|
[ Diets other than Robert's Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |
A semi hypothetical question labrat.
It's 1, 002 years in the past, and you're doing the hunter/gatherer thing.
How do you know what's good to eat?
If it tastes good, does that mean it's good for you?
Relatedly, if you "hunger" for a certain something does that mean that's what your body
craves/needs and therefore it is "good" for you?
OK Miss H-G. Jump forward to now. No more hunting chocolate in the wild LOL.
You're still a Hunter-Gatherer, 1000+ years not being enough time to for nature to
come up with the Supermarket-Gatherer subtype.
Why can you no longer rely on eating as you did 1000 years ago? discounting the growth homones,
pesticides, and chemicals, isn't what you're eating the same thing you ate 1000 years ago?
If it isn't hasn't your body "adapted" by now?
How come what tastes good is no longer good for you, and how can a distinction be made
between dead food and food with some nutritional value?
Last, is this just an issue with H-G's or do all the type face the same question. Does the
MeFerran diet address these issues?
Off the board, I and some of my junk food junkie friends are having a discussion about this
and as the resident "healthnut" I am trying to explain why there was never such a thing as
French Fry Hunting Parties...
In Reply to: 1002 Years in the past (for labrat) posted by Gregory on August 22, 2002 at 00:34:43:
The body craves what it is used to getting. If you feed it a Big Mac, fries, and a coke, it will crave it because it remembers what it tasted like. Also, the candida, yeast, and fungi, make your body crave it because it feeds the parasites. Not only that, but we Americans tend to "overfeed" ourselves so that we lose the ability to listen to our bodies tell us what we really need. Mary
In Reply to: 1002 Years in the past (for labrat) posted by Gregory on August 22, 2002 at 00:34:43:
What really tastes good? That's all relative and subjective. People who eat a modern diet, may think that raw brocoli tastes disgusting. Also, people who eat a WFD, may think a Big Mac tastes disgusting.
I really don't think taste is or was solely a determining factor of what to eat. I also think that humans were always a little more intelligent and intuitive than they have been portrayed and didn't just eat indiscriminately by picking something up and tasting it, then if it tastes good to eat it.
Fish is very good for you, but I hate it. I think it has the nastiest, foulest taste you can find and I don't eat it. That doesn't mean it isn't good for me. Also, there are lots of poisonous things that taste really good, like certain berries and mushrooms. So, I really don't think taste is a determining factor in what foods are good or bad.
In Reply to: 1002 Years in the past (for labrat) posted by Gregory on August 22, 2002 at 00:34:43:
Good Question, Gregory.
I KNOW I have archived the reasons for this in either the diet or the PWFD archives.
If you cannot find it let me know.
Walt
In Reply to: Re: 1002 Years in the past (for labrat) posted by Donna E. on August 22, 2002 at 11:52:32:
Hi, Donna E.
It has now been proven that some "bad" tastes for individuals are genetic.
See my previous note today about what is known about how our bodies "genetically" know what we need by taste alone. Also, see the salt archives about how this works in lower animals--already proven.
Walt
In Reply to: Re: 1002 Years in the past (for labrat) posted by Walt Stoll on August 23, 2002 at 10:20:13:
Hi Dr. Stoll,
I read your great article on salt here:
http://www.askwaltstollmd.com/archives/bob/b071998.html
I recently bought some Real Salt that looks and acts exactly as you describe. Since I have been using this salt (only about 6 weeks) I do not incessantly pour salt all over my food anymore. (I had my husband really worried about my salt use.) I wondered what happened, now I know. Before that, I had been using sea salt from bulk at whole foods market, but it is just white like any other salt, just a little more coarse. When they were out of it, I bought the Real Salt. It’s also good to know that they mine mineral salt from somewhere other than the ocean. My dad had me worried because he told me by eating unrefined salt, I am also eating medical waste and pollution from the ocean. (He’s really against eating anything that hasn’t been zapped or processed to be clean. I made some yogurt, cream cheese and whey out of raw milk and he told me I was going to get tuberculosis.) I wonder if part of what helped me as a child was that I would break off bits of my pony’s salt lick and just eat it. Besides the pony tongue germs :), I guess I was doing myself a favor.
Anyway, about the taste. You said that the animals will start to crave the salt. I have a question about cravings. I was told (by a doctor that I did not like) that they are a sign of allergy – you crave what you are allergic to. If this is true, how do you tell a difference between an allergy craving and a deficiency craving, let alone a withdrawal craving? I read one post here that says, all cravings are good and to appease the craving the minute you get it, with a little of what you are craving will end the craving, not hurt you and the crisis will be over. Do you agree with that?
http://www.askwaltstollmd.com/archives/mcs/43942.html#44041
I don’t understand that, because a craving could just be the result of homeostasis trying to be reached when you are making changes in your body, and the craving often is not satisfied with a little bit. If you give into the urge for homeostasis, then how do you reach the level you are trying to get to by making the changes? If you always satisfy that craving, then you aren’t making the change needed. I think homeostasis is behind any craving and it can be good or bad to satisfy that craving depending on what is going on. Is that anywhere near accurate?
I am still trying to find taste and genetics and what taste has to do with what is good for you or not.
In Reply to: 1002 Years in the past (for labrat) posted by Gregory on August 22, 2002 at 00:34:43:
well. You've been sitting around thinking again, haven't you? ;-)
I'm not sure I KNOW the answer to your question about how you know what to eat. I'd guess that you know what to eat first, because it's what your mother gave you to eat, and second because that's what's available where you live. I guess if you're a creationist, maybe you were given or "told" what to eat by your maker...but I digress...
The taste factor I'd answer by saying that if it doesn't taste or smell BAD then it's probably okay to eat...again having been coached by mom and her experience with her second cousin twice removed who ate that bitter berry and tried to stop a mastodon with her bare hands...stay away from the bitter berries...what I'm saying is I guess that people experimented and learned from experience about poisons and other baddies...as well as the 'goodies'. (these berries could be considered either I suppose!)
And as far as hungering for stuff, let's assume you're pretty much always hungry. Whatever you can get your hands on will do, unless it's something that stinks. On the other hand, since I assume you're eating exclusively whole foods to which you are adapted, in that context, perhaps if you do crave something like salt, it's because your body is able to send a clear signal.
Today's questions are a bit easier to answer. The answer in all cases has to do with genetic mixing. Even with your arguement for the foods being the same (and we know they're really not), I am not who I was 1,000 years ago! I live in the US and come from Central American and Scottish ancestry. My 1,000 year old relative was a pure rat, with only northern european rat blood coursing through her veins. She lived in a SMALL world where she evolved to live sucessfully on the foods available there...she never knew a mango even existed. My OTHER ancestors come from all over the world ...So even though my 1,000 yr old european ancestor didn't know about mangoes, my mother relished them and ate them regularly along with a lot of other tropical fruit. So theoretically, (that is to say if I was a purebred rat), I could eat what I was eating 1,000 years ago, I no longer know what that might have been.
If my mixed up genetics are extreme and so cause me chronic problems, then I need to figure out exactly what my needs are. If on the other hand I am a lucky rat and don't have any health concerns, then it's not an issue.
As far as the adaptation aspect of this; adaptation takes thousands of years...I, as an individual cannot "adapt" genetically...I can only "adjust". I believe the difference between the two causes all the confusion. I can adjust to an offending food and go on with my life. That doesn't mean there is no stress on my bodymind from the offensive food, only that my body has a great capacity for adjusting...The E-diet, by eliminating the offensive yet tolerated foods, will show any individual just how much capacity their body had for adjusting and dealing with the stress...and we all know what happens when that last straw of stress is placed on our already overloaded bodies!!!
I hope this helped, Gregory...sorry it took so long to get back to you! Since I started composing this post, a number of others responded to you, but I decided not to re-write the beginning....
~~~8>
p.s. it's not just an HG issue, but affects everyone.
In Reply to: Finally! posted by labrat on August 23, 2002 at 19:51:33:
Even though other people did weigh in, it was your response I was waitng for. We have
Gee. That sucks.
In Reply to: Re: 1002 Years in the past (for labrat) posted by Donna E. on August 23, 2002 at 15:03:38:
Thanks, Donna E.
Now, remember why the trace minerals in the mineral salt stop the salt craving.
The 2 cravings you are describing are totally different mechanisms. To my knowledge, no one has satisfactorily explained the hypersentitivity craving mechanism. The salt craving mechanism is very well understood.
Hope this helps.
Namaste`
Walt
In Reply to: Finally! My Favorite Makes An Appearance posted by Gregory on August 23, 2002 at 23:53:56:
Gregory,
you wrote, "So jumping ahead 1000 years, in the
I think you're headed in the right direction - BUT, the main point I was trying to make and apparently didn't, was that GENETIC MIXING, more than any other variable, is responsible for us not knowing what's good to eat today.
If you're a pure blooded Eskimo and live off the land like your ancestors back 1,000 years did, then you KNOW exactly what you're supposed to eat. Unfortunately, most of us are not pure blooded anymore - transporation and communications have made it possible for those Northern Eurpoean and Central American Rats to meet, get to know one another and have offspring. Those offspring, also able to get around WAY better than they could in the past, now live in the USA. The combination now is even more complex - Northern European nutritional needs mixed with Central American nutritional needs living in neither of those areas...so the fact is, you actually DO carry a genetic memory - a genetic NEED more accurately - but it needs to be extricated from the mixed up scenario that developed.
1,000 years ago, most rats lived and died within a small distance from where they were born. Nowadays populations from all corners of the earth are intermixed and that brings mixed up nutrional puzzles and as we've also seen disease that can spread to unresistant populations...
Hopefully that clarifies things a bit. Still sucks, though ;-)
~~~8>
In Reply to: Re: 1002 Years in the past (for labrat) Archive in diet. posted by Walt Stoll on August 24, 2002 at 09:39:51:
Yes, thank you. It helped me see how much more I have to learn, learn, learn. Oh, will I ever understand what I need to? (Big breath.)
In Reply to: Re: 1002 Years in the past (for labrat) Archive in diet. posted by Donna E. on August 26, 2002 at 01:56:25:
Hi, Donna E.
It gets easier!
Namaste`
Walt
Lightwalking
Gregory
Follow Ups:
Re: 1002 Years in the past (for labrat)
Posted by Mary on August 22, 2002 at 09:27:35:
Follow Ups:
Re: 1002 Years in the past (for labrat)
Posted by Donna E. on August 22, 2002 at 11:52:32:
Follow Ups:
Re: 1002 Years in the past (for labrat)
Posted by Walt Stoll on August 23, 2002 at 09:02:21:
Follow Ups:
Re: 1002 Years in the past (for labrat)
Posted by Walt Stoll on August 23, 2002 at 10:20:13:
Follow Ups:
Re: 1002 Years in the past (for labrat)
Posted by Donna E. on August 23, 2002 at 15:03:38:
Follow Ups:
Finally!
Posted by labrat on August 23, 2002 at 19:51:33:
Follow Ups:
Finally! My Favorite Makes An Appearance
Posted by Gregory on August 23, 2002 at 23:53:56:
had some discussions about this before, quite a few memorable ones on that other
board so we both know the
assumptions being made. Dennis, is you are reading this, other variables were deliberately
being left out not to make it into junk science but to focus on a very specific aspect of
the topic. Understand where you are coming from but it is irrelevant in this case.
Now then. The those rats from long ago were purebloods since they didn't get around much,
the world being a hostile place for rats. I'm not sure how or when the Scottish rats made
the connection with the Central American rats but the same thing happened in that both "clans"
until they came into contact with each other were pretty much limited to what foodstuffs
were available locally. Hit-or-miss plus watching Mom & Dad determined "what was good to eat"
and only after making that determination could your body say we want [and give you a "mind picture"]
as a symbol of the thing needed to fix a body problem. So jumping ahead 1000 years, in the
intervening time the food supply has changed radiacally so that the food suppy from 1000 years
ago esentially no longer exists and even if you carried forward a genetic memory from your
ancestors of "what is good to eat" those items no longer exist and certanly not in the form
from "the before time."
So one's body can no longer be "trusted" in the sense that that trust is routinely violated
by food flavorists deliberately manipulating your taste.
Lightwalking,
Gregory
Follow Ups:
Re: 1002 Years in the past (for labrat) Archive in diet.
Posted by Walt Stoll on August 24, 2002 at 09:39:51:
Follow Ups:
Um...it's more like this...
Posted by labrat on August 24, 2002 at 13:38:51:
intervening time the food supply has changed radiacally so that the food suppy from 1000 years
ago esentially no longer exists and even if you carried forward a genetic memory from your
ancestors of "what is good to eat" those items no longer exist and certanly not in the form
from "the before time."
So one's body can no longer be "trusted" in the sense that that trust is routinely violated
by food flavorists deliberately manipulating your taste."
Follow Ups:
Re: 1002 Years in the past (for labrat) Archive in diet.
Posted by Donna E. on August 26, 2002 at 01:56:25:
Follow Ups:
Re: 1002 Years in the past (for labrat) Archive in diet.
Posted by Walt Stoll on August 27, 2002 at 09:49:19:
Follow Ups:
[ Diets other than Robert's Archive ]
[ Main Archives Page ]
[ Glossary/Index ]
[ FAQ ]
[ Recommended Books ]
[ Bulletin Board ]
Search this site!