Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Nutritional "advice" entering the Twilight Zone?

I completely agree with you but please can you say "genetically changed' or 'selectively bred to suit human needs' rather than genetically modified. To many people GM means taking DNA from one species and placing it in another.
Sorry, science teacher in me gets a bit twitchy about confusing language.
It was rather deliberate confusing language! We have fetishised the notion of gene manipulation as evil influence on life in a way that rather lets our agricultural technology off the hook. With the genetic modification through breeding that we have done over the centuries and millennia, we have developed life forms that don't do themselves any good (broiler chickens?), the environment any good (nitrogen loss from intensive wheat cultivation), or their consumers any good (the over-availability of cheap food in general, thanks largely to careful selective breeding).

It's not that those things are inherently bad in themselves - any more than gene manipulation is - but the uses to which they have been put are the reason that the environment is being so badly affected by human activity, and why there is the catastrophic rise in "Western diet"-related health problems around the world.

And no, I'm not a paleo nut, either :)
 
The whole paleo thing drives me mad. What's wrong with effing potatoes, for god's sake. They are actually full of good stuff and kept the nation alive and healthy during the Second World War. And why can't you have dairy? Didn't they have cows and goats and sheep back in the day?

And of course our "neolithic ancestors" didn't have a lot of the health complaints we do. They were generally dead by the age of thirty, and you don't get fat if you have to forage and catch all your own food. :mad:
 
The Flntstones diet ...
Why would anyone think that it's the way to choose an "ideal" diet ?
Conveniently those who want an excuse to eat masses of meat tend to cite the Inuit and the Masai - neither of which groups of people are long-lived or healthy - when inconveniently the longest lived people on earth - the Okinawans live mostly on sweet potatoes and green veggies.
 
Last edited:
My local Aldi has "paleo" Granola :confused:

It's on the same shelf as the chia seed, green veggie powder and "cheap" Manuka honey.

If it wasn't so bloody expensive I might try some. I'll eat any kind of cereal so long as it doesn't contain mammoth bits.
Tesco do really yummy "gluten-free" buckwheat Muesli.

The one advantage of this hipster crap is that along with it I get cheap linseed and other things..
 
The whole paleo thing drives me mad. What's wrong with effing potatoes, for god's sake. They are actually full of good stuff and kept the nation alive and healthy during the Second World War. And why can't you have dairy? Didn't they have cows and goats and sheep back in the day?

And of course our "neolithic ancestors" didn't have a lot of the health complaints we do. They were generally dead by the age of thirty, and you don't get fat if you have to forage and catch all your own food. :mad:
I get annoyed by the fact that wheat is now demonised because a minority of people are intolerant to it. It's the basis of western civilisation!

The preponderance of "gluten free" notices all over the place has led to people thinking gluten is nebulously bad for everyone.
 
Try making bread with 'ancient' wheat varieties and you'll understand why they bred wheat to have more gluten in it.

I do use rye and discovered I like khorasan wheat, but to get those fuckers to rise you have to put in a good few handfuls of strong white.
 
And of course our "neolithic ancestors" didn't have a lot of the health complaints we do. They were generally dead by the age of thirty, and you don't get fat if you have to forage and catch all your own food. :mad:

Maybe. From what we know of hunter gathers if you didn't get killed by something you could live to a ripe old age. Life expectancy started dropping later once land was cultivated and some bastard took most of it from you.
 
I was just googling to find the references to "the dangers of modern wheat gluten" I encountered a while back ...

I hadn't realised what a quack Perlmutter ("Grain belly" and "Grain Brain") is - he makes money not just from books, but expensive potions and procedures.

The Problem With David Perlmutter, the <i>Grain Brain</i> Doctor

I never paid any attention to his writings, but in concert with a bunch of high carb vegan Youtubers I started making a point of having wheat every day.
I tend to have a wholemeal veggie pasty for lunch at work and make a couple of small loaves of heavily-seeded bread every weekend.

Wheat has much more fibre than rice, and should give a lot less of a glycaemic spike - as well as containing a lot less arsenic ...

I failed with whole wheat grains - no matter how long I cooked it I ended up feeling it was still expanding in my stomach.
But I'm loving bulgar wheat and have started to eat it every day with the intention of stopping my muesli and general cereal abuse after dinner.
I was pleasantly surprised to find it's considered to be "whole grain"
 
Normal bread gives me heartburn but homemade/unleavened doesn't. I can only conclude it's the CBP that's at fault rather than the gluten
I read an article in a food magazine some time ago which basically said mass produced white bread is akin the uncooked dough because the process doesn't allow the bread to properly develop. Spelt flour is supposed to be much better for anyone experiencing issues with bread produced by the chorleywood process. It involved an interview with a milker/Baker who specialised in spelt and wholegrain flours.
 
I think there is an argument to say that, just as too much refined sugar is disproportionately bad for us, so is too much refined white flour (or refined anything). A lot of that gets turned into claims of "gluten intolerance" or even coeliac disease, but the reality is that we just aren't designed to manage that amount of pure easy-to-assimilate carbohydrate, so it's no surprise that our bodies might react somewhat (bloating, discomfort, spikes in blood sugar, etc.)

That sounds a bit like what may be going on for you - except that you were smart enough to notice it, identify why you were feeling like that, and do something about it. For a lot of people, they'd be reaching for an explanation rather than a cause, and treating it as "something wrong with me" that it was out of their power to easily address.

I try to swerve white bread and anything with a lot of refined carbohydrate, because I'm Type 2 diabetic, but in doing that, I've noticed that if I overdo it on the fresh, fluffy, delightful white bread, I also experience some mild digestive discomfort as well as the various blood-sugar-related symptoms. I'm sure that's just a normal reaction to my innards being given a big load of a substance that doesn't look like anything we might have evolved to consume - we make a fabulous job of it, but at some cost.

I think we've become a bit too ready to pathologise every reaction and see it as "something wrong with me" when all it is in the majority of cases is a question of our diet not being particularly well tuned to our own metabolisms. Tweak that a bit, and for a lot of people the "gluten intolerance" goes away.

It's a bloody old book now, and some of his ideas are somewhat left-field, but I thought Theron Randolph ("Clinical Ecology") was onto something when he looked at how people responded to some foods (and some contaminants, like the phenol compounds on the insides of tins). I'd question his use of the word "allergy" (another thing that's become something of a totem of modern dietary thinking), and "intolerance" describes it better, but he talks about the way in which the body deals with being given substances that it is intolerant of, and may even develop a dependency after continued exposure as it adapts...along with the generic symptoms like rhinitis, bloating, IBS-style symptoms, etc.

A particular example he cites is cow's milk, and how many children are intolerant of that, but whose parents triumphantly announce "Oh, Jimmy's drinking it now - in fact, he can't get enough of it!", while Jimmy's quietly developing (usually mild) long-term chronic symptoms associated with his body's efforts to manage this unwelcome substance.

I think the other area that is going to become increasingly interesting in this connection is the whole gut biome thing, but that's a topic for another post.
Meant to reply to this - yes, it's definitely not an allergic reaction or gluten intolerance else I'd be experiencing a reaction to a lot more flour based foods such as pizza, pasta and cake, which I'm not.

I only get 30 minutes for lunch, so obviously sandwiches are quick and easy. But I switched to soup, mainly noodle soup but sometimes vegetable soup of some kind and felt better for it, I'm also getting more green vegetables (2 portions) in it and the ginger seems to help with my chronic pain. There's chilli in it for the same reason.

I also used to have lucozade when I got into work (no way can I eat solid food first thing) but have switched to a glass of fruit juice instead. Mainly because lucozade started using aspartame in their orange flavour which I find has a horrid aftertaste. But still, it's another improvement diet-wise.
 
Two quacks in one video.

Perlmutter is the one who believes wheat is evil, Gundry thinks all plants are out to get us and should be avoided (lectins) Fruit is apparently no better than Skittles. ...



And I hadn't realised anti-fibre was a thing until I encountered this Russian ex-pharmacist (who actually spent all of his time in the USA as a Microsoft programmer and entrepreneur) :-

Konstantin Monastyrsky - author of "The Fiber Menace"

He himself comments on a critic's blog here :-

Fiber Menace? (Part II)



He sees fibre as a conspiracy - partly thanks to another nutjob of yore - one John Harvey Kellogg - who not only advocated bland food and fibre to discourage lude thoughts, but also genital mutilation for both boys and girls - he apparently also disapproved of sex in marriage.

http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=0
 
Last edited:
Aye. I have a couple of workmates into this shit and I can't be around it, not because I'm prone to disordered eating myself, just that I recognise it when I see it and don't want any part in it. The amount of conversations about food and diet that still goes on amongst adult women in workplaces is worrying.

absolutely agree! and the assumption that this is a good, positive thing we all do / care about. It really depresses me. It's not healthy and its borderline mysogynistic
 
Coincidentally, I was just listening to The Untold on R4 which followed an anorexic teenager for several months. She started off wanting to be "healthy". :(

sad. I think part of the problem is that "healthy" is often used by well-meaning (but slightly disordered themselves) adults to mean restrictive, self-punishing, guilt-laden, neurotic eating and exercise in order to be or maintain a certain weight or body shape, rather than moderation and activity for fun and overall health.
 
Emu meatballs :D

Leave our 'effing emus alone, poor buggers lol!! :)

I

I am virtually the only person who puts milk in tea and coffee, everyone else uses almond (which is appallingly bad for the environment)

Why is it bad for the environment please? I use almond milk cause it lasts at least a week in the fridge once opened and as I don't drink tea often or much ordinary milk tends to go off after I just had a cup or two.
 
Back
Top Bottom