PDA

View Full Version : Decline in nutrients in food?



wd40
2011-Nov-30, 12:02 AM
I was sent this:

"In 1940, one orange had 50 mg of complex vitamin C. Today, one orange has 5 mg. of complex vitamin C.

To get the amount of iron that was in one cup of spinach in 1945, we would need to eat 65 cups of today’s spinach.

from: Back to the Basics of Human Health by Mary Frost "

If thin topsoil is being overfarmed, and can only yield by over-application of artificial fertilisers, then maybe there really has been a decline of nutrients in food.

This might explain why people often say that "food doesn't satisfy like it used to" ,and why people are constantly snacking (and becoming obese), because their bodies sense that they aren't getting enough essential nutrients per gram of food, and are having to overeat to get them.

Gillianren
2011-Nov-30, 12:15 AM
Or maybe it's wrong. I'd expect a little more documentation than just a forwarded e-mail.

Ronald Brak
2011-Nov-30, 01:08 AM
According to the USAD an orange has about 45 mg of vitamin C per 100 grams, so a whole orange should have around 90 mg of vitamin C.

Cobra1597
2011-Nov-30, 01:10 AM
While it can be possible to prevent the biosynthesis of certain compounds and nutrients in plants, to do this in a targeted way that doesn't just result in a dead plant requires near laboratory precision. For the orange to stop producing vitamin C in such a way that doesn't also prevent it from making either sugar or from making a great number of proteins would need a very selective removal of components from the top soil, and might not even be possible. Otherwise, the result will be just a dead plant and no fruit at all.

Let me put it a different way using an animal. I can raise a flamingo to be white by being very selective in removing carotenoid compounds from its diet. Under controlled conditions, this selective nutrient starvation is doable. For the most part, this won't have any other impact on the flamingo. In nature, on the other hand, a white flamingo will almost always be ill or malnourished. That's because nature isn't very good at that selectivity. If a flamingo isn't getting carotenoids in nature, it's probably because its primary food sources are gone or in incredibly low supply. It's forced to eat other things that lack many more necessary nutrients than just carotenoids, or even not eat at all.

Let's go back to the case of your orange. Oranges make vitamin C themselves, they don't get it from the top soil. That means we can't have something as simple as "not enough vitamin C in the soil." Oranges make vitamin C from glucose, which they also make themselves through photosynthesis. If they aren't capable of making glucose, then the orange is a dead plant. If the problem isn't a lack of glucose, then we have to look at the enzymes used to synthesize vitamin C from that glucose. That means we're looking at proteins, something else the plant synthesizes for itself. The basic unit of a protein is the amino acid. If the plant is making sugar, it probably isn't short of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen. So are you suggesting it's short of nitrogen? In that case, you've got a bigger problem again, and lack of vitamin C will be the least of your worries.

I'll grant that I'm being really simplistic here, but still...

Geo Kaplan
2011-Nov-30, 01:32 AM
I was sent this:

"In 1940, one orange had 50 mg of complex vitamin C. Today, one orange has 5 mg. of complex vitamin C.

To get the amount of iron that was in one cup of spinach in 1945, we would need to eat 65 cups of today’s spinach.

from: Back to the Basics of Human Health by Mary Frost "

If thin topsoil is being overfarmed, and can only yield by over-application of artificial fertilisers, then maybe there really has been a decline of nutrients in food.

This might explain why people often say that "food doesn't satisfy like it used to" ,and why people are constantly snacking (and becoming obese), because their bodies sense that they aren't getting enough essential nutrients per gram of food, and are having to overeat to get them.

Why you're uncritically accepting a forwarded email message as truthful is a mystery to me. The "facts" don't even pass the basic sniff test. Factor of 65 reductions are difficult to accept, for instance. I'll need a bit more than an emailed assertion.

Gillianren
2011-Nov-30, 01:43 AM
And now I think about it, the amount of iron people thought was contained in spinach was wrong, so it's entirely possible that the original "1945 cup of spinach" is using the faulty calculations.

Squink
2011-Nov-30, 04:13 AM
Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_%28fruit%29) Orange, raw, Florida: Vitamin C 45 mg (54%)
The Linus Pauling Institute claims 70mg vitamin C per medium size orange. (http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/vitamins/vitaminC/)
Either Mary Frost is a serious outlier, or she's actually talking about that "one orange" that fell behind the refrigerator in 1940, and has only now been found, and tested for vitamin C content.

Cobra1597
2011-Nov-30, 04:30 AM
Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_%28fruit%29) Orange, raw, Florida: Vitamin C 45 mg (54%)
The Linus Pauling Institute claims 70mg vitamin C per medium size orange. (http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/vitamins/vitaminC/)
Either Mary Frost is a serious outlier, or she's actually talking about that "one orange" that fell behind the refrigerator in 1940, and has only now been found, and tested for vitamin C content.
Wikipedia's values are from the USDA and measured as content per 100g of orange, rather than per fruit as from Linus Pauling Institute. Per average commercial fruit, the USDA claims 69.7mg of vitamin C, or essentially equal to the Linus Pauling Institute. Of course, that makes sense given that the Linus Pauling Institute gives the USDA as the source for their values.

Ronald Brak
2011-Nov-30, 07:10 AM
This might explain why people often say that "food doesn't satisfy like it used to"

But people don't say that here. And now that I think about it, this might mean that Australians have been stealing your vitamins.

Noclevername
2011-Nov-30, 07:24 AM
And now I think about it, the amount of iron people thought was contained in spinach was wrong, so it's entirely possible that the original "1945 cup of spinach" is using the faulty calculations.

Not to mention that the majority of iron in spinach is mixed with oxalate, which prevents it from being absorbed by the human body-- you're better off eating red meat or even tofu for iron.

tusenfem
2011-Nov-30, 08:34 AM
And now I think about it, the amount of iron people thought was contained in spinach was wrong, so it's entirely possible that the original "1945 cup of spinach" is using the faulty calculations.

There was a measurement error in the determination of the iron content in spinach, in the late 19th century. This led to the believe that spinach had over 10 times the iron as other green leaf vegatables. This was also the reason for Popeye's strength. This myth was perpetuate a long long time, and still can be heard today.

I guess that is where that thingy about spinach comes from in the as-always skeptical WD40 forwarded message.

Just a minute of investigation can show that this kind of stuff is wrong.

Gillianren
2011-Nov-30, 08:45 AM
Just a minute of investigation can show that this kind of stuff is wrong.

So very different from the rest of the threads he's started, then!

HenrikOlsen
2011-Nov-30, 10:13 AM
This might explain why people often say that "food doesn't satisfy like it used to" ,and why people are constantly snacking (and becoming obese), because their bodies sense that they aren't getting enough essential nutrients per gram of food, and are having to overeat to get them.
They don't, but it's true that many fresh veggies have become less tasty as breeders (Monsanto) focus on breeding for productivity rather that taste and many producers focus on varieties that produce high volume or are resistant to various weed killers, etc.
Adding extra parameters to optimize for makes it harder and more expensive to develop new successful varieties.

captain swoop
2011-Nov-30, 12:22 PM
Why do you single out Monsanto? Do you think they are a major producer of Carrot Seeds (for example)

I would say Supermarkets are the ones to blame for the type of vegetables most people buy. Thy want varieties that have a long shelf life and uniform size and shape and year round availability

For example in the UK most of the Apples in the Supermarkets are from regions other than the UK even when local apples are in season. Apples from Kent for example are only in season for a few months and the size and colour varies depending on the very variable British weather. Most UK apples go into Cider and Juice, many thousands of tons are just ploughed back into the ground

NEOWatcher
2011-Nov-30, 01:22 PM
Why do you single out Monsanto? Do you think they are a major producer of Carrot Seeds (for example)
I wouldn't single out Monsanto, but I think the overall comment has an effect.


I would say Supermarkets are the ones to blame for the type of vegetables most people buy. Thy want varieties that have a long shelf life and uniform size and shape and year round availability
True, but that's partly the distributers in that mix too as the primary source moves around the globe as the seasons change.
But; as your example shows, it does seem to vary by supermarket. I know I notice a considerable change in mine as the season changes.
And; we do get a lot of local produce when it's in season.

Now; While I think the numbers WD40 is providing is waaaay off, I do think there is some truth to it based on the breading of the fruit.
When sweet corn is out of season around here, we can still get it, but I found it to taste horrible.

I think the same thing is happening to meats too. I don't know if it's the way that the animals are confined, or the feed, or the amount of time from birth to the shelf, or the amount of fat they breed for; But, I have noticed a taste change throughout my life. (although; I wouldn't rule out dying taste buds)

AndreH
2011-Nov-30, 01:35 PM
Why do you single out Monsanto? Do you think they are a major producer of Carrot Seeds (for example)

I would say Supermarkets are the ones to blame for the type of vegetables most people buy. Thy want varieties that have a long shelf life and uniform size and shape and year round availability

For example in the UK most of the Apples in the Supermarkets are from regions other than the UK even when local apples are in season. Apples from Kent for example are only in season for a few months and the size and colour varies depending on the very variable British weather. Most UK apples go into Cider and Juice, many thousands of tons are just ploughed back into the ground

Bold mine: No, it is the customers. If you put your local apple from Kent (maybe it is small, not really round and has some spots) beside a Granny Smith or Pink Lady from where ever in the world, 80 or 90 % of the customers would not buy the local one. Even though it may taste ways better. Ofcourse this is a kind of negative feedback process.Supermarket norices it sells more of the nice shiny looking thing, offers less local stuff, sells more shiny lookings things, offer less local stuff......

We recently had a report done in Germany about food thrown away before even on the shelve. It is almost shcoking to see potatoe farmers leaving more than 50% of the harvest on the field to be ploughed back just because they can not sell them because of size/shape or other minor issues. (I grew up in a small place, when I was 5-7 years old (around 1970) I used to help an uncle who was a farmer, harvesting potatoes. We made sure to pick up evry single one (sorted them by size)! They were all eatable!

MAPNUT
2011-Nov-30, 01:38 PM
Not to mention that the majority of iron in spinach is mixed with oxalate, which prevents it from being absorbed by the human body-- you're better off eating red meat or even tofu for iron.

My college chemistry professor explained this to my class in 1971. "Victory for the child!" he proclaimed.

Swift
2011-Nov-30, 02:14 PM
Bold mine: No, it is the customers. If you put your local apple from Kent (maybe it is small, not really round and has some spots) beside a Granny Smith or Pink Lady from where ever in the world, 80 or 90 % of the customers would not buy the local one. Even though it may taste ways better. Ofcourse this is a kind of negative feedback process.Supermarket norices it sells more of the nice shiny looking thing, offers less local stuff, sells more shiny lookings things, offer less local stuff......
That's what I was thinking. In the US it seems it is tomatoes. People expect fresh vine-ripened tomatoes in the middle of winter. The only way to supply that is to grow them in hothouses (expensive) or grow them in the southern hemisphere and ship them, which means you have to have tomatoes that can be shipped long distances without turning to mush, which means varieties that tend to have more strength than taste, picking them green, and artificially ripening them when they get here.

trinitree88
2011-Nov-30, 02:28 PM
I think liver is the best for bioavailable iron and fresh bell peppers exceed oranges in Vit. C per pound. Though it doesn't taste great, a quik fix for anemia is sauteed chicken or beef liver with onions and barely sauteed peppers. Edible, and the vitamin C in the peppers promotes Heme iron absorption, and transport of accompanying cholesterol to the human liver, where it is metabolized. Studies done on primates ~ 20 years ago trying to find a baseline for minimum levels of HDL and LDL in primates so that they could monitor where the cholesterol went as it was put back in their diets, found that initially their levels increased even though there was no fat in their diets. Subsequent investigations showed that the lipids were being scavenged from the walls of the arteries of the animals, and transported to the liver, where they were metabolized. As it was part of a study funded by competing industry, it was published only after endless bickering, and by the researchers themselves (two women from Harvard as I recall....biologists, with the supervising Prof. abstaining). I found the booklet years ago at the COOP in Harvard Square while browsing the magazines and have since lost the booklet. Kind of troubling that they were repeatedly blocked from publishing by influence from the makers of statins. pete



see:http://www.indiacurry.com/women/nailhealthyfoods.htm


SEE:http://www.mckinley.illinois.edu/handouts/dietary_sources_iron.html

AndreH
2011-Nov-30, 02:40 PM
I think liver is the best for bioavailable iron and fresh bell peppers exceed oranges in Vit. C per pound.




see:http://www.indiacurry.com/women/nailhealthyfoods.htm
Bold mine: But it's hard to make fresh orange juice out of them.....;)

Swift
2011-Nov-30, 03:39 PM
I think liver is the best for bioavailable iron and fresh bell peppers exceed oranges in Vit. C per pound. Though it doesn't taste great, a quik fix for anemia is sauteed chicken or beef liver with onions and barely sauteed peppers.
My bold

Speak for yourself - I love liver and onions (either chicken or beef liver). :D Unfortunately, it is very high in fat, so I eat it rarely. :(

NEOWatcher
2011-Nov-30, 04:28 PM
Speak for yourself - I love liver and onions (either chicken or beef liver). :D Unfortunately, it is very high in fat, so I eat it rarely. :(
Same here (with bacon).
And; liver with bell peppers? Sounds like it's worth a try.

wd40
2011-Nov-30, 05:11 PM
"This might explain why people often say that "food doesn't satisfy like it used to" ,and why people are constantly snacking (and becoming obese), because their bodies sense that they aren't getting enough essential nutrients per gram of food, and are having to overeat to get them.



If ubiquitous HFCS intereferes with the brain's appetite center http://www.ajcn.org/content/76/5/911.long then lack of satiation, overeating and obesity will also be a result.

NEOWatcher
2011-Nov-30, 05:48 PM
If ubiquitous HFCS intereferes with the brain's appetite center http://www.ajcn.org/content/76/5/911.long then lack of satiation, overeating and obesity will also be a result.
What does that have to do with the decline in food nutrients?

Do you have any comment on the discussion so far, or is this yet another thread where you just want to throw things out there for yourself?

wd40
2011-Nov-30, 06:32 PM
What does that have to do with the decline in food nutrients?



If there has indeed been no decline in food nutrients per gram of food due to deficient topsoil and genetic modifications, then the cause of excess snacking, overeating and obesity has to be looked for elsewhere. I recall in the 60s being given a dinner at 6.30pm every day and being totally satiated and having no desire to eat anything else whatsoever until the next morning, not even a glass of water. The adding of HFCS to many foods starting in the 80s coinciding with the obesity epidemic, and its purported derangement of Leptin and appetite is surely relevant. Today, the more people are fed, the more they want to eat.

Swift
2011-Nov-30, 06:45 PM
I finally figured out that HFCS is High Fructose Corn Syrup. It is nice to explain an abbreviation, particularly if not commonly used on BAUT.

I recall in the 60s being given a dinner at 6.30pm every day and being totally satiated and having no desire to eat anything else whatsoever until the next morning, not even a glass of water.
You don't say, but is that no longer the case? If so, might it be you (I've certainly changed in 40 years) and not the food?

Geo Kaplan
2011-Nov-30, 06:53 PM
There was a measurement error in the determination of the iron content in spinach, in the late 19th century. This led to the believe that spinach had over 10 times the iron as other green leaf vegatables. This was also the reason for Popeye's strength. This myth was perpetuate a long long time, and still can be heard today.

I had been taught the same thing -- by several professors at a name-brand university -- and, until this thread, did not do any research into the history of the error. To my great surprise, I find that it's an urban myth. Evidently, there was no decimal point error, and Popeye's creator did not draw inspiration from it.

Gillianren
2011-Nov-30, 07:11 PM
If there has indeed been no decline in food nutrients per gram of food due to deficient topsoil and genetic modifications, then the cause of excess snacking, overeating and obesity has to be looked for elsewhere. I recall in the 60s being given a dinner at 6.30pm every day and being totally satiated and having no desire to eat anything else whatsoever until the next morning, not even a glass of water. The adding of HFCS to many foods starting in the 80s coinciding with the obesity epidemic, and its purported derangement of Leptin and appetite is surely relevant. Today, the more people are fed, the more they want to eat.

Or maybe you're remembering wrong. A quick examination of fiction that predates your memory shows children getting up in the night for glasses of water or having--and expecting--snacks before bed. The simple fact is, the obesity epidemic stems from people eating more calories than they expend, and the people who want to blame High-Fructose Corn Syrup for it don't want to do any real research.

NEOWatcher
2011-Nov-30, 09:16 PM
If there has indeed been no decline in food nutrients per gram of food due to deficient topsoil and genetic modifications, then the cause of excess snacking, overeating and obesity has to be looked for elsewhere.
I agree with this. (and thanks for explaining how you came to posting that statement)


I recall in the 60s being given a dinner at 6.30pm every day and being totally satiated and having no desire to eat anything else whatsoever until the next morning, not even a glass of water.
Like Swift said, and I said about my own taste buds, this can only circumstantial evidence that can be negated by age.

I remember when I could have a glass of water and not have to get up until the next morning.


The adding of HFCS to many foods starting in the 80s coinciding with the obesity epidemic, and its purported derangement of Leptin and appetite is surely relevant. Today, the more people are fed, the more they want to eat.
Well; I've only heard people complain about HFCS because it's not "natural" and tie that in with all sorts of things, but I don't think I've ever seen a good enough study that directly links it.

I think there is a lot to having all this sweet stuff available to them as they grow up resulting in them craving the sweet stuff (and thus more calories), and HFCS just being a convenient way to make it sweet.

Anecdotally; I see a lot of kids get tons of sweet stuff growing up, when I remember being severely restricted. If my memory isn't swayed by age, I would say that my friends didn't eat as much sweets like the kids now either.

Van Rijn
2011-Nov-30, 10:38 PM
The adding of HFCS to many foods starting in the 80s coinciding with the
obesity epidemic, and its purported derangement of Leptin and appetite is surely relevant. Today, the more people are fed, the more they want to eat.

What I remember is that there was a big push for low-fat foods in the '80s because that was supposed to help with obesity. However, that caused a problem for food makers, because reducing fat also typically made their product bland and unappealing. A common solution was to make the food sweeter. People would buy food that's "low fat" but wouldn't realize it was still high calorie, so would eat more than they should.

Almost certainly the low fat thing resulted in an increase in obesity, because of the unintended consequences causing a change in eating habits.

Cobra1597
2011-Nov-30, 10:56 PM
What I remember is that there was a big push for low-fat foods in the '80s because that was supposed to help with obesity. However, that caused a problem for food makers, because reducing fat also typically made their product bland and unappealing. A common solution was to make the food sweeter. People would buy food that's "low fat" but wouldn't realize it was still high calorie, so would eat more than they should.

Almost certainly the low fat thing resulted in an increase in obesity, because of the unintended consequences causing a change in eating habits.
It wouldn't shock me if they also increased the sodium content as well, since that can help bring out an otherwise bland flavor. It also carries risks.

*I don't know that food manufacturers actually did this

Squink
2011-Dec-01, 03:08 AM
People would buy food that's "low fat" but wouldn't realize it was still high calorie
Not likely:
Fat: 1 gram = 9 calories
Protein: 1 gram = 4 calories
Carbohydrates: 1 gram = 4 calories
See many refs, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_energy
Plain old sugar, high fructose corn syrup, and honey all deliver about 4 food calories (i.e. kCals, where 1 kilocalorie = 4184 joules) per dry gram. They're just simple carbohydrates after all.
Ethanol is pretty 'high calorie', but they didn't start adding a lot of that to foods back in the 80's. Nor could they have added other 'high calorie' non-protein, non-carbohydrate, non-fat items to our food. Such things tend to be toxic, expensive, or highly noticeable on taste or on labels. They're not there.
No, it's much more likely that the "low fat" formulations from the 80's were low enough in fat, but high enough in other things, for example a sweet flavor, that people voluntarily began to eat them in larger amounts than was common in say, the 70's.
We fattened up because we ate enough more to more than make up for the lower calorie contents of our foods.

Swift
2011-Dec-01, 03:43 AM
People would buy food that's "low fat" but wouldn't realize it was still high calorie, so would eat more than they should.

Not likely:
...
We fattened up because we ate enough more to more than make up for the lower calorie contents of our foods.
I'm not saying either of you is right or wrong, but I think this demonstrates what I've read, that while the rise in obesity in the West is well documented, the reason for it has defied simple explanations, and is most likely do to a variety of factors (and not just from the food side, but from the physical activity side).

Gsquare
2011-Dec-01, 04:10 AM
This might explain why people often say that "food doesn't satisfy like it used to" ,and why people are constantly snacking (and becoming obese), because their bodies sense that they aren't getting enough essential nutrients per gram of food, and are having to overeat to get them.


My Domino's Pizza with 3 toppings has just as many nutrients as it always has.
No; take that back; they put less pepperoni on it this week than last. ;)
...

Squink
2011-Dec-01, 05:05 AM
I'm not saying either of you is right or wrongYou should. There's no such thing as a "high calorie carbohydrate".
The energy available from the bonds of sugar molecules are well established, and there is no special joules per gram multiplier for sugary things that are 'sinfully delicious'. It's all 4 calories per gram.
Now one might argue that certain typew of carbohydrate lower your metabolic rate, and thus enhance steady-state weight for a given caloric intake, but that's a different kettle of fish than simply asserting the common myth that some sugars have a caloric content in the same league as fats.

Gillianren
2011-Dec-01, 05:35 AM
If you add more grams of sugar than there were grams of fat, wouldn't that account for it?

ETA--Not to mention the well-documented phenomenon of "I can eat more; it's low fat!"

Van Rijn
2011-Dec-01, 05:45 AM
Not likely:
Fat: 1 gram = 9 calories
Protein: 1 gram = 4 calories
Carbohydrates: 1 gram = 4 calories


So? That quart of ice cream still has lots of calories, and if it was low fat people thought they could eat a lot of it.

Van Rijn
2011-Dec-01, 05:56 AM
If you add more grams of sugar than there were grams of fat, wouldn't that account for it?

ETA--Not to mention the well-documented phenomenon of "I can eat more; it's low fat!"

And the food companies are still advertising that way. Recently I saw on a box of orange sherbet/vanilla ice cream mix the statement that it was good for you because it was high in vitamin C and low fat.

Jens
2011-Dec-01, 08:13 AM
They don't, but it's true that many fresh veggies have become less tasty as breeders (Monsanto) focus on breeding for productivity rather that taste and many producers focus on varieties that produce high volume or are resistant to various weed killers, etc.

That may be true, but I think it's more complicated. For example, in Japan people like this variety of apples (Fuji) that I find much too sweeeeeet. I like sour apples. But Fuji apples have been bred to be sweet, and people like them. So sometimes things are being bred for "taste," just not necessarily the taste that I like.

Squink
2011-Dec-01, 11:13 AM
So? That quart of ice cream still has lots of calories,Not nearly as many calories per serving as it did before it was defatted.
Claiming that the 'high calorie content' of low fat foods, is behind the obesity epidemic is misleading. It is a low fat food. The only way to get the same caloric input from lowfat ice cream as from regular ice cream is to eat a lot more of the stuff. Making pseudo-scientific claims that the low fat ice cream is still high-calorie, i.e. has a high caloric density, is simply a cover story to hide the consumer's changed eating habits.

AndreH
2011-Dec-01, 11:39 AM
And the food companies are still advertising that way. Recently I saw on a box of orange sherbet/vanilla ice cream mix the statement that it was good for you because it was high in vitamin C and low fat.

When I was in the Chicago last time (3 years ago) on the breakfeast buffet in the hotel they had put up little labels for people being on diet and therefore being "conscious" of what the were eating.
When I came to the bacon and eggs and read "carb conscious" on the label it took me about 20 seconds to understand. Than I was almost rolling laughing on the floor. I just find it hilarious to advertise bacon like that.
All the low fat, low calorie industrially manufactured diet stuff is just to make money for the food industry. Just like all the "normal" ready made stuff. It is not made to safe time, taste good, or be healthy. It is made make money.

Strange
2011-Dec-01, 12:07 PM
If you add more grams of sugar than there were grams of fat, wouldn't that account for it?

I'm pretty sure that is frequently done. I was surprised in the US to see that on some products, such as cakes, sugar is sometimes the first ingredient (before even flour). Whereas in Europe it is likely to be third or lower, after flour, butter/fat and maybe other ingredients. Or even not present at all.

Of course, by itself this (nor the "eating more because it is 'healthy'") is not the cause. But they may contribute in some cases.

Gillianren
2011-Dec-01, 07:49 PM
Sure. I tend to doubt there is only a single cause for anything. But a formerly high-fat food may have more sugar added than fat was removed, and it may be advertised as better for you because it's now low fat. What's more, people in the US and certain other countries are more likely to be sedentary than their ancestors, but their biological drives haven't changed. I'm probably one of the only people in this thread who has read Farmer Boy, by Laura Ingalls Wilder, but I do think it's relevant here. It's Laura's book about her husband, Almanzo, who grew up on a farm in Upstate New York. While Laura was living on jackrabbit and cornbread with no butter out on the prairie, Almanzo grew up on a long-established farm. And he eats so much that our running joke around here is that he should have been rolled to school every morning, even though she also clearly describes the amount of work he does on the farm as well. But Laura was always hungry, Almanzo wasn't, and she wasn't quite clear on what that was like. To her, having enough food was enough to eat all the time. So, in the book, he did. These days, there are plenty of people who have enough food to eat all the time. So they do.

Van Rijn
2011-Dec-01, 10:54 PM
Not nearly as many calories per serving as it did before it was defatted.


It's still a lot of calories per quart. It's not celery. It doesn't matter if it is 9 calories or 4 calories per gram (or somewhere between, since it is usually "low fat," not "no fat") if someone assumes it's less than either of those. Or, more commonly, if they just have some vague notion about calories, and think that "no fat" means that they can eat as much as they want and it won't make them fat.



Claiming that the 'high calorie content' of low fat foods, is behind the obesity epidemic is misleading.


It is certainly a factor, though. it is clear that many companies added sugar to low and no-fat foods to make them less bland, and it is clear that many people did not understand that there were still lots of calories in that tub of ice cream, yogurt, or whatever. That helped change eating habits.


The only way to get the same caloric input from lowfat ice cream as from regular ice cream is to eat a lot more of the stuff.


Which people DO because they mistakenly believe they can eat a lot of it now just because it says it's low fat.

wd40
2011-Dec-02, 01:35 AM
In France breakfast consists solely of one croissant and coffee and obesity is not a problem there. In the UK obesity has become as major a problem as in the US, despite the calorific and proteinaceous traditional "Full English Breakfast"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_breakfast having fallen out of favour. I recall having it every morning for years, with extra fried bread, and it provided full energy and satiation, without there being a need for a midday meal at all, until at 6pm basically the same meal was eaten again, and everyone was as slim as boards.

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/t/72af0.jpg (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/72af0)

If 3000 calories are ingested per day and only 2000 calories expended, then deep fascial belly fat deposits and elsewhere, are going to build up in a substantial % of the population.

Jens
2011-Dec-02, 04:38 AM
With regard to overeating, I just came across this (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/11/why-do-people-eat-too-much/)in Wired magazine. It seems to argue that it's a complex issue.

AndreH
2011-Dec-02, 09:28 AM
In France breakfast consists solely of one croissant and coffee and obesity is not a problem there. In the UK obesity has become as major a problem as in the US, despite the calorific and proteinaceous traditional "Full English Breakfast"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_breakfast having fallen out of favour. I recall having it every morning for years, with extra fried bread, and it provided full energy and satiation, without there being a need for a midday meal at all, until at 6pm basically the same meal was eaten again, and everyone was as slim as boards.

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/t/72af0.jpg (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/72af0)

If 3000 calories are ingested per day and only 2000 calories expended, then deep fascial belly fat deposits and elsewhere, are going to build up in a substantial % of the population.
France breakfast (as typical for southern European countries) is only a coffe and a croissant or something, but have you ever seen lunch and dinner there? The point is French typically eat good - high quality fresh prepared food and take there time when eating.
But the problem is to complex as Jens has mentioned.
The only thing I realise that if it comes to obesity, the country in which the food industry offered ready made foods first has the bigest problems. But a lot of other things add. In the same country fast food chains and free refilling of soft drinks has been invented. Having 50 channels of [stuff] to choose from in TV originates also there. All this are things which make it "easier" for people to fatten. Of course there is an individual responsibility, but we all have a neolithic heritage which is: "eat it all when it's there, you don't know when you will have it next time".
Looking at Europe I see that my country is on the road to the same problems. We only started later.

But what has all this to do with your original claim the food today contains less of the good stuff?

NEOWatcher
2011-Dec-02, 01:18 PM
With regard to overeating, I just came across this (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/11/why-do-people-eat-too-much/)in Wired magazine. It seems to argue that it's a complex issue.
I agree with that article but how can we blame it on someone else?

Squink
2011-Dec-02, 03:13 PM
I blame Kirchoff:
The sum of all the currents entering a junction point is equal to the sum of all the currents leaving that junction point.He should've included an exception for food calorie circuits.

captain swoop
2011-Dec-02, 09:17 PM
Price is a part of it.

In real terms food is cheaper than it has everbeen.

I can buy a Chicken for £3.50 When I was a kid in the late 60s a chicken was £3.

that 1960s £3 was a lot more money than a 2011 £3.

A bar of chocolate was a rare treat now the bars are thesize of a book and cost less in real terms than the little bars I got when I was a kid.

Ronald Brak
2011-Dec-03, 12:00 AM
Personally I find exercise very useful for weight loss. It's not that I burn much weight off when I exercise, it's just that I find it hard to eat and exercise at the same time.

Cobra1597
2011-Dec-03, 03:31 AM
In France breakfast consists solely of one croissant and coffee and obesity is not a problem there. In the UK obesity has become as major a problem as in the US, despite the calorific and proteinaceous traditional "Full English Breakfast"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_breakfast having fallen out of favour. I recall having it every morning for years, with extra fried bread, and it provided full energy and satiation, without there being a need for a midday meal at all, until at 6pm basically the same meal was eaten again, and everyone was as slim as boards.

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/t/72af0.jpg (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/72af0)

If 3000 calories are ingested per day and only 2000 calories expended, then deep fascial belly fat deposits and elsewhere, are going to build up in a substantial % of the population.
Out of curiosity, how can you post such amazing overgeneralizations as that and not first stop to think, "wait, this probably isn't true"? All encompassing generalizations like "in France breakfast consists solely of one croissant and coffee and obesity is not a problem there, these types of statements are rarely true. They should set off alarm bells in your head. They should force you to spend a little time researching the topic and finding out actual statistics. I highly doubt there is any single breakfast in France, and even more that they all have one croissant and a cup of coffee. I know for a fact that obesity is a problem in France, even if lower than for the rest of Europe. Six years ago, their obesity rate was at more than 11% (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/03/world/europe/03iht-obese.html) and 40% of their population was overweight. From 1994 to 2004, their obesity rate was increasing by at least 5% per year. France has an obesity problem.

Tuckerfan
2011-Dec-03, 10:09 AM
Which people DO because they mistakenly believe they can eat a lot of it now just because it says it's low fat.Often known as the SnackWell Effect. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snackwell_effect)

HenrikOlsen
2011-Dec-03, 12:37 PM
We recently had a report done in Germany about food thrown away before even on the shelve. It is almost shcoking to see potatoe farmers leaving more than 50% of the harvest on the field to be ploughed back just because they can not sell them because of size/shape or other minor issues. (I grew up in a small place, when I was 5-7 years old (around 1970) I used to help an uncle who was a farmer, harvesting potatoes. We made sure to pick up evry single one (sorted them by size)! They were all eatable!
Not only are they all eatable, those that are unsaleable are still fermentable and can be made into alcohol.

It's frankly idiotic, when one of the common complains about bio-alcohol is that it's bad because it's replacing food production area, to not use an resource that's otherwise wasted, if doing so could increase total productivity of the land without reducing food production.

Gillianren
2011-Dec-03, 07:08 PM
In the US, smaller ones also get made into tater tots, hash browns, or other shredded potato products. It doesn't matter what size or shape a potato is for that.

captain swoop
2011-Dec-04, 12:40 AM
We don't use Potato for Alcohol in the UK, we have enough Barley and Apples.

Strange
2011-Dec-04, 12:46 AM
I'm pretty sure I have had poitín made from potatoes in the UK.

captain swoop
2011-Dec-04, 07:12 PM
Not a commercial drink though. There were a couiple of Polish agricultural workers blown up in Lincolnshire a few months ago when their Potato still exploded.


Not a drink I would want to try. Who would want to drink an illegaly distilled alcohol of unknown quality and content when you can buy a bottle of half decent Blended Scotch for a tenner if it's pricy you are worried about.

Gillianren
2011-Dec-04, 08:19 PM
I know plenty of people who brew their own. Now, I don't imbibe alcohol full stop, but if I did, it would like as not be homebrew about half the time.

Jim
2011-Dec-04, 09:01 PM
... Who would want to drink an illegaly distilled alcohol of unknown quality and content ...

I present to you, the American South, where moonshining is business, sport, hobby, and all-around family fun.

vasiln
2011-Dec-04, 09:36 PM
I was kind of curious about the low-fat=?fewer calories argument on here-- it's easy enough to figure out what occurs from looking at actual values without arguing from a purely theoretical standpoint :)

Rather than look at everything, I just grabbed a processed food available in both low fat and regular versions. The first item on a search for "low fat" that seemed likely to have a regular version were Kellog's Poptarts. A search of poptarts then revealed that "frosted brown sugar cinnamon" was available in both low fat and regular versions. The low fat version has 376 (k)cal, while the regular version has 422 (k)cal. (EDIT: per 100 g). Data was grabbed from:

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search

This is just a single data point. No guarantee that it's representative.

Satiety enters play as a complicating factor. Obviously, if everybody just ate newspapers and multivitamins, they'd lose weight pretty fast. The problem is people won't do so willingly. People will eat until they're satiated (by a certain definition of satiated). What causes satiety is unknown, and there are probably lots of factors, and there's a lot of money to be made via any interesting discoveries. The fat content of food does seem to be linked with how satiating food is; in other words, if you give people 400 calories of fat, they'll report less hunger than if you give them 400 calories of sugar (or protein). That does suggest a certain backwardsness to trying to lose weight by eating low fat food, but fat is by no means the only factor involved in satiety, and a high fat diet is correlated (independent of obesity) with high risk of cardiovascular disease and many cancers (and other stuff too). Of course, that's US research. From a US perspective, French diet and health is weird. They tend to eat a lot of fat and yet don't die of cardiovascular disease as frequently as US Americans do (but then, they die of cirrhosis of the liver more frequently).

HenrikOlsen
2011-Dec-05, 12:40 AM
Several factors of satiety are known though, staring with the distended stomach from the physical presence of food, to normalized blood sugar.
Those two effects are why a very short term relief from hunger is to drink a glass of water as that triggers the signal that there's something in the stomach, and why a short term relief is to eat sugary snacks as that boosts the blood sugar level temporarily.

Jens
2011-Dec-05, 02:08 AM
Having 50 channels of [stuff] to choose from in TV originates also there.

Just to add to your list, it's also a country where (at least from my impression) people use their cars to go basically everywhere. There was a song in the 1980s, I think, "Nobody walks in LA". It seems to be fairly standard in that whole country.

WayneFrancis
2011-Dec-05, 02:11 AM
I finally figured out that HFCS is High Fructose Corn Syrup. It is nice to explain an abbreviation, particularly if not commonly used on BAUT.

You don't say, but is that no longer the case? If so, might it be you (I've certainly changed in 40 years) and not the food?
Back when I was a kid I remember eating things with lots of sugar and loving it... today I find that is no longer the case... they must have changed sugar over that period of time.

wd40
2011-Dec-05, 03:54 AM
With 7 billion people demanding more and more food, is there any risk of topsoil degradation/depletion/erosion http://www.seattlepi.com/national/article/The-lowdown-on-topsoil-It-s-disappearing-1262214.php eventually reaching a stage whereby yield or the quality of food become at risk?

Or will GM & fertilisers ensure that Malthus never happens, even with a 10 billion population?

Gillianren
2011-Dec-05, 04:25 AM
Just to add to your list, it's also a country where (at least from my impression) people use their cars to go basically everywhere. There was a song in the 1980s, I think, "Nobody walks in LA". It seems to be fairly standard in that whole country.

There's only so far you want to walk when it's over a hundred degrees out. But it's worth noting that the public transit system down there is growing in leaps and bounds. It's also worth noting that walking in LA is akin in many ways to walking across entire European countries to get where you're going. The Greater Los Angeles Area covers 4850 square miles.

vasiln
2011-Dec-05, 05:48 AM
Back when I was a kid I remember eating things with lots of sugar and loving it... today I find that is no longer the case... they must have changed sugar over that period of time.

I think they changed about the same time that they stopped making long cardboard tubes out of the fun kind of cardboard :)

Jens
2011-Dec-05, 06:11 AM
It's also worth noting that walking in LA is akin in many ways to walking across entire European countries to get where you're going. The Greater Los Angeles Area covers 4850 square miles.

I'm not sure how relevant that is. I'm not suggesting that it would be normal to walk all the way across LA. I mean Tokyo is much smaller, but still, nobody walks across it. It would take a half of day or more. You only walk the kilometer or so to the next station or the grocery store or whatever. I think the main issue is not the size of the total city, but how much space there is between things where people might walk, like supermarkets or schools or whatever.

Gillianren
2011-Dec-05, 08:33 AM
I'm not sure how relevant that is. I'm not suggesting that it would be normal to walk all the way across LA. I mean Tokyo is much smaller, but still, nobody walks across it. It would take a half of day or more. You only walk the kilometer or so to the next station or the grocery store or whatever. I think the main issue is not the size of the total city, but how much space there is between things where people might walk, like supermarkets or schools or whatever.

A lot. The nearest high school to my mother's house is a couple of miles away, and there are parts of the town I grew up in which are even farther. (And the buses don't run that far north; my mother lives on the very outskirts of Greater Los Angeles; technically, she lives in "Unincorporated Los Angeles County.") A lot of LA County and the surrounding areas aren't urban in design; it isn't like there's a store on every corner where you can do your grocery shopping. There's one about six blocks from Mom's house, but it isn't very good. There's nowhere to buy new clothing for probably five miles; the nearest shoe store is closer, but not by much. You can probably get most of the day-to-day basics within a couple of miles of any given home in LA, but there are a lot of things you can't, and you just have to either drive or take public transit. And while the public transit system is getting better, there are still plenty of neighbourhoods where the nearest bus stop is miles away. LA isn't just big; it's much more divided than a lot of other cities. If you live in a residential area throughout most of the area, practically all you have for a long way around you is houses, with a smattering of churches, schools, and things. If you want to go shopping, you have to go to a different part of town.

captain swoop
2011-Dec-05, 08:46 AM
I know plenty of people who brew their own. Now, I don't imbibe alcohol full stop, but if I did, it would like as not be homebrew about half the time.

Don't get me wrong, I brew my own beer and at the moment I have 5 gallons of Merlot bubbling away made from this years Vine crop.
What I wouldn't do is drink anything from a Still in a shed somewhere.

vasiln
2011-Dec-05, 09:08 AM
A lot. The nearest high school to my mother's house is a couple of miles away, and there are parts of the town I grew up in which are even farther. (And the buses don't run that far north; my mother lives on the very outskirts of Greater Los Angeles; technically, she lives in "Unincorporated Los Angeles County.") A lot of LA County and the surrounding areas aren't urban in design; it isn't like there's a store on every corner where you can do your grocery shopping. There's one about six blocks from Mom's house, but it isn't very good. There's nowhere to buy new clothing for probably five miles; the nearest shoe store is closer, but not by much. You can probably get most of the day-to-day basics within a couple of miles of any given home in LA, but there are a lot of things you can't, and you just have to either drive or take public transit. And while the public transit system is getting better, there are still plenty of neighbourhoods where the nearest bus stop is miles away. LA isn't just big; it's much more divided than a lot of other cities. If you live in a residential area throughout most of the area, practically all you have for a long way around you is houses, with a smattering of churches, schools, and things. If you want to go shopping, you have to go to a different part of town.

Let's not forget, LA is not the most obese part of the US! Consider:

http://jonathaninthedistance.blogspot.com/2011/02/obesity-diabetes-physical-activity-and.html

In fact, among people I know, LA is known as the home of the skinny people. The data bears this out (reasonably). There are clear, obvious reasons for why it's more important to be skinny when you live in LA.

If you want to find places in the US where you have to drive to get anywhere, consider Wyoming. Then look at the maps of obesity/diabetes/inactivity. Wyoming? Doing pretty good, as it turns out.

What you see is serious problems with obesity around the Gulf of Mexico. Note that it's unfair to jump to city planning or culture as an explanation of these rates; people settle where relatives and friends of their relatives exist, which leads to natural clumping based around ancestry.

EDIT: On second thought, what these maps bear the most similarity to are maps of income distribution. (Not that income is independent of ancestry.)

AndreH
2011-Dec-05, 11:12 AM
A lot. The nearest high school to my mother's house is a couple of miles away, and there are parts of the town I grew up in which are even farther. (And the buses don't run that far north; my mother lives on the very outskirts of Greater Los Angeles; technically, she lives in "Unincorporated Los Angeles County.") A lot of LA County and the surrounding areas aren't urban in design; it isn't like there's a store on every corner where you can do your grocery shopping. There's one about six blocks from Mom's house, but it isn't very good. There's nowhere to buy new clothing for probably five miles; the nearest shoe store is closer, but not by much. You can probably get most of the day-to-day basics within a couple of miles of any given home in LA, but there are a lot of things you can't, and you just have to either drive or take public transit. And while the public transit system is getting better, there are still plenty of neighbourhoods where the nearest bus stop is miles away. LA isn't just big; it's much more divided than a lot of other cities. If you live in a residential area throughout most of the area, practically all you have for a long way around you is houses, with a smattering of churches, schools, and things. If you want to go shopping, you have to go to a different part of town.

I agree that of course the shere size of a city and the distances between the houses do play a role. But there is also a tendency to bring everything to an extreme. Like drive in restaurants, drive in cash machines, drive in churches. Meanwhile drive in fast food restaurants are pretty common here.
But when I was a kid (let's say 40 years ago) something like that simply did not exist. The first drive in I have seen was when I was a kid in the famous "Flintstones" trailer. I did not know at that time it was something common in the U.S. to have restaurants wher you would be served in your car.
As I said in a prior post, to my opinion we will go down the same road here in Europe, it only started later.

AndreH
2011-Dec-05, 11:27 AM
Out of curiosity, how can you post such amazing overgeneralizations as that and not first stop to think, "wait, this probably isn't true"? All encompassing generalizations like "in France breakfast consists solely of one croissant and coffee and obesity is not a problem there, these types of statements are rarely true. They should set off alarm bells in your head. They should force you to spend a little time researching the topic and finding out actual statistics. I highly doubt there is any single breakfast in France, and even more that they all have one croissant and a cup of coffee. I know for a fact that obesity is a problem in France, even if lower than for the rest of Europe. Six years ago, their obesity rate was at more than 11% (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/03/world/europe/03iht-obese.html) and 40% of their population was overweight. From 1994 to 2004, their obesity rate was increasing by at least 5% per year. France has an obesity problem.

I have to do some justice for wd40 here. The solely croissant and coffee statement was mine. Of course generalizations always have problems. But you have to look at it in a statistical way. If I say "French drink ofte red wine with lunch" this does not mean every person does thie every day. It just means it will be pretty much more common as in Germany or the U.S.
But now for the breakfast: I travel a lot. Countries I frequenly visit (or visited) in the last ten years are: France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Poland, England, and the U.S.
I assume the breakfast typically served in the hotel (not the big chains, as they are more or less alike) to be what is the tradition for the country. So beeing in FRance, Italy, or Spain, it is typically a cup of coffee and a croissant (or one piece of toast, or the local equivalent of a muffin). And the local (ETA: meaning the nationality) people in the hotels typically only have that.
I admit this is anecdotal to some extend. But having been to a country let's say 20 times, different places, different hotels, mostly more than one day then there is some kind of statistics.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Dec-05, 02:19 PM
But now for the breakfast: I travel a lot. Countries I frequenly visit (or visited) in the last ten years are: France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Poland, England, and the U.S.
I assume the breakfast typically served in the hotel (not the big chains, as they are more or less alike) to be what is the tradition for the country.
I think you'll be spectacularly wrong about that for many places. Unless you take the uniformity of hotel breakfast menu's to mean that's what most people eat.
Or it's a country where people routinely eat out rather than cooking for themselves, in which case restaurant food is mostly identical what people eat but then that's because people eat at restaurants.

If you go B&B, perhaps you'll have a chance of seeing what people actually eat. Sometimes. But once it's a hotel the breakfast has been adjusted for the expectations of the guests.

I'd bet real money that you'd have to search quite a lot to find porridge on a hotel breakfast menu even in countries where it's a normal part of breakfast. I've only experienced it once in my years of travelling and that was an Irish B&B run by a widower where it was the only thing he know how to cook.

AndreH
2011-Dec-05, 02:41 PM
I think you'll be spectacularly wrong about that for many places. Unless you take the uniformity of hotel breakfast menu's to mean that's what most people eat.
Or it's a country where people routinely eat out rather than cooking for themselves, in which case restaurant food is mostly identical what people eat but then that's because people eat at restaurants.

If you go B&B, perhaps you'll have a chance of seeing what people actually eat. Sometimes. But once it's a hotel the breakfast has been adjusted for the expectations of the guests.

I'd bet real money that you'd have to search quite a lot to find porridge on a hotel breakfast menu even in countries where it's a normal part of breakfast. I've only experienced it once in my years of travelling and that was an Irish B&B run by a widower where it was the only thing he know how to cook.

You are correct, that over the years hotel breakfast has adjusted. But that is mostly true for big chain hotels. If you go for example to smaller places (typical non tourist, but were sales man and workers go) you get the local stuff. The typical sign for that is e.g. they only have a menu in native language).
I can for example tell so for Germany. If you go to a typical small German hotel (not the ibis or Holiday Inn in Berlin) you still will get the classic German "Brötchen" butter&jam + local sausage.
But I think we are starting discussing opinions without having real hard evidence. Not sure if it makes sense to go on (unless we can find a stastic somewhere),

NEOWatcher
2011-Dec-05, 05:59 PM
I'd bet real money that you'd have to search quite a lot to find porridge on a hotel breakfast menu even in countries where it's a normal part of breakfast.
I guess it depends on what you consider "porridge" to be.
If it includes what we call "Oatmeal" and "Cream of Wheat", then you might just lose the bet here.
I've seen it plenty of times. Not just on a menu, but on a breakfast buffet.

Of course, we may have a different set of hotel chains we have experienced.
I've been to plenty that just serve a "continental breakfast" (in thier words). They just put out a few rolls, muffins, donuts, and maybe some fruit with a big pot of coffee, and that's it.

captain swoop
2011-Dec-05, 07:29 PM
In Scotland the Premier Inn group offer Porridge for breakfast. Hotels in the UK always offer the so called 'Full English' breakfast of Fried Egg, Sausage, bacon, Hash Browns, Mushrooms and Baked Beans (sometimes a Black Pudding)
I don't know anyone who has anything likethat for breakfast at home!

Gillianren
2011-Dec-05, 08:19 PM
Don't get me wrong, I brew my own beer and at the moment I have 5 gallons of Merlot bubbling away made from this years Vine crop.
What I wouldn't do is drink anything from a Still in a shed somewhere.

It would depend on who's running the still and who owns the shed, wouldn't it? To a lot of people, homemade vodka (which is what those fermented potatoes almost certainly were) isn't that much crazier than homemade wine and beer. If it's part of a tradition going back centuries, which a lot of homebrewing is, it's not crazy to members of that tradition.

And how does the fact that a lot of American hotels don't serve any breakfast feature into the "you can tell a culture's eating habits by its hotel breakfast" discussion?

IsaacKuo
2011-Dec-05, 10:54 PM
Back when I was a kid I remember eating things with lots of sugar and loving it... today I find that is no longer the case... they must have changed sugar over that period of time.

According to this research (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7955837.stm), your tastes changed.

Researchers from the University of Washington and Monell Chemical Senses Center found that no food is too sweet for children, but that some foods are too sweet for adults. They found that this change in taste happens when bone growth stops.

Gillianren
2011-Dec-05, 11:13 PM
The weird thing is that, for Graham, his interest in sweet seems to have declined while he was in Iraq, which was long after his bone growth stopped. Still, if that's the only change from his year there, I'm not complaining. Except when I want to bake and there's no one to share cookies with.

Tuckerfan
2011-Dec-05, 11:43 PM
According to this research (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7955837.stm), your tastes changed.

Researchers from the University of Washington and Monell Chemical Senses Center found that no food is too sweet for children, but that some foods are too sweet for adults. They found that this change in taste happens when bone growth stops.Another factor would be WayneFrancis's age and location. If he's about middle age and living in the US, then when he was a kid, most things were sweetened with sugar, today, they're sweetened with high fructose corn syrup, which has a different taste (and tends to be sweeter) than cane sugar.

glappkaeft
2011-Dec-05, 11:54 PM
Another factor would be WayneFrancis's age and location. If he's about middle age and living in the US, then when he was a kid, most things were sweetened with sugar, today, they're sweetened with high fructose corn syrup, which has a different taste (and tends to be sweeter) than cane sugar.

Another factor would be that WayneFrancis was obviously mimicking the OPs argument style and that that entire post is tongue-in-cheek.

Jim
2011-Dec-06, 03:37 AM
Huh, guess my bones are still growing.

I remember eating at a restaurant that offered a "French Country Breakfast." That was two eggs, potatoes, sausage, tomatoes... and a croissant and coffee.

Oh, and hotels that don't offer a breakfast buffet are just cheap. Maybe that is a cultural reference.

Gillianren
2011-Dec-06, 04:38 AM
I'm not sure I've ever stayed at a hotel which did offer one, though that doesn't negate the possibility that the owners are cheap. The hotels weren't necessarily, though.

AndreH
2011-Dec-06, 12:24 PM
I remember eating at a restaurant that offered a "French Country Breakfast." That was two eggs, potatoes, sausage, tomatoes... and a croissant and coffee.
But was that in France? If not it might be the same as with the so called continental brekfast in the US or GB.


Oh, and hotels that don't offer a breakfast buffet are just cheap. Maybe that is a cultural reference.
Agreed!

AndreH
2011-Dec-06, 12:50 PM
I'm not sure I've ever stayed at a hotel which did offer one, though that doesn't negate the possibility that the owners are cheap. The hotels weren't necessarily, though.

Cheap would have to be defined, though. Cheap relatively to other hotels with the same service. Or affordable in the sense that one would not like to/or not be able to spend more.

Over here I know the ibis chain the best. They have rooms for 58,- Euros per night in the middle of some big tourist places (e.g. Dresden). But the breakfast buffet is 14,50 Euro meanwhile. If you can go to the next bakery or grocer shop you get food for 3 people for the same price. Still I do not like to go out for breakfast as it might be pretty inconvenient to get to the bakery or grocery. MEanwhile I try to find smaller, non chain hotels. This became much much easier since booking portals in the internet are around.

captain swoop
2011-Dec-06, 03:13 PM
Our company always uses Premier Inns or Thistle Hotels. Breakfast can be in with the room or not. You save a few quid by not taking it but it's a good breakfast andwork is paying :)

As for sweetness and age.

In the UK the drinks industry started producing so called 'Alcopops' in the late 80s. They are aimed at young drinkers and are usualy vodka based and sweet fruity flavour.

AndreH
2011-Dec-06, 03:20 PM
Our company always uses Premier inns or Thistle Hotels. Breakfast can be in with the room or not. You save a few quid by not taking it but it's a good breakfast andwork is paying :)

As for sweetness and age.

In the UK the drinks industry started producing so called 'Alcopops' in the late 80s. They are aimed at young drinkers and are usualy vodka based and sweet fruity flavour.
Same here. Big problems with underage youngsters who do get the stuff illegally, but still get it somehow. But that is different*. The stuff is made sweet fruity so they like it. Classicals like beer or wine are often have a rather strong taste which is found to be disgusting by young folks. (in my area beer uses to have a good share of hops and wine is mostly "dry" white wine).

*ETA to a supposed change of taste related to age (which was discussed above.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Dec-06, 03:31 PM
I think the age related shift in taste tends just as much towards a greater tolerance for bitter as it tends to lower a preference for sweet. At least there's the ability to acquire a taste for specific bitter foods/drinks.

Which makes a lot of sense when looking at it from an evolutionary biology point of view, since an instinctive aversion to bitter is a good safeguard against accidental poisoning in infancy while the ability to acquire a taste for some bitter foods means a larger potential food supply in adulthood.

AndreH
2011-Dec-06, 03:52 PM
I think the age related shift in taste tends just as much towards a greater tolerance for bitter as it tends to lower a preference for sweet. At least there's the ability to acquire a taste for specific bitter foods/drinks.

bold mine.
Yes also for things like what I personally call "real" cheese. Ripe French raw milk brie as an example, but there are other ETA:worse things.


Which makes a lot of sense when looking at it from an evolutionary biology point of view, since an instinctive aversion to bitter is a good safeguard against accidental poisoning in infancy while the ability to acquire a taste for some bitter foods means a larger potential food supply in adulthood.

Gillianren
2011-Dec-06, 06:43 PM
Cheap would have to be defined, though. Cheap relatively to other hotels with the same service. Or affordable in the sense that one would not like to/or not be able to spend more.

The last two hotels I stayed in were the hotel that's essentially a convention center in Seatac, Washington, and the Disneyland Hotel. Neither served a free breakfast. Both presumably wanted you to pay for their restaurants. And the Disneyland Hotel isn't cheap on several levels--five nights plus a six-day park pass for two was about $2000.

Trebuchet
2011-Dec-07, 12:20 AM
Ugh. We stayed at the Disneyland Hotel about 15 years ago. I'll never go there again. I felt like they had their hand in my pocket the whole time. We couldn't even find morning coffee without paying $3 for a cup at their espresso stand. Not to mention their utterly incompetent front desk staff. The second day we figured out that we could do better for breakfast by going into the park rather than eat at "Goofy's".

I think the free breakfast buffets are pretty typical at middle priced hotels on the outskirts of town, catering mostly to business travellers on less-than-lavish expense accounts. The big name hotels downtown aren't going to have them. Neither is Motel 6.

tusenfem
2011-Dec-07, 07:50 AM
Okay, this has more turned into an OTB discussion, also because the OP wanders away from his premise.
Moved.

AndreH
2011-Dec-07, 08:14 AM
The last two hotels I stayed in were the hotel that's essentially a convention center in Seatac, Washington, and the Disneyland Hotel. Neither served a free breakfast. Both presumably wanted you to pay for their restaurants. And the Disneyland Hotel isn't cheap on several levels--five nights plus a six-day park pass for two was about $2000.

I agree, Disneyland Hotels aren't cheap at all. I have been in Euro Disney 10 years ago. But I have to also clarify something about "free" breakfast. Speaking for my country (Germany), people traditionally expect to have the breakfast to be included in the room price. That's the tapical "Übernachtung mit Frühstück". Could be translated with (bed and breakfast). In traditional small hotels this is still the case. The breakfast is "free" in the sense that it is included in the room price and you do not have the option to say "I won't pay for breakfast, as I eat it somewhere else". You would pay the same. Still it shows up as seperate. in this hotels the "restaurant" or the "kitchen" is normally run by the owner.
In those big hotels they often let the restaurants for rent. This minimises the risk for the hotel. They do not have to bother with any problems concerning the menu. I am not sure, if they do so in the Disney hotels.
From American business partners we had over the years, I know it is not unusual to have the hotel room without breakfast and go out or if using the breakfast opporunity in the hotel, they do not expect it to be included in the price.
BTW: This is another point were I would see that cultural differences can be seen in the way breakfast is served (or not served) in hotels.

Jim
2011-Dec-07, 12:48 PM
I think I need to clarify what I meant by saying a hotel that doesn't offer an included breakfast buffet is cheap.

That doesn't mean the hotel is low priced. Many very expensive hotels do not offer the breakfast buffet. They are cheap in another way.

Motel 6 is cut rate; if they added a buffet, they'd have to raise their room rates... not much, but some, and their "lowest cost, no frills" cachet goes away.

Disneyland(world) hotels are expen$ive. And they have separate restaurants. Offering a buffet keeps people from eating in one of them and costs the complex money. (Can't you buy a package that includes one or more meals?)

Some moderately priced hotels don't offer the buffet because, even though they can cover the costs, they don't want the trouble and expense that can come with a buffet. You need to build an eating area, and a kitchen. And hire staff to run and maintain them. And some of them have associated restaurants on premises or next door.

captain swoop
2011-Dec-07, 03:11 PM
And some of them have associated restaurants on premises or next door.

Like the Premier Inns. they are always next to a Pub/restaurant owned by the same group that provides the meals.

Gillianren
2011-Dec-07, 07:41 PM
Disneyland(world) hotels are expen$ive. And they have separate restaurants. Offering a buffet keeps people from eating in one of them and costs the complex money. (Can't you buy a package that includes one or more meals?)

You can, but I think it assumed you would be eating meals at the overpriced buffet on the first floor of the main building. It actually worked out to be cheaper not to get the meal plan.

My point in bringing the whole thing up had been that whether a hotel serves breakfast or not, and what they serve, involves a lot more factors than just what the culture traditionally eats for breakfast. You can't say "the hotels serve this, so this is what people eat." After all, on the other side of Disneyland from the hotels is an International House of Pancakes, and they had an all-you-can eat pancake special for Halloween.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Dec-07, 09:38 PM
After all, on the other side of Disneyland from the hotels is an International House of Pancakes, and they had an all-you-can eat pancake special for Halloween.
Are you trying to imply that massive amounts of pancakes are not the traditional Halloween food?

Gillianren
2011-Dec-07, 09:50 PM
I'm pretty sure that's Shrove Tuesday, though most people don't even know what Shrove Tuesday is. Then again, it is the International House of Pancakes, so maybe it's a tradition in another country and I just don't know about it.

DoggerDan
2011-Dec-07, 09:55 PM
I've stayed in lots of hotels around the country, from flops to 5-stars. Generally, neither the rock-bottom hotels nor the upper tiers offered breakfast buffets. Nor did the ones sporting a restaurant. Stands to reason...

Back on topic, I take vitamins and eat healthy foods. My shopping list:

almonds
blueberries
apples
avacados
kale
olive oil
pomegranate juice
sardines
soybeans – black
walnuts
yogurt – fat free w/ live active cultures
beans – canned
berries
broccoli
buckwheat – anything
cabbage
carrots
cherries
chiles
cinnamon
cranberry-grape juice (100%)
dandelion
dark chocolate
eggs
figs
fish & fish oil
flaxseed oil
Garbanzo Beans (chickpeas)
goji berries
grapes (red's are better)
guavas
kiwi
lentils – dried
mustard
olives
onions
oranges
parmesan
pistacios
popcorn
raspberries
salmon – canned
soybeans – regular
spinach
steak
strawberries
sweet potatoes
swiss cheese
tarragon
tomatoes
watercress
whole grains/oats

Grey
2011-Dec-07, 10:10 PM
That's the tapical "Übernachtung mit Frühstück". Could be translated with (bed and breakfast). In traditional small hotels this is still the case.I still fondly remember the little Jägerhof hotel in Essen-Kettwig, back when I worked for a company with a German affiliate and would travel there a couple times a year. Breakfast was simple, but pleasant, and they were always kind enough to let my colleague (someone from the local office who would stop by in the morning and drive me in to work, rather than making me take a taxi) join me for breakfast.

Edit to add: Oh, hey, here (http://jaegerhof-essen.de/) it is! :)

Gillianren
2011-Dec-07, 11:10 PM
My shopping list:

Good for you? That actually doesn't have much to do with the OP.

captain swoop
2011-Dec-07, 11:15 PM
To be fair neither does Hotel Breakfast butthat's the way threads evolve.

Cobra1597
2011-Dec-07, 11:28 PM
To be fair neither does Hotel Breakfast butthat's the way threads evolve.
True, but I doubt many of those posts included the phrase "back on topic" before talking about the hotel breakfasts. :p

Jim
2011-Dec-08, 01:03 PM
Are you trying to imply that massive amounts of pancakes are not the traditional Halloween food?

Well, pancakes are round. Just add some orange food coloring and make some well placed triangular cut outs...

Back on topic:

And, if made from whole grain and you limit the syrup, these are very nutritious.

The Backroad Astronomer
2011-Dec-08, 01:44 PM
The weird thing is that, for Graham, his interest in sweet seems to have declined while he was in Iraq, which was long after his bone growth stopped. Still, if that's the only change from his year there, I'm not complaining. Except when I want to bake and there's no one to share cookies with.
If you really want to bake I can pm you my home address.

The Backroad Astronomer
2011-Dec-08, 01:46 PM
In the US, smaller ones also get made into tater tots, hash browns, or other shredded potato products. It doesn't matter what size or shape a potato is for that.
Or just fry them.

AndreH
2011-Dec-08, 02:42 PM
I'm pretty sure that's Shrove Tuesday, though most people don't even know what Shrove Tuesday is. Then again, it is the International House of Pancakes, so maybe it's a tradition in another country and I just don't know about it.

I would guess the tuesday after carnival. Interesting. On the very same day we make the local version of Donuts here. Isn't it interesting how traditions live on even the reason is long gone for most of the people?

AndreH
2011-Dec-08, 02:52 PM
You can, but I think it assumed you would be eating meals at the overpriced buffet on the first floor of the main building. It actually worked out to be cheaper not to get the meal plan.

My point in bringing the whole thing up had been that whether a hotel serves breakfast or not, and what they serve, involves a lot more factors than just what the culture traditionally eats for breakfast. You can't say "the hotels serve this, so this is what people eat." After all, on the other side of Disneyland from the hotels is an International House of Pancakes, and they had an all-you-can eat pancake special for Halloween.
Bold mine:
I still disagree. That would imply that local national eating habits do not have an influence on what is served in the local hotels/restaurants.
I do refuse to belief this. Also it contradicts my personal experiences in the counties I stayed in (and the small talk I had with the local people there).
I agree that not all the people will eat the same things you get in the hotel every day in the week. But it gives more than a clue.
But as I said to HenrikOlsen before I think we cannot bring up clear statistics so debating is maybe futile.

AndreH
2011-Dec-08, 03:05 PM
I still fondly remember the little Jägerhof hotel in Essen-Kettwig, back when I worked for a company with a German affiliate and would travel there a couple times a year. Breakfast was simple, but pleasant, and they were always kind enough to let my colleague (someone from the local office who would stop by in the morning and drive me in to work, rather than making me take a taxi) join me for breakfast.

Edit to add: Oh, hey, here (http://jaegerhof-essen.de/) it is! :)

yep, these are those places. When have you been over here last time?

AndreH
2011-Dec-08, 03:15 PM
Or just fry them.

It is of course true that even the smallest potatoe could be used. But the point of my post was that as they do not count as "class A" or whatever, it does not make sense for the farmer to make the effort to pack and sell them. IT doesn't pay. So those are simply left on the field and ploughed back.
This stands in contrast to what was my own experience in my childhood. The different sizes were also typically used for different types of potatoe dishes. As in those times my Mom still used to hand (grind/mince/rub?) ETA: dictionary says maby grate is correct.
them for hash browns typically the big ones were used not the small ones.

NEOWatcher
2011-Dec-08, 05:23 PM
It is of course true that even the smallest potatoe could be used. But the point of my post was that as they do not count as "class A" or whatever, it does not make sense for the farmer to make the effort to pack and sell them. IT doesn't pay. So those are simply left on the field and ploughed back.
Which is interesting since I see baby red potatoes in the store at a much higher cost (per pound) than other ones.

The markup must be at the distributer.

AndreH
2011-Dec-08, 05:41 PM
Which is interesting since I see baby red potatoes in the store at a much higher cost (per pound) than other ones.

The markup must be at the distributer.

Bold mine:
That or it is due to modern industrial farming. Several different types of potatoes, for different applications. I think it is like that: The type of potatoe in question in the docu I have seen is made for an special application. Let's say standard oven potatoe (or whatever). The price/kg for the potatoes especially made for this purpose might be ok if they have the correct size and shape. If not the correct size the price for this type goes down so far it does not make sense to bring them to the market at all.

This is just hypothetical reasoning. Unfortunately they did not go such deep into detail. It was a short docu about the general waste of food caused by industrial structures of farming, customers only wanting to buy the nice looking stuff, supermarkets and food discounters forcing the baker shop in the entrance area (a typical thing here) to have full shelves even though it is only 1 hour before closing time.....and stuff.
It is some weeks ago and there is also a book, but I forgot the name and the author of course:eek:.....getting old:(

ETA: Away for googeling....

AndreH
2011-Dec-08, 05:54 PM
At least I found the bit I have seen. It is in German. Just to proove I do not invent things here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mYER8fj0p0

This is the short docu aboút the movie "Taste the Waste".
The English title "Taste the Waste", does not mean the movie is in English though. Just marketing. director: Valentin Thurn
They also mention that e.g. in the U.S tomatoes are rated by color on the field. If the color is wrong, they are worthless.

ETA: The potatoe bit starts at 2:44

Trebuchet
2011-Dec-08, 06:40 PM
Which is interesting since I see baby red potatoes in the store at a much higher cost (per pound) than other ones.

The markup must be at the distributer.

There is markup at the distributor to be sure, but in this case the production cost is higher because the farmer is intentionally growing baby red potatoes. Since they must be harvested small, the tonnage per acre is much less. They aren't just the leftovers from growing big potatoes.

Gillianren
2011-Dec-08, 07:58 PM
I would guess the tuesday after carnival. Interesting. On the very same day we make the local version of Donuts here. Isn't it interesting how traditions live on even the reason is long gone for most of the people?

Since Carnival traditionally is on a Tuesday, and for the exact same reason, not quite. "Carnival" stems from "carne," and it is the last day before Lent--the last day when you can still eat meat until Easter. Pancakes, too, were a way to get the rich food you fasted from out of the house before it spoiled during Lent.


Bold mine:
I still disagree. That would imply that local national eating habits do not have an influence on what is served in the local hotels/restaurants.
I do refuse to belief this. Also it contradicts my personal experiences in the counties I stayed in (and the small talk I had with the local people there).
I agree that not all the people will eat the same things you get in the hotel every day in the week. But it gives more than a clue.
But as I said to HenrikOlsen before I think we cannot bring up clear statistics so debating is maybe futile.

The issue is far more complicated than just "this is what people eat." Your personal experiences are anecdotes, and it's only after contradictions were mentioned that you limited it to "small" hotels. Because again, if you're looking at the American chain hotel, you might easily believe that Americans simply don't eat breakfast. It is also ridiculous to assume that everyone in any culture eats the same thing for any meal as everyone else in that culture once more options become available. And even there, there's always someone who's hungrier at lunch than dinner, say.


ETA: dictionary says maby grate is correct.

"Grate" is correct. Also "maybe" and "potato."

Grey
2011-Dec-08, 08:59 PM
yep, these are those places. When have you been over here last time?It's been about a decade. Hmm, it doesn't seem like it was that long ago, but that's what the dates work out to. I must be getting old. :)

HenrikOlsen
2011-Dec-08, 09:48 PM
"Grate" is correct. Also "maybe" and "potato."
Potatoe was how Dan Quayle tried to spell it at a spelling bee, which is how I remember not to.

Gillianren
2011-Dec-09, 12:17 AM
Potatoe was how Dan Quayle tried to spell it at a spelling bee, which is how I remember not to.

My favourite part of that was always the look on the kid's face when Quayle "corrected" him.

AndreH
2011-Dec-09, 05:46 PM
Since Carnival traditionally is on a Tuesday, and for the exact same reason, not quite. "Carnival" stems from "carne," and it is the last day before Lent--the last day when you can still eat meat until Easter. Pancakes, too, were a way to get the rich food you fasted from out of the house before it spoiled during Lent.
Bold mine: The word Carnival in Germany and some other countries is used to refer to a whole session of festivities. The culmination is starting with Thursday (called Fat Thursday here) and reaching its "climax" on Monday before Lent. Therefore I used the word "after". Still it would have been more correctly to say "last day of" in that context.




The issue is far more complicated than just "this is what people eat." Your personal experiences are anecdotes, and it's only after contradictions were mentioned that you limited it to "small" hotels. Because again, if you're looking at the American chain hotel, you might easily believe that Americans simply don't eat breakfast. It is also ridiculous to assume that everyone in any culture eats the same thing for any meal as everyone else in that culture once more options become available. And even there, there's always someone who's hungrier at lunch than dinner, say.

Bold mine
That is not exactly true. It is true I made a short hand reply to wd40's post stating French breakfast is a "Croissant and coffee" only. Therefore I made the clarification in post 73 before I got any other contradictions. And as you see if you read it, I never claimed everyone in a culture eats everytime exactly the same as everyon else. Here is the post:

I have to do some justice for wd40 here. The solely croissant and coffee statement was mine. Of course generalizations always have problems. But you have to look at it in a statistical way. If I say "French drink ofte red wine with lunch" this does not mean every person does thie every day. It just means it will be pretty much more common as in Germany or the U.S.
But now for the breakfast: I travel a lot. Countries I frequenly visit (or visited) in the last ten years are: France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Poland, England, and the U.S.
I assume the breakfast typically served in the hotel (not the big chains, as they are more or less alike) to be what is the tradition for the country. So beeing in FRance, Italy, or Spain, it is typically a cup of coffee and a croissant (or one piece of toast, or the local equivalent of a muffin). And the local (ETA: meaning the nationality) people in the hotels typically only have that.
I admit this is anecdotal to some extend. But having been to a country let's say 20 times, different places, different hotels, mostly more than one day then there is some kind of statistics.

I admit that my observations do not hold for a scientific theory. And as I mentioned before I will not be able to dig up statistics about breakfast behaviour. So due to scientific standards I have to admit I cannot proof my claim.


"Grate" is correct. Also "maybe" and "potato."
Thank you for the correction. Maybe was just a typo which has slipped. potato --> potatoes, that was forgotten and burried somewhere.

AndreH
2011-Dec-09, 05:49 PM
It's been about a decade. Hmm, it doesn't seem like it was that long ago, but that's what the dates work out to. I must be getting old. :)
Bold mine
I know what you mean....About the same time since I first have been to the U.S. Seems as if it was yesterday.

Gillianren
2011-Dec-09, 06:37 PM
Bold mine: The word Carnival in Germany and some other countries is used to refer to a whole session of festivities. The culmination is starting with Thursday (called Fat Thursday here) and reaching its "climax" on Monday before Lent. Therefore I used the word "after". Still it would have been more correctly to say "last day of" in that context.

That's probably only within the last few hundred years--as in, after the Reformation. However, as I was raised Catholic in the US, I don't have a lot of details about it.

AndreH
2011-Dec-09, 06:45 PM
That's probably only within the last few hundred years--as in, after the Reformation. However, as I was raised Catholic in the US, I don't have a lot of details about it.
The interesting thing is it is more or less a Catholic tradition over here. My explanation was just given to clarify why I have used the phrase "Tuesday after".

wd40
2013-Feb-04, 08:21 PM
This article http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/For-40-Years-This-Russian-Family-Was-Cut-Off-From-Human-Contact-Unaware-of-World-War-II-188843001.html shows how it is possible to subsist on a meatless, saltless, minimal diet for decades.

LotusExcelle
2013-Feb-04, 08:46 PM
This http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/For-40-Years-This-Russian-Family-Was-Cut-Off-From-Human-Contact-Unaware-of-World-War-II-188843001.html shows how it is possible to subsist on a meatless, saltless, minimal diet for decades.

Have you read the article? It was not meatless nor was it completely lacking in salt.

Swift
2013-Feb-04, 08:49 PM
This http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/For-40-Years-This-Russian-Family-Was-Cut-Off-From-Human-Contact-Unaware-of-World-War-II-188843001.html shows how it is possible to subsist on a meatless, saltless, minimal diet for decades.
Did you mean to link to an article entitled "For 40 Years, This Russian Family Was Cut Off From All Human Contact, Unaware of World War II"? One paragraph from that article says:

Yet the Lykovs lived permanently on the edge of famine. It was not until the late 1950s, when Dmitry reached manhood, that they first trapped animals for their meat and skins. Lacking guns and even bows, they could hunt only by digging traps or pursuing prey across the mountains until the animals collapsed from exhaustion.
Is that your definition of "subsist"?

wd40
2013-Feb-04, 11:22 PM
It was not meatless nor was it completely lacking in salt.


More often than not, though, there was no meat, and their diet gradually became more monotonous.

....Karp Lykov fought a long and losing battle with himself to keep all this modernity at bay. When they first got to know the geologists, the family would accept only a single gift—salt. (Living without it for four decades, Karp said, had been "true torture.")

LotusExcelle
2013-Feb-05, 12:59 AM
More often than not, though, there was no meat, and their diet gradually became more monotonous.

....Karp Lykov fought a long and losing battle with himself to keep all this modernity at bay. When they first got to know the geologists, the family would accept only a single gift—salt. (Living without it for four decades, Karp said, had been "true torture.")

Getting meat rarely is not the same as meatless - but meatless diets are not that unusual. What is unusual is that you could mistake having additional salt - that is salt as an additive - with salt included in food or normal dietary intake. A literally "saltless" diet would kill you in short order.

wd40
2013-Feb-05, 01:34 AM
Actually sodium in unprocessed non-meat raw foods is not prevalent in large amounts http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09354.html and if 1500mg of sodium is the minimum daily requirement, one can see why being hard pressed to get enough in a diet saltless for decades would be a 'torture', aside from the tastelessness.

Swift
2013-Feb-05, 02:42 AM
Actually sodium in unprocessed non-meat raw foods is not prevalent in large amounts http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09354.html and if 1500mg of sodium is the minimum daily requirement, one can see why being hard pressed to get enough in a diet saltless for decades would be a 'torture', aside from the tastelessness.
What exactly is your point, what does this have to do with your OP of "decline in nutrients in food" and what about the fact that these people lived on the edge of famine? Do you actually think living like this is a good thing?

neilzero
2013-Apr-15, 01:41 AM
Bump: 14.6468% of statistics are a wild guess = I just made one up. If you search enough sources you can pick a pair that suggests almost any conclussion, but 51.077 % of the people don't even bother to search unless they are threatened with legal action. Some however make a reasonably accurate educated guess most of the time. Often when chalanged, i can imagine some starting assumptions that make the guess more believable. As Maxwell Smart would say "Would you believe 12%?" Neil