sad seems to be very common amoung Native Americans, like everyone else I guess. In some cases it seems worse however. My grandmother seemed to like a lot of coffee with non-dairy creamer. (corn syrup and hydrogenated oils) Also crisco mixed with berries. My mother has diabetes now, and she seems to like using artifical sweetners like saccarine and sucrolose. I remember telling her it was poison, and she just looked at me kind of strange, like how else am I supposed to control my blood sugar?

Thats unfortunate...hopefully she can find a better way to sweeten her beverages/food that she can enjoy... Also, powdered coffee creamer is fun... Metal tube, compressed air, lighter and powdered coffee creamer=giant fireball.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?

Wow, sort of sounds like a pipe bomb. I remember someone igniting a cloud of creamer in the air to produce a flame. I thought that was something strange. I have heard of flour exploding in storage rooms in the hot summer.

I was wondering something, what you think. Whenever I hear this study or that study about nutrition and health, I wonder how much of the recommendations would apply to me. I know that most of these studies are done for the general population, and never seem to take into account minority populations. I consider myself a real minority, as my ethnic background is so small. Maybe only 1/2 a million in the entire world.

RocketShip Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Humans were walking upright, had mastered fire,
> living in social groups, and were making tools
> before cooking. Which came first... intelligence
> or cooking? The chicken or the egg?


Don't know. Cooking dates from H.Erectus's time about 1.8 million years ago. [news.nationalgeographic.com]

Paul,

From your article discussing H.erectus's use of fire in food preparation(totally fascinating, btw):

Quote

But scientists aren't sure why these first chefs initially put food to fire.

Uh, because H. erectus was making a mistake. That Richard Wrangham is quoted again; there's no escaping his one man hypothesis machine, evidently. IMO, a better explanation than his reduced energy cost of cooking idea is that flesh spoils and when bloody and raw it attracts large predators, to say nothing of its churning the stomach and causing infection. But what do I know

Mislu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I was wondering something, what you think.
> Whenever I hear this study or that study about
> nutrition and health, I wonder how much of the
> recommendations would apply to me.

NONE!

Those studies are done on people living an average lifestyle, neither horribly bad nor all that good, just average. The SAD diet at it's finest. None of that applies to you, zero.

Why did humans start cooking meat? Because there was a great big forest fire that destroyed thousands of acres of bountiful land and some animals died and the landscape was charred except for the caves that some humans had hidden in, and the starving humans scavaged the charred animals and one said "Damn, this is a whole lot better than that bloody rubbery stuff we sometimes eat and I can tear it apart with my weak five digit hands and chew with my blunt dull teath and *yum* doesn't that charred flavor just taste great?" And so they cooked it from then on, coveting the ultimate fire charred steak even creating smokey bar-b-que sauces to slather it in to mask the meaty flavor and enhance the charr and smoke flavors. Well, until the 21st century when some idjits popularized the raw paleo diet.

Mislu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sad seems to be very common amoung Native
> Americans, like everyone else I guess. In some
> cases it seems worse however. My grandmother
> seemed to like a lot of coffee with non-dairy
> creamer. (corn syrup and hydrogenated oils) Also
> crisco mixed with berries. My mother has diabetes
> now, and she seems to like using artifical
> sweetners like saccarine and sucrolose. I remember
> telling her it was poison, and she just looked at
> me kind of strange, like how else am I supposed to
> control my blood sugar?


Why do you say artificial sweeteners are poison? As far as I know they have been thoroughly tested & approved by over 100 countries (including the US FDA)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/05/2011 07:41AM by Delta223.

Artificial sweeteners are not raw, not natural and have a history of multiple health issues (an internet search will yield an abundance of information). A question to ask yourself is who did the testing, who benefits from sale of the product and do You, based on your own logic and common sense, really think it's good for you.

Delta,

Not exactly. Please remember that there is no such thing as third party disinterested science anymore. And the FDA hierarchy is stocked with people from industry, rather than old grey haired biochemistry professors. These people approved Vioxx(and countless other products that did not demonstrate safety or efficacy in testing), remember.

I just use my six-grade science schooling to assess things(rather than buy an appeal to false authority, such as vague studies done somewhere by someone); for example: Splenda. If it "tastes like sugar because it's made from sugar," then it's sugar. Period. This is the only explanation that makes chemical sense. But because this statement is not true, then the manufacturer's explanation of Splenda is a lie. And their product ought not to be bought because it is suspect. You can apply this reasoning to deduce the real attributes of almost anything touted as "good" or "safe" but not natural.

Tamara,

Good point. I think the best thing is not to add any sweetners (certainly the cheapest) given that it will likely increase the risk of food addiction (see the Pleasure Trap). That said, natural doesn't mean safe. [www.cspinet.org] Nightshade is natural. My preference is not to sweeten in order to not overstimulate my tastebuds. But when it is necessary, for example to offset the bitter taste of tumeric or something comparable, I would personally take splenda/sucralose over stevia (partly because it just tastes better, imho). Or agave (not raw) or honey (not vegan). Remember the dose is the poison. Small amount of some things are medicine, larger amounts of the same substance are trips to the emergency room or....

Paul

p.s. when I prepare bread, usually if I'm using a recipe which has a little bitterness, I use either dates or raisins in small amounts and regulate my intake. I never add any artificial or natural sweetner to a dehydrated recipe. Fruit is just so much better.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/05/2011 06:06PM by pborst.

I will not under any circumstance put a chemically modified sweetener into my food or drinks. Occassionally I will eat something with it in the ingredients because let's face it... that nastiness is in most processed foods. But NEVER will I add it to my own food.

To each their own. I have and will continue to use splenda in small amounts. It doesn't just have the blessing of the FDA but also the Center for Science in the Public Interest, hardly a bastion for "industry types" . [en.wikipedia.org] Over 100 hundred animal and clinical studies and a major consumer non-profit recognizing it as safe, good enough. Where each individual draws the line is personal. I have enjoyed using splenda and seeing my blood glucose remain in the 70s daily as opposed to adding more "natural" sugars (other than those I use in dehydrating) knowing I am stimulating IGF-1 [en.wikipedia.org] and increasing my aging and risk for cancer. You makes your choices and takes the risks! lol.

Paul



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/05/2011 07:04PM by pborst.

Isn't the FDA the same people that approved Phen Phen?

Who exactly approved that insane genital wart "cancer" vaccine? You have the question the motives of people who do these things. Push the flu vaccine every year, etc. Crazy, crazy folk.

Tamukha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I just use my six-grade science schooling to
> assess things(rather than buy an appeal to false
> authority, such as vague studies done somewhere by
> someone); for example: Splenda. If it "tastes
> like sugar because it's made from sugar," then
> it's sugar. Period. This is the only explanation
> that makes chemical sense. But because this
> statement is not true, then the manufacturer's
> explanation of Splenda is a lie. And their
> product ought not to be bought because it is
> suspect. You can apply this reasoning to deduce
> the real attributes of almost anything touted as
> "good" or "safe" but not natural.


I'm not sure what to say to this line of logic other than its a faulty way of modeling the complex world around you.

Guys, FDA approval does not mean "100% safe under all circumstances." That is impossible to ever achieve. For more information on this look into the 4 stages of clinical testing

Hey paul, just wanted to let you know, that they have shown that ALL artificial sweeteners AND processed ones made from natural sources such as stevia, which taste sweeter than their caloric content actually is, makes the body believe that ALL food you take in has less caloric value than it actually does, increasing cravings, and thats just for starters... personally, I don't like sweeteners of any kind in most things I eat...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?

Curator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey paul, just wanted to let you know, that they
> have shown that ALL artificial sweeteners AND
> processed ones made from natural sources such as
> stevia, which taste sweeter than their caloric
> content actually is, makes the body believe that
> ALL food you take in has less caloric value than
> it actually does, increasing cravings, and thats
> just for starters... personally, I don't like
> sweeteners of any kind in most things I eat...

Preaching to the choir my friend. That said, when you need to use one, and if you need to balance bitter and sour flavors as you will, then you need a sweetner. And fresh or dried fruit are great for baked products. If it is a small recipe where you need balance, sometimes fruits, dried or fresh aren't in a physical form where the mix easily, dates or raisins. Then a miscible sweetner is required (example offsetting ginger or tumeric). Stevia is "natural" and maybe miscible but not with the proven level of safety of splenda. I guess I'm not relying on FDA approval as such but looking at the overall weight of evidence.

Paul

How can a thing like splenda be ok? Highly processed, very different than it's original form.... I don't know, I would just use sucanat, at least that's something I could make myself without needing a lab. Just my opinion, dehydrated cane juice has got to be "healthier" than Any of those white powders.

Did he just say that Splenda is 'safer' than Stevia???

Curator,
I didn't know that stevia had a similar effect as artificial sweetners. I guess its best to be honest with yourself and your body about what you are eating. What about natural sugars contained within foods? I think there is some variablility as to how sweet it tastes relative to how much sugar there is. I know that cherries taste pretty sweet relative to how much sugar there is, and what type of insulin spike is made. I am thinking of the glycemic index, I don't know if thats that same thing. Dates have a high index, and taste sweeter of course, but by my perception they don't taste as sweet relative to their sugar.

I guess I shouldn't worry to much about that. I am sure that the body has had time to figure it out, and really can't be cheated. but these new sweetners can cheat the body and taste buds.

Delta,

There is nothing whatever complex about a food manufacturer seeing a profit potential in the demonization of natural sugar contemporary with a demonization of HFCS and Aspartame--Bonanaza! Your presumption that those of us here mocking the FDA haven't already examined their modes of operating is misplaced. Examples of highly dangerous FDA "approved" drugs we are mentioning are unsafe 100% of the time in many cases, and thus do not pass a reasonable sniff test for safety; many do not pass tests for efficacy, which is particularily disturbing. The record of the Vioxx lawsuit in Texas, for example, illustrates the FDA acknowledged the incidence of adverse catastrophic cardiac events in the testing phases for the drug, but approved it anyway. What's a few hundred thousand extra hemmorhagic strokes, eh? This is not aberrant but is rather the level of "scientific" due process the FDA routinely employs. Your faith in this agency, which initially served an important regulatory service but no longer does because it has been thorougly infiltrated by industry, is perplexing.

Yes, perplexing. I thought the same thing.

I really should know this, but isn't the FDA also in charge of regulation of pesticides and fertilizers? I understand those aren't really adaquately tested on their own, and certainly not when consumed in combination. For example when people eat a sald, lettuce treated with one thing, and tomatoes with another. Or when the same crop might receive more than one spray for different pests.

What about supplements? Isn't there now a seperate agency handling supplements and herbs? thats a lot for one agency to keep track of.

I think there isn't a unified sense of what is 'safe' also. If something kills instantly, that obviously unsafe. But if it causes damage over time thats another.

I think in any endeavor to make a judgment about a food or supplement is to be aware of the overall weight of evidence, taking into consideration the political factors that Tamara correctly has pointed out. I don't discount all industry funded studies on that basis alone. I think I would be missing out on a lot. Rather I would want to see how the data are cited by other articles & authorities with less industry ties. Also, is the industry funded study peer reviewed? What does the peer review say. Generally, if there is shakey science involved, it will come out. The example that comes to mind is BPA. All of the industry studies showed no problem; all of the independent studies showed concern, validating Tamara's point I think. Given the tort system in this country (i.e. suing for negligence), manufacturers have an incentive to recall dangerous products, e.g. Merck and Vioxx. Albeit, it took 12 months, a ridiculous amount of time for that drug to get pulled off the market. I agree FDA approval is no indicator of a drug or supplement's safety. It will be interesting to see if the new law can change that perception.

That said, assessing risk(s) is the only way I know to make decisions intelligently that affect my life. Take tumeric, this orange Indian spice has very strong anti-inflammatory properties and anti-carcinogenic properties as well. But it also has a very bitter strong taste that is pungent and offputting when taken by itself. Pepper increases its bioavailability, a little oil improves it's assimilation. And spoon full of splenda makes the medicine go down!! Just kidding. Actually no Julie Andrews jokes so soon after she lost Blake Edwards.

Seriously, dates and raisins are my first choice for dehydrated crackers, breads, etc. but are not misceable enough for something like tumeric. Straight sugar in small doses might be fine. But will raise blood glucose where splenda will not. Why take the risk of elevating blood sugar when there is a perfectly acceptable sweetner that appear safe and tastes great. Yeah, I said splenda is safer than stevia based on the Center for Science in the Public Interest link I posted above. Again, the caveat is based on what I see now. I could use Stevia except that I don't like the after-taste. And the CSPI article makes it abudently clear that UCLA toxicologists have legitimate questions about its ability to damage DNA. Splenda with over 100 studies not showing risk has none of that baggage. Yeah it's chlorinated glucose. So, what? It passes through your system. That actually is a plus for me. I don't want to use a sweetner that gets absorbed and stuck in my fat tissue the way an organochlorine pesticide would, say malithion or DDT.

I routinely don't use artificial sweetners except in small amounts like the tumeric example. But for me, it beats agave, honey, sugar and stevia all of which can raise blood sugar or have uncertainty associated with their use (stevia). I think each person has to look at the alternatives and make their own decision. For me, this is a no brainer. Splenda safety record looks solid. The data are all in one direction. If someone on this thread throws a monkey wrench (study I have missed which is possible), fine. I will reassess.

For me it's weight of evidence, not whether it's natural or not. Dying of infectious diseases before we discovered antibiotics is natural. Natural means from nature. And nature can be a cruel mistress.

Paul

Paul, just fyi, I have a capsule maker that I use for turmeric pills, I don't taste it at all that way. Just swallow alongside a salad with a bit of lemon-pepper dressing and hey, I'm good to go. Of course one could argue the health related impact of the capsule ingredients (vegtable cellulose) but it's such a teensy weensy amount.

Coco, thanks for the tip!!

Paul,

I would definitely consider taking something like turmeric in a vegetable capsule. Eliminate the middleman

Paul... I think losing your sweet-tooth would resolve a lot. No sweet-tooth, no need for chemical sweeteners. Just sayin'...

It is interesting that you brought up DDT and other organochlorine pesticides... did you know that sucralose is an organochloride chemical? Is there a toxicological difference?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/06/2011 08:09PM by RocketShip.

Rocketship,

Agree about getting rid of the sweet tooth. I actually don't crave sweet things that much. Usually, I just use it to balance sour and bitter flavors when they become a problem,kind of like adding pear or apple when making kale juice.

Coco, if you don't mind my asking what kind of capsule making machine do you have? Is it cheaper than just buying veggie caps at the health food store?

Paul