PDA

View Full Version : Another Take On Health Food Diets



RAF
03-28-2003, 01:40 PM
Over the years, I have met more than a couple of people in the martial arts who fit this syndrome.

How about you?

____________________________________________

http://www.beyondveg.com/bratman-s/hfj/hf-junkie-1a.shtml

http://www.beyondveg.com/cat/psych/index.shtml


Health Food Junkie

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obsession with dietary perfection can sometimes do more harm than good, says one who has been there.

by Steven Bratman, M.D.
Originally published in the October 1997 issue of YOGA JOURNAL.
Reprinted by permission of the author.
Twenty years ago I was a wholehearted, impassioned advocate of healing through food. In those days I was a cook and organic farmer at a large commune in upstate New York. Today, as a physician who practices alternative medicine, I still almost always recommend dietary improvement to my patients. How could I not? A low-fat, semivegetarian diet helps prevent nearly all major illnesses, and more focused dietary interventions can dramatically improve specific health problems. But I'm no longer the true believer in nutritional medicine I used to be.

Where once I was enthusiastically evangelical, I've grown cautious. I can no longer console myself with the hope that one day a universal theory of eating will be discovered that can match people with the diets right for them. And I no longer have faith that dietary therapy is a uniformly wholesome intervention. I have come to regard it as I do drug therapy: as a useful treatment with serious potential side-effects.

My disillusionment began in the old days at the commune. As staff cook I was required to prepare several separate meals at once to satisfy the insistent and conflicting demands of our members. All communes attract idealists; ours attracted food idealists. On a daily basis I encountered the chaos of contradictory nutritional theories.

Our main entree was always vegetarian, but a vocal subgroup insisted we serve meat. Since many vegetarians would not eat from pots and pans contaminated by fleshly vibrations, the meat had to be cooked in a separate kitchen.

We cooks also had to satisfy the vegans, who eschewed all milk and egg products. The rights of the Hindu-influenced crowd couldn't be neglected either. They insisted we omit the onion-family foods which, they believed, provoked sexual desire.

For the raw-foodists we always laid out trays of sliced raw vegetables, but the macrobiotic adherents looked at these offerings with disgust. They would only eat cooked vegetables. Furthermore, they believed that only local, in-season vegetables should be eaten, which led to frequent and violent arguments about whether the commune should spend its money on lettuce in January.

(continued on link)-----------------------------------------------------------

Stephen Bratman, M.D., is a holistic physician practicing in Ft. Collins, Colorado. He is the author of The Alternative Medicine Sourcebook: A Realistic Evaluation of Alternative Healing Methods (Lowell House).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to Psychology of Idealistic Diets

guohuen
03-29-2003, 10:15 AM
Hahaha, that article took me right back to the summers of '83 and '84 when I was the food service director of the largest Girl Scout camp in Vermont. (I know, it was a tough job but someone had to do it.) Two hundred and fifty kids nonwithstanding, the real problem was the seventy eight councilors. A mixed group of vegitarians, vegans, macrobiotics, omnivores and carnivores.
Sneek up on me and yell "girl scouts" and I go into psycotic twitching and eyerolling.:p

Former castleva
03-29-2003, 02:04 PM
I consider myself sort of a pseudo"vegetarian",I only avoid red meat which is not a curseword and try to avoid eating less meat,and I do not eat pig or such animals.
However,the nutritional value or lack of it has been overestimated by some.
In my humble objective opinion that experts share,pure vegetarism in terms of health is not something supported by science but rather a cultural and ideological trend which can be even dangerous.
Besides this,I try to stick to "health food" nowadays.

Oh yes,religious reasons aside.

Spark
04-03-2003, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by inic
well, i've been studying nutrition for a while.... my diet is basically cook little as possible and only eat things that are non-manmade....
so basically i do the paleolithic diet deal...

one thing i hate is arguing with vegans/vegatarians. they all seem to be such hard headed people.

What does that mean, non-manmade?
Here's something interesting, in terms of cooking as little as possible ...
I saw some show on, I think it was the cooking channel or something, this restaurant in LA where the guy doesn't cook ANYTHING. It's all raw, and if I'm not mistaken, it was all fruits and vegetables. Anyhow, the whole point, and i'm sure you know this, is about when cooking fruits and vegetables you kill the cells that are carrying all the nutrients for you body (does that sound right?). So basically they were interviewing customers and people who frequent the place and all of them were testifying how jacked they are after eating there and how they could run a marathon, do 20 things at once, etc ...
Does that sound like the same reasoning for your diet??

PS - I think some of us vegetarians/vegans think it's the meat-eaters who are being hard headed ;)

SaMantis
04-04-2003, 09:29 AM
Non-manmade ... unprocessed, I think. Which would exclude canned foods, box meals (Hamburger Helper etc.), junk foods, most restaurant foods, pasta and bread (which require a degree of human intervention to be produced), and Combos pizza-flavored pretzels.

If you want to get really strict about it ... exclude stuff like coffee (needs processing to be drinkable), domesticated rice (can't be fully grown and readied for the table without human intervention), many teas (need fermentation and/or flavoring depending on the type), and beer. Sweet, sweet beer ... :(

Guile
04-04-2003, 10:37 PM
NO Tap water!
It has chlorine.
:D

SevenStar
04-05-2003, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by Spark


Here's something interesting, in terms of cooking as little as possible ...
I saw some show on, I think it was the cooking channel or something, this restaurant in LA where the guy doesn't cook ANYTHING. It's all raw, and if I'm not mistaken, it was all fruits and vegetables. Anyhow, the whole point, and i'm sure you know this, is about when cooking fruits and vegetables you kill the cells that are carrying all the nutrients for you body (does that sound right?).

nutrients can be lost a number of ways, not just cooking. For example, when you boil veggies, the nutrients lost are preserved in the water you boiled it in. You can drink the water and still get the nutrients that were lost from the veggies. If you steam the veggies, you lose 50% less of the nutrients. other good ways to good food and preserve nutrients are stir frying, broiling and baking.

some veggies begin losing their nutrients from a chemical reaction that occurs once it has been bruised or cut. notice that an onion doesn't smell when it's whole? that's from a reaction that get started when the onion's cells get cut. (that smell has nothing to do with nutrient loss, it just fit what I was talking about.)

simply soaking some veggies causes nutrient loss. In milk, exposure to light will do the trick. That's why some companies now store milk in yellow jugs.

If you are the type to let veggies sit in the fridge a while before you actually cook them, and you are concerned about losing vitamins, you may be better of buying frozen veggies.

TigerJaw
04-07-2003, 02:50 AM
I've heard of something called Orthorexia Nervosa

Washington post article (http://www.washtimes.com/culture/20020625-79111.htm)

It's obsession with extreemly healthy diets. I've met people in America who I think suffer a tinge of this. I remember a vegan restaurant in Austin where they only cut the vegetables along their meridians to prevent the loss of the vital life energy from the brocolli. :rolleyes:

It seems that we increasingly vilify food groups or production methods and many of us go to extremes or hold rather silly or unscientific views on food.

It's also the case that much of what's touted about healthy eating has very little basis in evidence.

Take Cholesterol for example. The evidence that so-called good cholesterol is protective is less strong than the evidence suggesting that total cholesterol, including good cholesterol is the important factor. So why are we all convinced that the former is the case. 10:1 it'll all change in a few years. Same thing with dietary cholesterol causing high blood cholesterol. For years we were told eggs were evil, now they're back on the menu.

Then there's salt and how much is too much. And now, carb is the new fat. One of the main arguments used is that Americans eat a lower percentage of fat now than twenty years ago. Talk about missing the point!

If the mainstream advice is that flaky, just think how little evidence the new theories must have before they start to be taken seriously? The answer is practically none.

Sorry, rant over.

Royal Dragon
04-07-2003, 09:27 AM
I eat based on the Caveman principal.

Inwas really into primitive man's life styles many years ago, and I noticed that the men would get up in the moring, and eat what ever fruites the women (who got up earlier) had collected for them for break fast. Then they scamper off to hunt. Sometime in the middle of the day they sat down, and ate whatever plants and such were close buy them for lunch. Finnaly, in the evening, they ate whatever animal they caught on the hunt that day.

In more modern terms, they carbo loaded all day, and had the majority of their protine at night before they turned in.

Oh, one ore thing, it seems primitive man was getting about 9-1/2 hours a sleep a day. Usually 8-9 at night, plus a bit of a nap in the late afternoon if the hunt was sucsesful early.

As an experiment, I tried this out, and when I was doing it, I was the healthiest I had ever been in my life.

I put my daughter on a diet based on this concept, and her gymnastics improved by leaps and bounds almost over night. So did her concentraition with homework.

Since my the advent of my health problems, I have returned to this type of eating (Except for the occasional Pizza), and I am feeling pretty good again. My energy is back, I'm happier, and my Kung Fu has shown marked improvement, as well as the back issue.

Any thoughts?

Former castleva
04-07-2003, 09:42 AM
Flowing with nature,not as in tao but as in evolution.

SaMantis
04-07-2003, 10:36 AM
Yah but RD, when did the cavewomen get to eat? :( :D

Guile
04-07-2003, 11:33 AM
I guess no soup for you

SaMantis
04-08-2003, 07:07 AM
LOL Guile :D

Former castleva
04-08-2003, 02:36 PM
"Anthropologists tell us that our ancestral intake of fat was approximately 25% of total calories, and that almost all of the fat they ate was mono- or polyunsaturated. Further, the meat consumed by our ancestors was an excellent source of health-promoting omega-3 fatty acids. In my view, if one combines the best of modern science with insights about ancestral dietary pattern, it points to a diet that provides maximal cardiac benefit. Such a diet helps to lower cholesterol while maintaining high levels of HDL. "