If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
question
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? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
question
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
question
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
question
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
question
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
things i have learned
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Good morning or good evening depending upon your location. I want to ask you the most important question of your life. Your joy or sorrow for all eternity depends upon your answer. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good | [email protected] | Weightwatchers | 0 | April 22nd, 2005 10:21 PM |
Good morning or good evening depending upon your location. I want to ask you the most important question of your life. Your joy or sorrow for all eternity depends upon your answer. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how g | Marengo | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | April 22nd, 2005 03:05 AM |
Good morning or good evening depending upon your location. I want to ask you the most important question of your life. Your joy or sorrow for all eternity depends upon your answer. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good | [email protected] | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | April 21st, 2005 06:59 PM |
Good morning or good evening depending upon your location. I want to ask you the most important question of your life. Your joy or sorrow for all eternity depends upon your answer. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good | [email protected] | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | April 21st, 2005 06:58 PM |