsamic vinegar, or wine, or whisky didn't
put it in wooden casks to enhance the flavour, they did it because cheap
easy to sterilize stainless steel tanks weren't available. We can do
better now. We don't have to contaminate our food with tannins from
inedible wood and carcinogenic traces from burning the bloody things as
being the only way to maintain hygiene.

When there is odourless methane gas available by the gigalitre off the
Scottish coast why do the scotch whisky makers insist on contaminating
their malted barley with carcinogenic smoke from burning peat? So their
falling down juice is seen to be inhabited with tradition and rural
craftsmanship spirits. This is even more of a scandal because the peat
is a declining habitat for threatened flora and fauna. Whisky was made
with peat-smoke cured barley and peaty water for the same reason prison
hooch is made from potato peelings: it's all they had and they wanted to
get drunk cheaply. Can't we do any better now?

What the hell is cider vinegar anyway? Nobody made cider vinegar on
purpose, if some yokel's hygiene standards weren't up to scratch he'd
lose a batch of his much needed tipple to the ever-present menace of the
vinegar flies (Class: Insecta Order: Diptera Family: Drosophilidae) and
give the muck to his wife to clean the drains or whatever she wants to
do with the bloody undrinkable stuff. People didn't make cider vinegar
on purpose just as they didn't make stale bread, cold tea, sour cream or
horse manure on purpose.

Why if you appreciate the taste of berries in your wine don't you make
the stuff with a few of those berries you like the taste of? No, berries
don't have the right bull**** tradition spirit, do they? The skill in
winemaking apparently comes in making fermented pure grape juice taste
contaminated with something else that isn't there. Barking mad. The
world is barking mad.

--

Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org/

I know what you mean. I hate that when people don't even explain why
they recommend something. Most likely, she has no GOOD science or even
anecdotal evidence to recommend many of her pros and cons. I know cows
milk, followed by peanuts are the 2 foods mostly likely to cause
allergic reactions, but if you aren't allergic, I don't know of any
good reason to avoid them, especially in moderation due to the fat
content. You can always drink nonfat milk and even lactose fat-free
milk if you are lactose intolerent and wanting to avoid so much fat.

I also remember about 15 years ago, one of the major network news TV
channels kept teasing about the no. 1 best food recommended by some
nutritionist (at that time and for that study or opinion poll, whatever
it was). Finally, they came up with mushrooms. Unfortunately, just
like your book, the news reporter failed to say WHY mushrooms were so
good. I can remember eating a lot of them..morels from Indiana years
ago. My mother used to cut them lengthwise, wash and soak them in water
overnight, then dip them in an egg batter, followed by a flower bath,
then saute them in butter. I doubt there were quite so good for you
with all the fat and cholesterol after that though, but man were they
delicious. Of course many foods are delicious if you put egg on them
and saute them in butter. dkw

Mushrooms are a decent protein source with no fat, and lo cal due to
high water content. Unfortunately, for that, most of the cooking methods
tend to put all of that back in such as cooking them with bacon or
butter but they are damn tasty anyhow. A substantial part of my medical
specialty is nutrition but we can still eat foods because they taste
good. Everyone touts the longevity powers of red wine despite the fact
that you would have to drink about 8-10 cases a day to get enough of the
active ingredient. You have to take a large grain of salt (unless you
are certain male hypertensives) with any food claims both positive and
negative. A balanced diet with moderation in calorie volume and a
balance of fat, carbohydrate and protein works the best and eating some
food or another because it is good for you is nonsense. I still remember
the claims made for the longevity power of yoghurt because there were
old men in Soviet Georgia who lived a long time. Turns out they also had
almost stress-free, physically active lives and most of them even
smoked. Yoghurt had little to do with their longevity but you could
never convince Dannon of that.