Are there "healthy and unhealthy foods"?

[TylerDurden]

Topic split from: Hello everybody!

Funny how different dietary patterns dominate. 5 years ago, as this forum got started, it was overwhelmingly dominated by pro-RZC posts. Then, the dominant theme changed to RVLC, and now Instincto. Just hope this resistant starch nonsense doesn't con too many people, though. It is not a genuine alternative, imo.

[Iguana]

Welcome to  OuroborosoroboruO !

I had never heard about resistant starch before PaleoPhil wrote extensively about it. But since it’s present in a whole array of various plant foods which have very likely been commonly eaten by humans, hominids and apes, it seems logical to infer that a chronic total lack of it may cause some health troubles in the long run.

The sustained absence of a complete category of raw paleo foods in a diet is worryingly hazardous.

[TylerDurden]

Resistant starch consists of   precisely those non-palaeo foods we are supposed to avoid like the plague, such as legumes.Such foods are high in antinutrients.

[Iguana]

When legumes are eaten in the proper instinctively limited amount, their so called “anti-nutrients” are clearly not a problem. Like everything, they become noxious when eaten in excess — and everything eaten in excess become an anti-nutrient. We already talked about that and about chufas (tigernuts) which grow wild, are very tasty for most people and contain resistant starch.

[TylerDurden]

Antinutrients in unhealthy foods cannot possibly be legitimately compared to healthy, raw foods which have been eaten in excess. The two are wholly separate concepts/issues.

[Iguana]

How do you define "healthy" and "unhealthy" foods?

[TylerDurden]

How do you define "healthy" and "unhealthy" foods?

Unhealthy foods are those with  a certain amount of toxins in them that damage the body. Cooked foods come under this category as do raw foods with antinutrients in them.

[Iguana]

There are toxins in everything.
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/hot-topics/drawbacks-of-walnuts-macadamia-nuts-and-black-sesame-seeds/msg103733/#msg103733

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinutrient#Occurrence Antinutrients are found at some level in almost all foods for a variety of reasons. However, their levels are reduced in modern crops, probably as an outcome of the process of domestication. The possibility now exists to eliminate antinutrients entirely using genetic engineering; but, since these compounds may also have beneficial effects, such genetic modifications could make the foods more nutritious but not improve people's health.

I don't understand this concept of "healthy" foods. Any food can be useful or harmful depending on the person current needs and the amount consumed : anything eaten in excess or when one doesn’t need it is harmful.

You never responded to the above.

You and me see it in an completely different way. What would be more healthy for someone about to die of starvation: eat a sandwich or do not eat it, even if nothing else is available, because it’s supposed “unhealthy”? An animal or a plant can be said healthy or unhealthy, but a food?? It all depend, each case is different. What is a food? Something that is a food for an animal may not be for another one. Therefore, the concept of “food” is relative, dependent of the animal who eats it or doesn't eat it.

[Sorentus]

This all all depends on your microbiota, some people can digest toxic food(gluten, dairy, legumes) just fine while some get intense inflammation from any of these.

[Iguana]

If a food is toxic for all individuals of a species, it's better to be unable to digest it - as long as non toxic foods are available. See my posts about tolerance / intolerance.

BTW, I comprehensively replied to your PM but didn't even get a "thank you"!

[Sorentus]

If a food is toxic for all individuals of a species, it's better to be unable to digest it - as long as non toxic foods are available. See my posts about tolerance / intolerance.

BTW, I comprehensively replied to your PM but didn't even get a "thank you"!

Thanks!   

[TylerDurden]

The argument that there are toxins in everything is  wholly absurd as some toxins, like antinutrients in grains, are far more toxic than minor "toxins" in, say, raw grassfed meats. Sure, such raw grassfed meats might  contain a tiny amount from air-pollution, but they are still WAY healthier for you than legumes which are high in some nasty antinutrients which a plant has deliberately created in order to avoid being eaten.

The relativity argument also falls apart when one considers that some foods are healthier for one species to eat than another species. That just means that one should avoid foods which are not suited to one's species, such as milk or resistant starch, and instead eat raw grassfed/wild meats etc.

[Iguana]

The argument that there are toxins in everything is  wholly absurd as some toxins, like antinutrients in grains, are far more toxic than minor "toxins" in, say, raw grassfed meats.

Yes, I agree for the second part of you phrase. But nevertheless, if you eat too much of raw grassfed meat, the excess becomes noxious or even dangerous.

On the other hand, a small amount of soaked grains such as oats, rye or millet could bring some valuable nutrients which may outweigh  the anti-nutrients in them, as long as one’s metabolism can deal with and neutralize any damaging effect of those anti-nutrients. As the excerpt of Wikipedia I quoted say, these compounds (the anti-nutrients) may also have beneficial effects, the situation is extremely complex and we know very little about all the intricate interactions between a foodstuff and the body.

Sure, such raw grassfed meats might  contain a tiny amount from air-pollution, but they are still WAY healthier for you than legumes which are high in some nasty antinutrients which a plant has deliberately created in order to avoid being eaten.

If the balance in a raw paleo stuff between what are for an animal (or someone) “nutrients” and “anti-nutrients” doesn’t bring any benefit to that animal (or human), then he would simply not eat it. Who would eat plants or vegetables when they are too bitter?

I agree that plants having been artificially selected during several thousand years since the Neolithic can deceive the instinctive regulation. So far, experiments have shown this is the case especially for wheat and to a lesser extend for other cereal grains. There are wild grains too, and that’s no problem, we can't eat much of them. 

The relativity argument also falls apart when one considers that some foods are healthier for one species to eat than another species. That just means that one should avoid foods which are not suited to one's species, such as milk or resistant starch, and instead eat raw grassfed/wild meats etc.

We agree  that milk is specific to each species, is intended for babies and young children and no wild animal usually drinks the milk of another species. Resistant starch is apparently a compound found in several plants in variable amounts. PaleoPhil even gave the example of tigernuts / chufas: as already said they can be found wild and are very tasty for most people although they contain a significant amount of resistant starch.

Yes, there are stuffs which are food for one a species but a non-food food another species. But then there are variations between individuals, especially us, humans who are or were more or less sick. Theses differences are often striking, some raw paleo stuff being delicious for someone but execrable for somebody else!

[panacea]

1. Foods contain substances.

2. Substances have three potential properties which can be present simultaneously: beneficial, harmful, or neutral.

3. Composition of food properties is variable based on past environmental events and genetic properties of the human body.

4. Effects of food properties are variable based on past environmental events of the human body and genetic properties.

4. Environmental events are events that add, subtract, or alter something in the human body or in the food to be consumed.

5. Some typical environmental events are temperature changes, nutritional changes, physical adaptations and aging.

6. Environmental events have variables within themselves which modify their effect such as duration, intensity, synergy, and neutralization.

Due to all of these interrelated factors, the effects of foods can be variable from one individual to the next. What is ideal for everyone regardless of individual circumstances is to eat only as much as is needed for your intended use of your body. Overeating for chemical effects of the brain can only lead to harmful effects, although this may be so minimally harmful as to be negligent in some individuals. Duration and quantity of overeating is an important factor which correlates to the degree of harmful effect.

How much is needed for your intended use of your body is difficult to quantify due to a lack of reliable data.  Hearsay and opinion are not reliable data as what works at one time for one body may not have the same effect(s) on another body.

Sick bodies may fare better on cooked foods which have harmful effects compared to some raw foods because the environment of the body is different at that time, unable to digest as efficiently the raw food. The harmful effects of cooked food are not as harmful as the harmful effects of raw food straining the body at that time due to the temporary weakness of the body. However, some golden rules still apply such as only eating as much as is necessary. It is also a golden rule that you need to eat at least as much as is necessary, and since it is impossible to know what the exact amount you need is, it is important not to eat for feelings of comfort, but rather for feelings of hunger.

The final piece of the puzzle is that what is absolutely best for us is rarely what our brains infer us to do moment to moment. Therefore the practical reality is that every human exploits for their individual circumstance the practical balance of eating behaviors in order to balance emotional satisfaction and bodily well being. The healthier a body becomes, the easier it is to attain emotional satisfaction from a wider variety of foods. Therefore, correct methods of exercise and an active lifestyle and other healthy lifestyle factors directly correlate to the ability to eat more for bodily well-being than emotional satisfaction.

[Iguana]

Yes, thanks for this. There’s no uniformity in nature. Two apparently identical foodstuff can in fact be very different. A carrot can be excellent and another one awful.

I would only question this paragraph of yours:

Sick bodies may fare better on cooked foods which have harmful effects compared to some raw foods because the environment of the body is different at that time, unable to digest as efficiently the raw food. The harmful effects of cooked food are not as harmful as the harmful effects of raw food straining the body at that time due to the temporary weakness of the body.

[TylerDurden]

Yes, I agree for the second part of you phrase. But nevertheless, if you eat too much of raw grassfed meat, the excess becomes noxious or even dangerous.

  This is an absurd statement since foods high in antinutrients become far more quickly unendurable to eat at low levels  than healthy foods like raw meats which are only bad in  extremely high amounts. Even then, for  successsful RZCers like Lex etc., the amounts of meat would have to be very high indeed in order to be toxic.

On the other hand, a small amount of soaked grains such as oats, rye or millet could bring some valuable nutrients which may outweigh  the anti-nutrients in them, as long as one’s metabolism can deal with and neutralize any damaging effect of those anti-nutrients. As the excerpt of Wikipedia I quoted say, these compounds (the anti-nutrients) may also have beneficial effects, the situation is extremely complex and we know very little about all the intricate interactions between a foodstuff and the body.

this is blatant special pleading which makes no sense. The antinutrients in things like oats are deliberately designed by the plant to prevent the plant from being eaten, so the are not beneficial in any way, but are actually highly toxic:-
http://www.13.waisays.com/plants.htm

After your previous rather fanatical stance, I am amazed that you can defend grains. Sure, soaking them removes a few of the antinutrients but by no means all or most, but there is also the fact that we are not designed to eat grains as a food.

If the balance in a raw paleo stuff between what are for an animal (or someone) “nutrients” and “anti-nutrients” doesn’t bring any benefit to that animal (or human), then he would simply not eat it. Who would eat plants or vegetables when they are too bitter?

Starving palaeo humans  would have , for example. Plus there are poisonous mushrooms which taste fine but which would fool any Instincto into eating them.

We agree  that milk is specific to each species, is intended for babies and young children and no wild animal usually drinks the milk of another species. Resistant starch is apparently a compound found in several plants in variable amounts. PaleoPhil even gave the example of tigernuts / chufas: as already said they can be found wild and are very tasty for most people although they contain a significant amount of resistant starch.

As Lex and I have repeatedly pointed out before, resistant starch is found mostly in foods very high in antinutrients, thus making it clear that it is not a natural part  of a palaeo diet.

[Iguana]

  This is an absurd statement since foods high in antinutrients become far more quickly unendurable to eat at low levels  than healthy foods like raw meats which are only bad in  extremely high amounts. Even then, for  successsful RZCers like Lex etc., the amounts of meat would have to be very high indeed in order to be toxic. this is blatant special pleading which makes no sense.

Geoff, it’s of course gradual and continuous from one extreme to the other, from things deadly in very small amounts, to foods that can be ingested in huge amounts before becoming noxious.   

The antinutrients in things like oats are deliberately designed by the plant to prevent the plant from being eaten, so the are not beneficial in any way, but are actually highly toxic:-
http://www.13.waisays.com/plants.htm

After your previous rather fanatical stance, I am amazed that you can defend grains. Sure, soaking them removes a few of the antinutrients but by no means all or most, but there is also the fact that we are not designed to eat grains as a food. Starving palaeo humans  would have , for example.

I’m not defending grains, I only mean that some grains can sometimes be beneficial in small amounts and are less unsuited for human consumption than others ones such as wheat, which proved to be the worse so far. Many wild animals eat wild grains and plants, even that they contain compounds that are considered toxic.  Before starving, I would rather eat soaked oats than bread! It’s funny that you call my stance “fanatical” and in the same paragraph provide a link for a far more fanatical stance! 

Plus there are poisonous mushrooms which taste fine but which would fool any Instincto into eating them. As Lex and I have repeatedly pointed out before, resistant starch is found mostly in foods very high in antinutrients, thus making it clear that it is not a natural part  of a palaeo diet.

I already answered to you that GCB accepted to test different mushrooms front of a journalist while being blindfolded. There was an amanita phalloides (dead cap) in the sample. He recognized its toxicity by the taste and spat it. He also accepted to do again such an experiment under strictly controlled conditions. See post 2540 here:
http://www.zetetique.fr/index.php/forum/22-medecines-paralleles/1173-instinctotherapie--fumisterie-ou-trait-de-genie-?limit=10&start=540
I even mentioned a few times that I occasionally eat mushrooms when their smell is attractive and their taste is fine for me, although I don’t know anything about mushrooms:

... I found a nicely smelling unidentified mushroom (could not identify it since I don’t know anything about mushrooms) in my garden and I carefully ate it, keeping a small piece in my mouth for about 10 seconds before swallowing it. As its taste was very good, I ate the whole, still carefully. I think mushrooms should be part of our diet too. This one was delicious.     

[TylerDurden]

I am dubious re the mushroom "experiment". I seriously doubt that one could avoid all poisonous foods just by taste.

As regards the other stuff, I already pointed out that not only are those foods high in antinutrients, but even if one reduces the levels of antinutrients a bit by soaking in water etc., these foods are still not meant to be eaten by humans so we are not adapted to them well.  Besides, you are using the same crooked, lame argument that cooked-foodists often use against rawpalaeos, namely that as long as one only cooks a food a little bit, it does not really matter.

[panacea]

@Iguana

Gently cooking food which is already suitable for human consumption (such as raw beef) increases the quantity of harmful substances in the beef and removes many of the beneficial substances. However, there is also a beneficial effect that it makes the meat easier to digest. We normally don't need this extra help, but when sick, especially severely sick, the more time we spend not digesting food the better our bodies can recover. Over the long term, this would not be good because eventually we would have to eat more cooked beef to sustain ourselves as equally as raw beef (as well as supplement with other foods) and spend more time digesting food and ingest much more harmful or neutral substances in the process which bog us down.

It is likely that high meat and other decayed foodstuffs advocated here capitlize on this phenomenon as well (alongside other potential benefits like ingesting symbiotic bacteria). What I mean is, that it could turn out that aging meat has the property of breaking the meat down, similar to how it will eventually need to be broken down in our bodies, so that it is easier to digest for us or in a simpler form already when we eat the partially decayed meat. This would give our body more energy than normal as it wouldn't have to work as hard to extract energy from food. The only reason cooking doesn't do this properly is because of all the harm it does on top of the predigestion that doesn't equalize over a long diet duration. Also, cooking is very incomplete predigestion as compared to bacterial "aging".

For example, many people use high speed blenders to blend their foodstuffs, unknowingly this has a beneficial effect of physically breaking the food up as it would be done by the teeth, and even on the cellular level due to friction just like in cooking. As the high speed blades cut the foodstuffs, small portions of the food are heated similar to cooking, and since this cutting happens many times per minute, it adds up to a great deal of heat applied to specific portions of the foodstuff. For this reason, many raw food groups prohibit the use of high speed blenders as it is a form of heating food beyond what the cells can handle.

[Sorentus]

@Iguana

Gently cooking food which is already suitable for human consumption (such as raw beef) increases the quantity of harmful substances in the beef and removes many of the beneficial substances. However, there is also a beneficial effect that it makes the meat easier to digest. We normally don't need this extra help, but when sick, especially severely sick, the more time we spend not digesting food the better our bodies can recover. Over the long term, this would not be good because eventually we would have to eat more cooked beef to sustain ourselves as equally as raw beef (as well as supplement with other foods) and spend more time digesting food and ingest much more harmful or neutral substances in the process which bog us down.

It is likely that high meat and other decayed foodstuffs advocated here capitlize on this phenomenon as well (alongside other potential benefits like ingesting symbiotic bacteria). What I mean is, that it could turn out that aging meat has the property of breaking the meat down, similar to how it will eventually need to be broken down in our bodies, so that it is easier to digest for us or in a simpler form already when we eat the partially decayed meat. This would give our body more energy than normal as it wouldn't have to work as hard to extract energy from food. The only reason cooking doesn't do this properly is because of all the harm it does on top of the predigestion that doesn't equalize over a long diet duration. Also, cooking is very incomplete predigestion as compared to bacterial "aging".

This might work for some people that despite being sick are not overwhelmingly sick, I cannot handle cooked beef at all, yet I can deal with raw beef. Sure cooking the food might make it easier for me to digest but then my entire intestines will bloat and inflame, so really how is that better?

Sure if one goes from processed craps eating pizza, chips and grain all day then go to cooked paleo, then this person might very well see benefits in digestion and for some that might be all that is needed. Just that this isn't guaranteed to work for everyone with digestion problem.

[panacea]

@Sorentus if cooked beef makes your intestines inflame then you have a specific response to it which is not the norm. In this case you have environmental events in your body's life history that make cooked beef much more harmful than the norm. I said cooking may help some sick people, not all. Almost everything related to our diet is at least somewhat variable and dependent on circumstances. I used cooking as an example to show how something ridiculous even has it's potential uses. For example, cooking still has and had for thousands of years immense practicality in keeping food edible when there was not as much freedom for healthy raw beef or other raw food around (such as when standing armies were travelling).

[Sorentus]

@Sorentus if cooked beef makes your intestines inflame then you have a specific response to it which is not the norm. In this case you have environmental events in your body's life history that make cooked beef much more harmful than the norm. I said cooking may help some sick people, not all. Almost everything related to our diet is at least somewhat variable and dependent on circumstances. I used cooking as an example to show how something ridiculous even has it's potential uses. For example, cooking still has and had for thousands of years immense practicality in keeping food edible when there was not as much freedom for healthy raw beef or other raw food around (such as when standing armies were travelling).

I must be very special then, same happens with eggs, cooked fish, cooked vegetables(unsure about raw yet), dairy, grains and just about any food that I eat for more then 2 weeks in a row.

[Iguana]

I am dubious re the mushroom "experiment". I seriously doubt that one could avoid all poisonous foods just by taste.

There are conditions, of course. One must be careful and only mushrooms with an appetizing smell should be put in the mouth, a small piece first. It takes some seconds for the taste to be evaluated, say 10 – 12 s to be on the safe side. If a bad taste appears, then the stuff must be spat. The problem is that we have been taught ever since childhood to never spit food, to always swallow what is in the mouth; this tends to become an automatism, and a dangerous one from which we’ve got to get disaccustomed.

Other conditions are that the mushroom (like any other potential food) must be raw, un-spiced and un-mixed.

I don’t know of a single case of an “instincto” having been intoxicated by a wild stuff, mushrooms included. Obviously, animals avoid poisonous things, otherwise there wouldn’t be any wild fauna and we wouldn’t be here. The ones who poisoned themselves died and the ones who could best avoid poisoning had more chances to survive and have offspring. Those would have inherited the genes of their parents and thus could avoid toxic stuffs as well. Isn’t it logical? 

Natural selection as given us the ability to instinctively select the most suitable foods and to avoid poisoning by things naturally present in the environment.       
 

As regards the other stuff, I already pointed out that not only are those foods high in antinutrients, but even if one reduces the levels of antinutrients a bit by soaking in water etc., these foods are still not meant to be eaten by humans so we are not adapted to them well.

Yes, you already pointed it out and I already replied that anti-nutrients are sometimes beneficial (Wikipedia dixit – you may want to correct Wikipedia if that’s wrong) and thus would be incorrectly labeled in some cases. Biochemistry and metabolism are so complex that our theoretical models can’t take account of all the variables: they are only very basic and often lead to wrong assumptions.

Wild grains are present in nature and some are palatable, so our ancestors would certainly have eaten those sometimes, especially since they were unlikely to know about anti-nutrients. We can’t know by theoretical assumptions, our knowledge is ways too limited. The only way to know is by experimenting, on animals and on ourselves. That’s what GCB and friends have done, back in the 60’s and AFAIK they were the firsts to discover the harmful effects of cultivated grains and dairy. Their experiments showed that wheat was the most harmful grain, others being also detrimental but when consumed in large amounts only. No noxious effects could be demonstrated with small amounts.

Dairy is another story: small amounts of the best raw milk, even from their own goat, triggered troubles.             

  Besides, you are using the same crooked, lame argument that cooked-foodists often use against rawpalaeos, namely that as long as one only cooks a food a little bit, it does not really matter.

That’s different. We know for sure that heating organic molecules produces an incredible array of new compounds, some of them undoubtedly toxic. Meticulous and long experiments also showed that slightly overheated food (55 – 60° C) was troublesome, often even more than thoroughly cooked food.

Cheers
François

[TylerDurden]

Your claim re wild grains is pure guesswork. It is highly unlikely that palaeolithic man ate grains unless they were somehow processed beforehand. Taste among other considerations would have  stopped them.

Wikipedia claims are actually also just guesswork. However, such claims are unproven and often debunked.

[Iguana]

I ate some wild grains which tasted good. It was long ago, I'll do this again asap and let you know.