Farmers direct dairy sales grow
Plzeň man delivers milk daily, as producers keep more profits
All comments (71) | Post Comment
The opinions expressed in this discussion do not necessarily represent those of The Prague Post.
#2 Posted by
Jiri Hubacek
Jul 24, 2010 8:33 pm CET
"In the area of nutrition I have experimented to find out my reactions to different things, eg. its taken me 2 years to identify the foods I have intolerances to. I am not here to change someone else's mind, I respect that we are all different."
I know that you don't want to discuss this subject anymore-despite of the fact that you started it.
However project your two years of finding the optimum diet for yourself to six billions of people.You can see that it is not a reasonable thing to do.
We,as a human species must be content(for now anyway)with what is available on large enough volumes to feed us.Whether it is grains,meat,milk,legumes,fruits and vegetables we will use them all to sustain us.Anything else is elitist and panders only to people who can afford it.
At the very least it is a fact and has nothing to do whatsoever with large corporations that some people like to trash(you are included among those).
It is a common sense.
I know that you don't want to discuss this subject anymore-despite of the fact that you started it.
However project your two years of finding the optimum diet for yourself to six billions of people.You can see that it is not a reasonable thing to do.
We,as a human species must be content(for now anyway)with what is available on large enough volumes to feed us.Whether it is grains,meat,milk,legumes,fruits and vegetables we will use them all to sustain us.Anything else is elitist and panders only to people who can afford it.
At the very least it is a fact and has nothing to do whatsoever with large corporations that some people like to trash(you are included among those).
It is a common sense.
#3 Posted by
Daniel Visser
Jul 24, 2010 7:57 pm CET
my last comment on this subject.
>> I see that you are willing to accept Peggy's arguments without logic.Suit yourself.
I don't just accept Peggy's arguments. I like to hear them and to experience someone else opinion. I welcome the chance to debate a subject. I have different opinions, I have my resources, my research, my experiences and I draw my own conclusions. In the area of nutrition I have experimented to find out my reactions to different things, eg. its taken me 2 years to identify the foods I have intolerances to. I am not here to change someone else's mind, I respect that we are all different. Yes I like to challenge people to justify their statements because I want to understand them more fully. If it comes over as preaching or pushing my view, then sorry, thats not the intention. I don't stick rigidly to a belief if I receive new information that leads to a modification or change. I am happy that Margaret is healthy doing things her way. I do things my way.
IMHO: I believe that a vegetarian diet is suitable for a small % of people. I believe it would harm a lot of people. Just like the opposite that there are people who when eating too much meat will become diseased. One man's food is another man's poison. What I find interesting about vegetarianism (especially Vegan) is that it fully excludes something - it's not on the continuum - its at the extreme end. But maybe people find it strange that I exclude grains, legumes and most dairy. I know from my experience that a veggie diet would cause me ill health. But this is all just my opinion. We are all different - it makes life interesting.
Now time to shutdown and engage with with the real world.
>> I see that you are willing to accept Peggy's arguments without logic.Suit yourself.
I don't just accept Peggy's arguments. I like to hear them and to experience someone else opinion. I welcome the chance to debate a subject. I have different opinions, I have my resources, my research, my experiences and I draw my own conclusions. In the area of nutrition I have experimented to find out my reactions to different things, eg. its taken me 2 years to identify the foods I have intolerances to. I am not here to change someone else's mind, I respect that we are all different. Yes I like to challenge people to justify their statements because I want to understand them more fully. If it comes over as preaching or pushing my view, then sorry, thats not the intention. I don't stick rigidly to a belief if I receive new information that leads to a modification or change. I am happy that Margaret is healthy doing things her way. I do things my way.
IMHO: I believe that a vegetarian diet is suitable for a small % of people. I believe it would harm a lot of people. Just like the opposite that there are people who when eating too much meat will become diseased. One man's food is another man's poison. What I find interesting about vegetarianism (especially Vegan) is that it fully excludes something - it's not on the continuum - its at the extreme end. But maybe people find it strange that I exclude grains, legumes and most dairy. I know from my experience that a veggie diet would cause me ill health. But this is all just my opinion. We are all different - it makes life interesting.
Now time to shutdown and engage with with the real world.
#4 Posted by
Margaret Donaldson
Jul 23, 2010 5:08 pm CET
Um...no: you missed the point and thought I was being serious.
However, I am sure that a lot of people would be very happy if you did eat a whole kilo of aspartame.
However, I am sure that a lot of people would be very happy if you did eat a whole kilo of aspartame.
#5 Posted by
Jiri Hubacek
Jul 23, 2010 4:59 pm CET
"Unfortunately Jiri's sense of humour is about as non-existent as that of most Czechs."
Your mind is too dull to understand it.
How do you grade non-existent in the above sentence?
Your mind is too dull to understand it.
How do you grade non-existent in the above sentence?
#6 Posted by
Margaret Donaldson
Jul 23, 2010 12:53 pm CET
>>terrible tasting Aspartame when I can have fine tasting sugar any time I want?No diet drinks for me!
Secondly,me and terrorist?It is Peggy's mental the philosophy that leaves her open to fanatical behaviour the.
Peggy,tell your overseers in Kosmonosy the the to increase your dosage of Prozac and also tell them that I said that it is alright to have one or two glasses of Merlot with it to calm you down.
That could also provide you with the good the dige
Unfortunately Jiri's sense of humour is about as non-existent as that of most Czechs.
Secondly,me and terrorist?It is Peggy's mental the philosophy that leaves her open to fanatical behaviour the.
Peggy,tell your overseers in Kosmonosy the the to increase your dosage of Prozac and also tell them that I said that it is alright to have one or two glasses of Merlot with it to calm you down.
That could also provide you with the good the dige
Unfortunately Jiri's sense of humour is about as non-existent as that of most Czechs.
#7 Posted by
Jiri Hubacek
Jul 23, 2010 10:09 am CET
"In any case, even just a small reduction in the meat consumption of people in rich countries would release enough plant food for everyone."
That is interesting theory.Show us the proofs of it.
That is interesting theory.Show us the proofs of it.
#8 Posted by
Jiri Hubacek
Jul 23, 2010 10:03 am CET
"Jiri would happily eat a kilo of aspartame if this would stop him becoming a terrorist himself."
Peggy is confused again!I don't suppose that it should surprise us anymore,since it is a natural state of mind for her.
First,why should I consume terrible tasting Aspartame when I can have fine tasting sugar any time I want?No diet drinks for me!
Secondly,me and terrorist?It is Peggy's mental philosophy that leaves her open to fanatical behaviour.
Peggy,tell your overseers in Kosmonosy to increase your dosage of Prozac and also tell them that I said that it is alright to have one or two glasses of Merlot with it to calm you down.
That could also provide you with good digestions of all those vegetarian "goodies" and lessen the outflowing of excess of bile that you exhibit so often if somebody does not agree with your opinion.
The chelation therapy might-just might-be able to get rid of mercury clogging your gray matter.That,in turn might free the flow of common sense and perhaps even install some logic to your chaotic thinking.
Peggy is confused again!I don't suppose that it should surprise us anymore,since it is a natural state of mind for her.
First,why should I consume terrible tasting Aspartame when I can have fine tasting sugar any time I want?No diet drinks for me!
Secondly,me and terrorist?It is Peggy's mental philosophy that leaves her open to fanatical behaviour.
Peggy,tell your overseers in Kosmonosy to increase your dosage of Prozac and also tell them that I said that it is alright to have one or two glasses of Merlot with it to calm you down.
That could also provide you with good digestions of all those vegetarian "goodies" and lessen the outflowing of excess of bile that you exhibit so often if somebody does not agree with your opinion.
The chelation therapy might-just might-be able to get rid of mercury clogging your gray matter.That,in turn might free the flow of common sense and perhaps even install some logic to your chaotic thinking.
#9 Posted by
Margaret Donaldson
Jul 23, 2010 9:03 am CET
>>I guess Jiri thinks Aspartame is safe for human consumption and its just another conspiracy
In Jiri's "mind" (if it can be called that) anything which disagrees with official US government policy is a "crazy conspiracy theory" and anyone who criticises the US is a "terrorist". Scientific evidence is particularly suspect to Jiri because first, he doesn't understand it and second, it may undermine what the US government says.
Jiri would happily eat a kilo of aspartame if this would stop him becoming a terrorist himself.
In Jiri's "mind" (if it can be called that) anything which disagrees with official US government policy is a "crazy conspiracy theory" and anyone who criticises the US is a "terrorist". Scientific evidence is particularly suspect to Jiri because first, he doesn't understand it and second, it may undermine what the US government says.
Jiri would happily eat a kilo of aspartame if this would stop him becoming a terrorist himself.
#10 Posted by
Jiri Hubacek
Jul 23, 2010 4:24 am CET
"I guess Jiri thinks Aspartame is safe for human consumption and its just another conspiracy :-)""
Hey,pal.
You have got it all wrong.It is Peggy,who is promoting conspiracy theories.You need to really read what is happenning in this blog if you want to offer an opinion.
Otherwise,you sound too confused to be taken seriously.
By the way,I probably agree with you generally on nutrition even if i dislike silly terms like Primal whatever.To talk about "absolutes"in nutrition(like white devils) is also silly and annoying pontifications especially when we know that there is probably the same number of "experts" for or against any theory in the world.Certainly in nutritions.
It is like being in Babylon for anybody who worries about nutrition.you can read everyday several contrary theories about the same subject.
Personally,I do not worry about nutrition that much.I use a common sense and it serves me well.That is also one of the reasons that I would not drink raw milk without absolute guarantee that it is safe.
We are omnivores by nature.
Hey,pal.
You have got it all wrong.It is Peggy,who is promoting conspiracy theories.You need to really read what is happenning in this blog if you want to offer an opinion.
Otherwise,you sound too confused to be taken seriously.
By the way,I probably agree with you generally on nutrition even if i dislike silly terms like Primal whatever.To talk about "absolutes"in nutrition(like white devils) is also silly and annoying pontifications especially when we know that there is probably the same number of "experts" for or against any theory in the world.Certainly in nutritions.
It is like being in Babylon for anybody who worries about nutrition.you can read everyday several contrary theories about the same subject.
Personally,I do not worry about nutrition that much.I use a common sense and it serves me well.That is also one of the reasons that I would not drink raw milk without absolute guarantee that it is safe.
We are omnivores by nature.
#11 Posted by
Jiri Hubacek
Jul 23, 2010 2:59 am CET
". I guess Jiri thinks Aspartame is safe for human consumption and its just another conspiracy :-)"
Aspartame is NOT sugar.Why would I feel that it should substitute sugar.Where is logic in that.
I see that you are willing to accept Peggy's arguments without logic.Suit yourself.
Aspartame is NOT sugar.Why would I feel that it should substitute sugar.Where is logic in that.
I see that you are willing to accept Peggy's arguments without logic.Suit yourself.
#12 Posted by
Daniel Visser
Jul 22, 2010 10:44 pm CET
Margaret, thanks for the replies about veggies. It's good to hear some thought through opinions.
#13 Posted by
Margaret Donaldson
Jul 22, 2010 8:43 pm CET
There is no evidence at all that eating meat "allowed humans to evolve above the other primates". No evidence at all.
For example, chimpanzees hunt but gorillas don't. Gorillas are at least as intelligent as chimpanzees.
For example, chimpanzees hunt but gorillas don't. Gorillas are at least as intelligent as chimpanzees.
#14 Posted by
Margaret Donaldson
Jul 22, 2010 8:41 pm CET
>>why would you wish that on everyone?
Eating no meat is not a hardship. Hundreds of millions of people around the world are vegetarian through choice.
>>we should change the natural human diet that allowed humans to evolve above other primates? Humans have never been vegetarian.
There is no evidence at all that eating meat "allowed humans to evolve above the other primates". No evidence at all.
>>Our bodies are designed to eat meat and some plants. We were hunter/gatherers = omnivores.
Yes and no. If you look at so-called "primitive" societies you typically find that the bulk of the food comes from plant material, which is gathered with little fanfare by the women. A small amount comes from hunting, which is done with a huge amount of fanfare by the men. Given the extreme difficulty of actually catching large animals I suspect that meat has only ever played a small part in the human diet - just as it does for chimpanzees today.
In any case, even just a small reduction in the meat consumption of people in rich countries would release enough plant food for everyone.
Eating no meat is not a hardship. Hundreds of millions of people around the world are vegetarian through choice.
>>we should change the natural human diet that allowed humans to evolve above other primates? Humans have never been vegetarian.
There is no evidence at all that eating meat "allowed humans to evolve above the other primates". No evidence at all.
>>Our bodies are designed to eat meat and some plants. We were hunter/gatherers = omnivores.
Yes and no. If you look at so-called "primitive" societies you typically find that the bulk of the food comes from plant material, which is gathered with little fanfare by the women. A small amount comes from hunting, which is done with a huge amount of fanfare by the men. Given the extreme difficulty of actually catching large animals I suspect that meat has only ever played a small part in the human diet - just as it does for chimpanzees today.
In any case, even just a small reduction in the meat consumption of people in rich countries would release enough plant food for everyone.
#15 Posted by
Daniel Visser
Jul 22, 2010 8:22 pm CET
I dont think we will ever find an answer to food for the planet. Where is the motivation?
Feed the world? big business thinks only as far ahead as the next quarterly report to its shareholders and the markets. Instead we throw billions away into arms, religious wars, viagra, motor cars etc
I do my bit to be sustainable and healthy. And I see the majority (not all) of the posters here do the same - each in their own way.
Feed the world? big business thinks only as far ahead as the next quarterly report to its shareholders and the markets. Instead we throw billions away into arms, religious wars, viagra, motor cars etc
I do my bit to be sustainable and healthy. And I see the majority (not all) of the posters here do the same - each in their own way.
#16 Posted by
jan fleur
Jul 22, 2010 8:15 pm CET
Daniel, many millions have no choice as to whether they will eat today, and maybe someday this world will solve that basic human need.
#17 Posted by
Daniel Visser
Jul 22, 2010 8:11 pm CET
You are what you eat..... EXACTLY! well said
the food you eat today will be metabolised over the next 48 hours or so and our bodies will create new cells. That Starbucks Latte today is your eyeball cell tomorrow :-)
what food is different for everyone, but quality surely matters
the food you eat today will be metabolised over the next 48 hours or so and our bodies will create new cells. That Starbucks Latte today is your eyeball cell tomorrow :-)
what food is different for everyone, but quality surely matters
#18 Posted by
Daniel Visser
Jul 22, 2010 8:09 pm CET
got to pick up on this "If people ate less or, ideally, no meat there would be far more than enough food for everyone" ....
yes to eat less meat. But why ideally eat no meat? why would you wish that on everyone? You may choose to exclude meat for your reasons. Why do you think that today in 2010 we should change the natural human diet that allowed humans to evolve above other primates? Humans have never been vegetarian. Our bodies are designed to eat meat and some plants. We were hunter/gatherers = omnivores.
Eskimos eat 90% animal and 10% plant - its hard to grow plants on ice. Equatorial peoples eat more plant than animal. But everyone eat only plant? Why? there is variety in ancestral diet throughout the world. But you don't find vegetarians... except in western countries today.. it's a new breed.
I dont want to be hungry 2 hours after my meal. My metabolism requires some flesh food. I don't eat a lot but I require some each day.
yes to eat less meat. But why ideally eat no meat? why would you wish that on everyone? You may choose to exclude meat for your reasons. Why do you think that today in 2010 we should change the natural human diet that allowed humans to evolve above other primates? Humans have never been vegetarian. Our bodies are designed to eat meat and some plants. We were hunter/gatherers = omnivores.
Eskimos eat 90% animal and 10% plant - its hard to grow plants on ice. Equatorial peoples eat more plant than animal. But everyone eat only plant? Why? there is variety in ancestral diet throughout the world. But you don't find vegetarians... except in western countries today.. it's a new breed.
I dont want to be hungry 2 hours after my meal. My metabolism requires some flesh food. I don't eat a lot but I require some each day.
#19 Posted by
jan fleur
Jul 22, 2010 8:03 pm CET
You are what you eat.....
#20 Posted by
Daniel Visser
Jul 22, 2010 7:54 pm CET
I would like to add a couple of points to this fantastic discussion :-)
> Atkins did work in highlighting that simple carbs were causing problems with blood sugar levels > obesity > diabetes. As with all "the diets" they fail because no diet can suit all people due to biochemically differences between us all.
> the calculations that the vegetarian movement provide about how much plant is used to feed animals is based on corn feeding to factory animals. Cows should not eat corn, they should graze on grass. It has never been nature's design to rip up prairies (destroy biodiversity), sow grains, then feed the grain the animals in feedlots and sheds. The numbers of bison who roamed North America not so many years ago in an equilibrium with the native indians was in the millions.
> I agree people should eat less meat. There is chronic over consumption of poor quality meat due to its low cost from the factory farming. I find that I can be satiated on a smaller quantity of higher quality food. I also reflect when I eat my meal that an animal has died to provide this for me. I think that many people have become disconnected with their food source. I saw a study of UK inner city children - 70% of them had never seen an animal and they could not associate the meat food products with the correct animal. How will these humans understand that a living being has given up a life for their food?
> a point often missed by the vegetarians/biotech who think we can feed the world by growing grains is How will you feed the soil? the fertilizers used today are produced using huge quantities of fossil fuels - how crazy is that? We drain the Earth of its resources to plant mono-crops that then destroy the topsoil and provide poor nutrition. Nature feeds the soil with animals. Cows on grass, shit and give back to the soil, when animals die their blood and bones goes into the earth. To create life requires some death.
> there are sustainable farming models. They involve plants and animals together. There are small farms out there that are able to create several cm of topsoil annually. This is sustainability - balancing what comes out of the earth to what we put back in. Whether these models can support billions of people - I don't know. But even if they could they are of little interest to big bio business. They don't want small sustainable farms.
an amazing sustainable farm in Virginia US is www.polyfacefarms.com
That family will still be there in many 100's of years when a lot of the rest of the earth is dust.
> Although my metabolic type leans in the meat waiting direction, I can see that a vegetarians diet varied with real foods can be suitable for some people. I see the dangers of the vegetarians who base their diet on soy and grains though. It's interesting how the modern vegetarian diet has taken off - it's against primal human nature - its not a diet from our past. There are no tribal cultures who ate a animal free diet. There are some who eat little, but none who excluded all animals. Repeating myself I would eat vegetarian rather than eat the factory farmed meat. My partner has a different metabolic type to me and she eats much more carbs than protein - we are all different.
> I read recently that if processed sugar was being introduced today - it would not get approval. It's has all the characteristics of a class-A drug. I think the references were Candice Pert and sorry can't remember. I guess Jiri thinks Aspartame is safe for human consumption and its just another conspiracy :-)
Do all the Prague Post comments result in a tear up discussion like this? is this normal?
> Atkins did work in highlighting that simple carbs were causing problems with blood sugar levels > obesity > diabetes. As with all "the diets" they fail because no diet can suit all people due to biochemically differences between us all.
> the calculations that the vegetarian movement provide about how much plant is used to feed animals is based on corn feeding to factory animals. Cows should not eat corn, they should graze on grass. It has never been nature's design to rip up prairies (destroy biodiversity), sow grains, then feed the grain the animals in feedlots and sheds. The numbers of bison who roamed North America not so many years ago in an equilibrium with the native indians was in the millions.
> I agree people should eat less meat. There is chronic over consumption of poor quality meat due to its low cost from the factory farming. I find that I can be satiated on a smaller quantity of higher quality food. I also reflect when I eat my meal that an animal has died to provide this for me. I think that many people have become disconnected with their food source. I saw a study of UK inner city children - 70% of them had never seen an animal and they could not associate the meat food products with the correct animal. How will these humans understand that a living being has given up a life for their food?
> a point often missed by the vegetarians/biotech who think we can feed the world by growing grains is How will you feed the soil? the fertilizers used today are produced using huge quantities of fossil fuels - how crazy is that? We drain the Earth of its resources to plant mono-crops that then destroy the topsoil and provide poor nutrition. Nature feeds the soil with animals. Cows on grass, shit and give back to the soil, when animals die their blood and bones goes into the earth. To create life requires some death.
> there are sustainable farming models. They involve plants and animals together. There are small farms out there that are able to create several cm of topsoil annually. This is sustainability - balancing what comes out of the earth to what we put back in. Whether these models can support billions of people - I don't know. But even if they could they are of little interest to big bio business. They don't want small sustainable farms.
an amazing sustainable farm in Virginia US is www.polyfacefarms.com
That family will still be there in many 100's of years when a lot of the rest of the earth is dust.
> Although my metabolic type leans in the meat waiting direction, I can see that a vegetarians diet varied with real foods can be suitable for some people. I see the dangers of the vegetarians who base their diet on soy and grains though. It's interesting how the modern vegetarian diet has taken off - it's against primal human nature - its not a diet from our past. There are no tribal cultures who ate a animal free diet. There are some who eat little, but none who excluded all animals. Repeating myself I would eat vegetarian rather than eat the factory farmed meat. My partner has a different metabolic type to me and she eats much more carbs than protein - we are all different.
> I read recently that if processed sugar was being introduced today - it would not get approval. It's has all the characteristics of a class-A drug. I think the references were Candice Pert and sorry can't remember. I guess Jiri thinks Aspartame is safe for human consumption and its just another conspiracy :-)
Do all the Prague Post comments result in a tear up discussion like this? is this normal?
#21 Posted by
Margaret Donaldson
Jul 22, 2010 4:41 pm CET
>>Well,I think that my common sense eating habits are optimum
I am sure that your common sense is more useful than the input from anyone who has studied nutrition, understands about intensive farming and has thought about these problems for many years. Eat as much crap as possible, please.
I am sure that your common sense is more useful than the input from anyone who has studied nutrition, understands about intensive farming and has thought about these problems for many years. Eat as much crap as possible, please.
#22 Posted by
Jiri Hubacek
Jul 22, 2010 4:30 pm CET
"It's not that complicated. Eat less meat."
Well,I think that my common sense eating habits are optimum,just from the fact because they lay between your two extremes.Yours and Daniels.
There is nothing wrong with eating sugar(any sugar),starch(any edible starch,)vegetables,fruits,milk products and meat protein as long as you eat all of them.Of course,you need to be circumspect in quantity and ratios of them.The pudginess is a sign of overeating(in most of the cases.)
"Jez dopolosyta,pij do polopita-budes dlouho zit."
Well,I think that my common sense eating habits are optimum,just from the fact because they lay between your two extremes.Yours and Daniels.
There is nothing wrong with eating sugar(any sugar),starch(any edible starch,)vegetables,fruits,milk products and meat protein as long as you eat all of them.Of course,you need to be circumspect in quantity and ratios of them.The pudginess is a sign of overeating(in most of the cases.)
"Jez dopolosyta,pij do polopita-budes dlouho zit."
#23 Posted by
Margaret Donaldson
Jul 22, 2010 4:03 pm CET
>>And why ALL sugar rushes are unhealthy?If it is true,why hospitals administer intravenuosly a glucose to many patients?
Why do hospitals give people medicine, but people don't eat medicine all the time? I think that the world is too complicated for you to understand, Jiri.
Why do hospitals give people medicine, but people don't eat medicine all the time? I think that the world is too complicated for you to understand, Jiri.
#24 Posted by
Margaret Donaldson
Jul 22, 2010 4:02 pm CET
>>Do you have any knowledge of better ways to feed earth's population?Share it with us ,maybe it will get you a Nobel prize.
It's not that complicated. Eat less meat.
It's not that complicated. Eat less meat.
#25 Posted by
Jiri Hubacek
Jul 22, 2010 3:42 pm CET
"Intensive agriculture makes meat production absurdly cheap and therefore increases the amount of plant food which is wasted. If people ate less or, ideally, no meat there would be far more than enough food for everyone."
Do you have any knowledge of better ways to feed earth's population?Share it with us ,maybe it will get you a Nobel prize.
Do you have any knowledge of better ways to feed earth's population?Share it with us ,maybe it will get you a Nobel prize.
#26 Posted by
Jiri Hubacek
Jul 22, 2010 3:38 pm CET
." However, you have missed the point: starch, unlike a mono-saccharide such as fructose, has to be broken down before the sugar can be absorbed. This means that you don't get an unhealthy rush of sugar."
And why ALL sugar rushes are unhealthy?If it is true,why hospitals administer intravenuosly a glucose to many patients?
You were comparing sugar with starch,while I was comparing sugar with sugar.Obviously,in that context your notion is illogical, while acknowledging that certainly starches need to be broken down for body to absorb.I did not challenge that part at all.
And why ALL sugar rushes are unhealthy?If it is true,why hospitals administer intravenuosly a glucose to many patients?
You were comparing sugar with starch,while I was comparing sugar with sugar.Obviously,in that context your notion is illogical, while acknowledging that certainly starches need to be broken down for body to absorb.I did not challenge that part at all.
#27 Posted by
Margaret Donaldson
Jul 22, 2010 3:01 pm CET
>>Starch is polymer only in the same sense like common salt is. Sodium Chloride is ionic substance that does not have a clearly defined molecule.
I am glad to see that you have at least a very basic high-school knowledge of chemistry. However, you have missed the point: starch, unlike a mono-saccharide such as fructose, has to be broken down before the sugar can be absorbed. This means that you don't get an unhealthy rush of sugar.
I am glad to see that you have at least a very basic high-school knowledge of chemistry. However, you have missed the point: starch, unlike a mono-saccharide such as fructose, has to be broken down before the sugar can be absorbed. This means that you don't get an unhealthy rush of sugar.
#28 Posted by
Margaret Donaldson
Jul 22, 2010 2:37 pm CET
>>I did not mention Atkins - who did a lot of good work.
In what sense did Atkins do "good work"? For the meat marketing board, perhaps?
In what sense did Atkins do "good work"? For the meat marketing board, perhaps?
#29 Posted by
Margaret Donaldson
Jul 22, 2010 2:36 pm CET
>>The mass production of food is the only way how to feed six billion of people on this earth.
Far from helping to feed people, intensive agriculture makes it harder. Huge amounts of plant protein are converted into much smaller amounts of poor-quality animal protein, and hundreds of millions of animals are horribly abused in the process. Intensive agriculture makes meat production absurdly cheap and therefore increases the amount of plant food which is wasted. If people ate less or, ideally, no meat there would be far more than enough food for everyone.
Far from helping to feed people, intensive agriculture makes it harder. Huge amounts of plant protein are converted into much smaller amounts of poor-quality animal protein, and hundreds of millions of animals are horribly abused in the process. Intensive agriculture makes meat production absurdly cheap and therefore increases the amount of plant food which is wasted. If people ate less or, ideally, no meat there would be far more than enough food for everyone.
#30 Posted by
Jiri Hubacek
Jul 22, 2010 1:59 pm CET
" I already explained that I follow Paleo/Primal nutrition - I did not mention Atkins - who did a lot of good work. My nutrition direction is based on my unique metabolism and involves several years of fine-tuning and testing to find out what is best for me. I don't expect my macro-nutrient ratios to apply to you.'
Sure,Atkins diet is pretty close to what you are doing,if you forget about an obsessive little "scientific" details that you add to it.
And I don't expect that every single person on this world will have a personal,elitist nutrition.
Best that we can hope for is that they are fed at all.
Why I am not surprised that you think there is too many people on the earth?Where do we start in reducing us?With you?Your family?Peggy?Me?
Sure,Atkins diet is pretty close to what you are doing,if you forget about an obsessive little "scientific" details that you add to it.
And I don't expect that every single person on this world will have a personal,elitist nutrition.
Best that we can hope for is that they are fed at all.
Why I am not surprised that you think there is too many people on the earth?Where do we start in reducing us?With you?Your family?Peggy?Me?
#31 Posted by
Jiri Hubacek
Jul 22, 2010 1:45 pm CET
"This is because you know nothing about nutrition. It makes a huge amount of difference if the sugar is released quickly or over a reasonable period of time. Starch needs to be broken down first by pancreatic amylase."
What kind of logic is that Peggy?When I corrected your logic about polymers you choose not to reply as you knew that you were wrong.
Read what you just wrote.Sugar is not starch.
Daniel,you are pontificating and on obvious "band wagon".
Your correct(some) facts are negated by the context you are using them in.
In any case they may be of some use for few-certainly not for most.
But do not pay any attention to me.
I am drunken,unemployed,illiterate troll.
What kind of logic is that Peggy?When I corrected your logic about polymers you choose not to reply as you knew that you were wrong.
Read what you just wrote.Sugar is not starch.
Daniel,you are pontificating and on obvious "band wagon".
Your correct(some) facts are negated by the context you are using them in.
In any case they may be of some use for few-certainly not for most.
But do not pay any attention to me.
I am drunken,unemployed,illiterate troll.
#32 Posted by
Daniel Visser
Jul 22, 2010 1:20 pm CET
>>>>I said that sugar is sugar whether it is white or in fruit,molasses,honey or anywhere.
>>This is because you know nothing about nutrition. It makes a huge amount of difference if the sugar is released quickly or over a reasonable period of time. Starch needs to be broken down first by pancreatic amylase.
The Glycemic Index of processed sugar and processed flour is very high and is a contributor for the obesity and diabetes epidemic. These ingredients, so common in processed food products, result in a huge blood sugar spike and subsequent glucose release.... which your body tires of after a time. That's why we had to rename adult onset diabetes to Type 2 diabetes because children develop this. Many real carbohydrate foods (vegetable) have lower GI so they release to blood sugar slower.
Mother Nature is very smart, she provides a huge variety of edible plants....there are ~200,000 edible species of plants but today less than 0.1% or fewer than 300 species are used for food (its just so inconvenient for big business). Approximately 17 plant species provide 90% of mankind's food supply, of which cereal grains supply far and away the greatest percentage. Today three cereals: wheat, maize and rice together comprise at least 75% of the world's grain production - and these are pretty close to being the worst 3 from the 200,000 to choose! how stupid are we?
source: Cereal Grains: Humanity's Double-Edged Sword by Loren Cordain, Colorado State University, USA
>>This is because you know nothing about nutrition. It makes a huge amount of difference if the sugar is released quickly or over a reasonable period of time. Starch needs to be broken down first by pancreatic amylase.
The Glycemic Index of processed sugar and processed flour is very high and is a contributor for the obesity and diabetes epidemic. These ingredients, so common in processed food products, result in a huge blood sugar spike and subsequent glucose release.... which your body tires of after a time. That's why we had to rename adult onset diabetes to Type 2 diabetes because children develop this. Many real carbohydrate foods (vegetable) have lower GI so they release to blood sugar slower.
Mother Nature is very smart, she provides a huge variety of edible plants....there are ~200,000 edible species of plants but today less than 0.1% or fewer than 300 species are used for food (its just so inconvenient for big business). Approximately 17 plant species provide 90% of mankind's food supply, of which cereal grains supply far and away the greatest percentage. Today three cereals: wheat, maize and rice together comprise at least 75% of the world's grain production - and these are pretty close to being the worst 3 from the 200,000 to choose! how stupid are we?
source: Cereal Grains: Humanity's Double-Edged Sword by Loren Cordain, Colorado State University, USA
#33 Posted by
Margaret Donaldson
Jul 22, 2010 1:07 pm CET
>>Sure.I was born and lived for 23 years in circadian cycle nine hours different then I am now.
How and why would that make any difference? Normal people are able to travel between continents without still having jet-lag forty years later.
How and why would that make any difference? Normal people are able to travel between continents without still having jet-lag forty years later.
#34 Posted by
Margaret Donaldson
Jul 22, 2010 1:06 pm CET
Daniel: thank you for your contributions to this important field. Unfortunately you are wasting your time attempting to have an intelligent discussion with Jiri because he is a troll.
#35 Posted by
Margaret Donaldson
Jul 22, 2010 1:04 pm CET
>>I said that sugar is sugar whether it is white or in fruit,molasses,honey or anywhere.
This is because you know nothing about nutrition. It makes a huge amount of difference if the sugar is released quickly or over a reasonable period of time. Starch needs to be broken down first by pancreatic amylase.
This is because you know nothing about nutrition. It makes a huge amount of difference if the sugar is released quickly or over a reasonable period of time. Starch needs to be broken down first by pancreatic amylase.
#36 Posted by
Daniel Visser
Jul 22, 2010 12:59 pm CET
And no I am not missing the point.....I don't need to feed the world, I can feed myself and those around me. I know how to be healthy, I know how to look after myself, how to look after my family and I know how to help other people. I take responsibility for myself and don't offload that onto the medical system, food industry, bio-tech etc.... (you can take your pick). I am not a zoo animal who can't return the wild.
#37 Posted by
Daniel Visser
Jul 22, 2010 12:54 pm CET
Einstein said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".
As current industrial based agriculture clearly does not work (does not feed enough people and does not provide enough nutrition) and is not sustainable for the planet aren't we insane to keep doing the same thing and hope that we find the next magic scientific solution? The organizations in power keep telling us to eat low fat, high carb and we see increasing disease.
Mother Nature will be here long after we have disappeared.
As current industrial based agriculture clearly does not work (does not feed enough people and does not provide enough nutrition) and is not sustainable for the planet aren't we insane to keep doing the same thing and hope that we find the next magic scientific solution? The organizations in power keep telling us to eat low fat, high carb and we see increasing disease.
Mother Nature will be here long after we have disappeared.
#38 Posted by
Daniel Visser
Jul 22, 2010 12:49 pm CET
Yes there are too many people on the plant. The current methods of industrial agriculture are destroying the top-soil so soon not even the GM foods will grow here. Just as there is the concept of peak-oil, there is peak-soil - which occurred a long time ago. There are sustainable models based on polyculture, as I referred to in "The Vegetarian Myth". The food products that industry create will kill us anyway.
Do you think that a small number of profit driven organisations are smarter than Mother Nature?
I don't think so, because I see the results of what they produce.
Please don't label people in subject areas that you are perhaps not so well read in. I already explained that I follow Paleo/Primal nutrition - I did not mention Atkins - who did a lot of good work. My nutrition direction is based on my unique metabolism and involves several years of fine-tuning and testing to find out what is best for me. I don't expect my macro-nutrient ratios to apply to you.
Do you think that a small number of profit driven organisations are smarter than Mother Nature?
I don't think so, because I see the results of what they produce.
Please don't label people in subject areas that you are perhaps not so well read in. I already explained that I follow Paleo/Primal nutrition - I did not mention Atkins - who did a lot of good work. My nutrition direction is based on my unique metabolism and involves several years of fine-tuning and testing to find out what is best for me. I don't expect my macro-nutrient ratios to apply to you.
#39 Posted by
Jiri Hubacek
Jul 22, 2010 12:33 pm CET
In any case you all are missing point.Whether you are following Atkins diet(Daniel)or present yourself as vegetarian(Meggy-Peggy)you do have a choice.
However,majority of people in majority of countries do not have very good choice.For them eating(any type of eating)is matter of survival.
The mass production of food is the only way how to feed six billion of people on this earth.We might not like it,but it is a fact.
How do you manage to serve metropollis such as Bombay,Calcuta,Mexico City or even London and New York city with nutritionally ballanced foods?Not everybody can afford "farm fresh" products and in fact there is no possibility that small farmers alone can feed the rest of the population.
While you love to bash mass producing "corporations" the fact remains that the earth needs them-unless of course you agree with Malthus that the people should kill each other to keep the population in check.
However,majority of people in majority of countries do not have very good choice.For them eating(any type of eating)is matter of survival.
The mass production of food is the only way how to feed six billion of people on this earth.We might not like it,but it is a fact.
How do you manage to serve metropollis such as Bombay,Calcuta,Mexico City or even London and New York city with nutritionally ballanced foods?Not everybody can afford "farm fresh" products and in fact there is no possibility that small farmers alone can feed the rest of the population.
While you love to bash mass producing "corporations" the fact remains that the earth needs them-unless of course you agree with Malthus that the people should kill each other to keep the population in check.
#40 Posted by
Jiri Hubacek
Jul 22, 2010 12:12 pm CET
"Jiri: starch is a polymer, it doesn't have "10,12,14 or 16(or more) carbons in the molecule of hydrocarbons" (whatever that is supposed to mean). In any case, why would the number of carbon atoms be an indicator of whether it was healthy to eat or not? I can only assume that you are drunk."
Clearly you do not understand anything what I wrote.Not a surprise.Your obssesive personality with so many taboos in your life(non-smoker,vegetarian,non-logic.etc)is probably main reason why you have a problems with understanding.
Starch is polymer only in the same sense like common salt is. Sodium Chloride is ionic substance that does not have a clearly defined molecule.The similar to sugars and starches.
Anyway,as far as the fact I said about number of carbons in the molecule of sugar and/or carbons related to health.
I said that sugar is sugar whether it is white or in fruit,molasses,honey or anywhere.The number of carbons in its molecule determines whether it is categorized as Fructose,Glucose or Sucrose.The same goes for starches and flour.White flour is still the same hydrocarbon as whole wheat flour.
Clearly you do not understand anything what I wrote.Not a surprise.Your obssesive personality with so many taboos in your life(non-smoker,vegetarian,non-logic.etc)is probably main reason why you have a problems with understanding.
Starch is polymer only in the same sense like common salt is. Sodium Chloride is ionic substance that does not have a clearly defined molecule.The similar to sugars and starches.
Anyway,as far as the fact I said about number of carbons in the molecule of sugar and/or carbons related to health.
I said that sugar is sugar whether it is white or in fruit,molasses,honey or anywhere.The number of carbons in its molecule determines whether it is categorized as Fructose,Glucose or Sucrose.The same goes for starches and flour.White flour is still the same hydrocarbon as whole wheat flour.
#41 Posted by
Jiri Hubacek
Jul 22, 2010 11:52 am CET
"Jiri, i see you are posting at times throughout the day and night (03.00 am?) - looks like you have a pretty screwed up circadian cycle. "
Sure.I was born and lived for 23 years in circadian cycle nine hours different then I am now.
Sure.I was born and lived for 23 years in circadian cycle nine hours different then I am now.
#42 Posted by
Daniel Visser
Jul 22, 2010 11:40 am CET
I found a raw dairy farm in the UK that has some interesting information:
Before the pasteurisation process was developed, raw milk had associated health risks. Tuberculosis and Brucellosis were found in many herds at the time, and these diseases could be passed on through the milk. Also, the actual milking process was very basic allowing contaminants into the milk that contained bad bacteria such as E.coli. So there were problems many years ago.
But what about today? In the UK, Tuberculosis and Brucellocis are virtually eliminated from all herds following an eradication programme over the last few decades. Our Hailsham Herd established in 1959 has always been TB and Brucellocis free Todays herds are milked in a hygienic environment, using advanced milking equipment that is kept sterile. We pay fantastic attention to hygiene to ensure the strict bacteria tests conducted on the milk by the Food Standards Agency are easily met. Today, our milk is regularly analysed and milking plant regularly inspected to ensure that the cleanest milk is produced. In this way all the benefits of the good bacteria in the milk are kept, without having any of the problems associated with bad!
source: www.hookandson.co.uk
Before the pasteurisation process was developed, raw milk had associated health risks. Tuberculosis and Brucellosis were found in many herds at the time, and these diseases could be passed on through the milk. Also, the actual milking process was very basic allowing contaminants into the milk that contained bad bacteria such as E.coli. So there were problems many years ago.
But what about today? In the UK, Tuberculosis and Brucellocis are virtually eliminated from all herds following an eradication programme over the last few decades. Our Hailsham Herd established in 1959 has always been TB and Brucellocis free Todays herds are milked in a hygienic environment, using advanced milking equipment that is kept sterile. We pay fantastic attention to hygiene to ensure the strict bacteria tests conducted on the milk by the Food Standards Agency are easily met. Today, our milk is regularly analysed and milking plant regularly inspected to ensure that the cleanest milk is produced. In this way all the benefits of the good bacteria in the milk are kept, without having any of the problems associated with bad!
source: www.hookandson.co.uk
#43 Posted by
jan fleur
Jul 22, 2010 11:36 am CET
Jiri, RT likes to 'air' the wests blunders but not to offence. It also has good documentaries, But I doubt revealing the 'true Stalin' will get 'airplay'. It seems Stalin is getting a 'historical makeover'. His generals saved him, however he is very popular with older Russian males and I respect that. One of my regrets is not having the time to speak with 'ardent communists' to try and understand thier views. Trying to understand people is something I try, and often fail.
C.N.N. can be tedious, Euronews is light and refreshing. My cable wants me to pay extra to watch Fox!
C.N.N. can be tedious, Euronews is light and refreshing. My cable wants me to pay extra to watch Fox!
#44 Posted by
Daniel Visser
Jul 22, 2010 11:33 am CET
Back on subject.... does anyone have contact details for Jaromír Boháček/Líšťany Farms?
It would be interesting to know what kind of dairy farmer he is, whether he has adjusted his techniques/standards now that he is selling raw dairy to the public. I made a point earlier that factory dairy farming does not encourage good hygiene practices as the farmer can just pump the herd with antibiotics and feed them poorly, knowing that his milk is going to be zapped by pasteurization anyway.
It would be interesting to know what kind of dairy farmer he is, whether he has adjusted his techniques/standards now that he is selling raw dairy to the public. I made a point earlier that factory dairy farming does not encourage good hygiene practices as the farmer can just pump the herd with antibiotics and feed them poorly, knowing that his milk is going to be zapped by pasteurization anyway.
#45 Posted by
Daniel Visser
Jul 22, 2010 11:08 am CET
Margaret I agree with you. I would not touch a factory farmed animal product - its not food, it's a food product. The animals I eat have been shown respect and are looked after - I source all my meats from organic and free range/grass fed. It is this aspect of the vegetarian diet that is beneficial - that they avoid the crap that is fed to factory farmed animals. I am aware of my personal nutritional needs and I require animal meat and fat.
#46 Posted by
Margaret Donaldson
Jul 22, 2010 10:49 am CET
>>I don't believe that vegetarian is an optimal diet for humans, although it can be an occasional cleansing diet
The problem that I have with eating (or using) animal products is the extreme cruelty with which animals are raised in factory farms (especially in the CR). I have not eaten meat for over twenty five years and am very healthy. I can't see how eating the diseased bodies of tortured animals pumped full of antibiotics can be healthy for anyone; however, as I said, my principle concern is for the animals.
The problem that I have with eating (or using) animal products is the extreme cruelty with which animals are raised in factory farms (especially in the CR). I have not eaten meat for over twenty five years and am very healthy. I can't see how eating the diseased bodies of tortured animals pumped full of antibiotics can be healthy for anyone; however, as I said, my principle concern is for the animals.
#47 Posted by
Daniel Visser
Jul 22, 2010 9:46 am CET
I follow a primal/paleo diet of meats, fish, nuts, berries, vegetables and fruits based on research that shows we were hunter/gatherers. I eliminate all grains and limit my dairy to handmade/raw butter. I advise people to eat organic, but as some people see this as an elitist diet, I advise them to prioritize their organic buys as follows: fats, meats, nuts, then veg and fruit - to reduce their amount of pesticides etc. The farmers markets that are coming back in Czech are a good source for people to get seasonal food. I don't touch soy and would not if someone paid me.
I have interesting times working with vegetarians! Weston Price found in his travels NO tribal culture with a animal free diet. I don't believe that vegetarian is an optimal diet for humans, although it can be an occasional cleansing diet and also used during cancer treatment. If I had to buy my food from the supermarket I would eat vegetarian as the meat on sale there is terrible quality. The problem encounter with vegetarians who base their diet on soy and/or grains rather than real food. That should trigger some comments :-) I also believe in human bio-chemical differences, that one diet cannot be optimal for everyone. one man's food is another man's poison. The difference in macronutrients between Eskimos and Aborginies highlights this.
I also don't beleive in the Lipid Hypothesis - that we should follow a low fat high carb diet. This advice clearly does not work and only makes big-agri and big-pharma richer. I eat plenty of high quality fat (saturated)
I have interesting times working with vegetarians! Weston Price found in his travels NO tribal culture with a animal free diet. I don't believe that vegetarian is an optimal diet for humans, although it can be an occasional cleansing diet and also used during cancer treatment. If I had to buy my food from the supermarket I would eat vegetarian as the meat on sale there is terrible quality. The problem encounter with vegetarians who base their diet on soy and/or grains rather than real food. That should trigger some comments :-) I also believe in human bio-chemical differences, that one diet cannot be optimal for everyone. one man's food is another man's poison. The difference in macronutrients between Eskimos and Aborginies highlights this.
I also don't beleive in the Lipid Hypothesis - that we should follow a low fat high carb diet. This advice clearly does not work and only makes big-agri and big-pharma richer. I eat plenty of high quality fat (saturated)
#48 Posted by
Margaret Donaldson
Jul 22, 2010 9:27 am CET
>>Its the date when we went from hunter-gatherers into a civilization and our health has been on a downward spiral since this date as our diet changed to a grain based diet.
This is absolutely correct, of course. I avoid all animal products and eat raw whenever possible.
This is absolutely correct, of course. I avoid all animal products and eat raw whenever possible.
#49 Posted by
Margaret Donaldson
Jul 22, 2010 9:18 am CET
>>what is the difference between 8 carbons in the molecule of carbohydrate and 10,12,14 or 16(or more) carbons in the molecule of hydrocarbons.We are,of course talking about difference between fructose(with least of carbons)and starch with the highest number of carbons.
The only difference between white sugar and unrefined sugar is that the white sugar is pure form of the same.
Although Jiri has no basic education he still believes that his loud, ignorant opinion is of interest to everyone.
Jiri: starch is a polymer, it doesn't have "10,12,14 or 16(or more) carbons in the molecule of hydrocarbons" (whatever that is supposed to mean). In any case, why would the number of carbon atoms be an indicator of whether it was healthy to eat or not? I can only assume that you are drunk.
The only difference between white sugar and unrefined sugar is that the white sugar is pure form of the same.
Although Jiri has no basic education he still believes that his loud, ignorant opinion is of interest to everyone.
Jiri: starch is a polymer, it doesn't have "10,12,14 or 16(or more) carbons in the molecule of hydrocarbons" (whatever that is supposed to mean). In any case, why would the number of carbon atoms be an indicator of whether it was healthy to eat or not? I can only assume that you are drunk.
#50 Posted by
Margaret Donaldson
Jul 22, 2010 9:12 am CET
>>Jiri, i see you are posting at times throughout the day and night (03.00 am?) - looks like you have a pretty screwed up circadian cycle.
Jiri was fired from his job recently and now spends his time drinking alcohol and sitting at the computer. He hasn't got any friends apart from "Mr. Keyboard". He lives in Victoria, BC, but monitors this forum day and night so that he can write abuse in response to any posting which a) disagrees with American foreign policy; b) criticises the US in any way. This is slightly strange, given that he lives in Canada and most Canadians have a healthy skepticism of the US. He has lived in the Canada for most of his life, and emigrated when he was quite young. However, as you can see, his written English is extremely poor and often incomprehensible. After living for 40 years in Canada he is still unable to use the word "the" correctly.
Jiri was fired from his job recently and now spends his time drinking alcohol and sitting at the computer. He hasn't got any friends apart from "Mr. Keyboard". He lives in Victoria, BC, but monitors this forum day and night so that he can write abuse in response to any posting which a) disagrees with American foreign policy; b) criticises the US in any way. This is slightly strange, given that he lives in Canada and most Canadians have a healthy skepticism of the US. He has lived in the Canada for most of his life, and emigrated when he was quite young. However, as you can see, his written English is extremely poor and often incomprehensible. After living for 40 years in Canada he is still unable to use the word "the" correctly.
#51 Posted by
Daniel Visser
Jul 22, 2010 8:20 am CET
Jiri, i see you are posting at times throughout the day and night (03.00 am?) - looks like you have a pretty screwed up circadian cycle. To add to this discussion of respecting our ancestral roots allows us to live healthily in the modern world. Day/Night sleep cycles are pretty hard coded into our DNA, our hormonal system which developed over millions of years supports us to be active during the day and to repair during the night with phases of physical repair (22:00 to 02:00) followed by psychological repair (02:00 to 06:00). When you miss a sleep cycle its lost, there is no catch up another time. You are missing the times when your body repairs itself. We only have had electric lights for 100 years yet our bodies evolved over millions of years. Look after yourself. We are animals.... most of us have become zoo animals with no ability to look after ourself.
#52 Posted by
Daniel Visser
Jul 22, 2010 8:08 am CET
10,000 years ago is a good cutoff point in food history because its the start of agriculture. Its the date when we went from hunter-gatherers into a civilization and our health has been on a downward spiral since this date as our diet changed to a grain based diet.
The human body has not evolved to eat the foods of civilization - grains or dairy. This is why so many people have food intolerances to these foods. Our body was not designed to digest these foods. Our ancestors found ways to prepare these difficult foods like soaking/sprouting grains and they ate raw dairy. In the last 100 years our food has moved increasingly to food products which are not prepared in ancestral ways, are dead foods, are laden with additives. Food which used to be locally sourced has become industrialized food products - watch the DVD, Food Inc.
There is difference in diet throughout the world. Weston A. Price, in his book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, as he looked for tribal people that had not been corrupted by western processed foods, found that macronutrient ratios could range from the Eskimo eating about 90% animal foods: 10% plant foods to the inland Aboriginal eating the opposite ratio of about 90% plant foods: 10% animal foods, yet people living in different regions with radically different food ratios were found to be very healthy world- wide! Their ancestral diets were effectively meeting the needs of their genotype.
We evolve very slowly. Humans have had very little evolution over 10,000 years, let alone over 100 or 20 years.
We suffer the diseases of modernity that our ancestors did not encounter - because the majority of these diseases are caused by nutritional deficits. I work with overweight unhealthy people and its often a surprise for them to find out that they are malnourished! modern food products do not provide sufficient nutrition. Big food business (along with big pharma) has pushed the legislators to adopt a faulty food pyramid that is killing us - the proof is on every street, look around at the unhealthy people.
Returning to ancestral foods (organic, fresh, local) and preparation methods repeatedly shows the healing nature of real food.
The human body has not evolved to eat the foods of civilization - grains or dairy. This is why so many people have food intolerances to these foods. Our body was not designed to digest these foods. Our ancestors found ways to prepare these difficult foods like soaking/sprouting grains and they ate raw dairy. In the last 100 years our food has moved increasingly to food products which are not prepared in ancestral ways, are dead foods, are laden with additives. Food which used to be locally sourced has become industrialized food products - watch the DVD, Food Inc.
There is difference in diet throughout the world. Weston A. Price, in his book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, as he looked for tribal people that had not been corrupted by western processed foods, found that macronutrient ratios could range from the Eskimo eating about 90% animal foods: 10% plant foods to the inland Aboriginal eating the opposite ratio of about 90% plant foods: 10% animal foods, yet people living in different regions with radically different food ratios were found to be very healthy world- wide! Their ancestral diets were effectively meeting the needs of their genotype.
We evolve very slowly. Humans have had very little evolution over 10,000 years, let alone over 100 or 20 years.
We suffer the diseases of modernity that our ancestors did not encounter - because the majority of these diseases are caused by nutritional deficits. I work with overweight unhealthy people and its often a surprise for them to find out that they are malnourished! modern food products do not provide sufficient nutrition. Big food business (along with big pharma) has pushed the legislators to adopt a faulty food pyramid that is killing us - the proof is on every street, look around at the unhealthy people.
Returning to ancestral foods (organic, fresh, local) and preparation methods repeatedly shows the healing nature of real food.
#53 Posted by
Jiri Hubacek
Jul 22, 2010 3:46 am CET
"RT is the only one of those which I would partially trust, because it does employ some independent journalists. However, the rest are really faces of the same coin. Hearing the official mainstream news read out by five different newsreaders doesn't give you a huge amount of balance or perspective. Think back to the invasion of Iraq - all these outlets were spouting the same nonsense about WMD, which we now know to have been a bare-faced lie."
Well,Jan.Can you see the problem now?
You can't discuss anything with people like her.She is locked in her megalomaniacal belief that she is right no matter what anybody else will say.And,of course she will find big ally in her conspiracy websites so she will not even consider to really educate herself.
Well,Jan.Can you see the problem now?
You can't discuss anything with people like her.She is locked in her megalomaniacal belief that she is right no matter what anybody else will say.And,of course she will find big ally in her conspiracy websites so she will not even consider to really educate herself.
#54 Posted by
Jiri Hubacek
Jul 22, 2010 3:39 am CET
"
If it's white don't eat it. The 4 white devils are white flour, white processed table salt, white sugar and pasteurized milk. Avoid any food made from any of the white devils!
- If you can't pronounce a word on the label, don't eat it - your liver will not like it.
- If it wasn't here 10,000 years ago, don't eat it."
Right.Let's all move back 10,000 years ago.All 6 billions of us and don't eat any grains or milk product.
So white devils replaced red devils in your mind.well maybe you can tell me what is the difference between 8 carbons in the molecule of carbohydrate and 10,12,14 or 16(or more) carbons in the molecule of hydrocarbons.We are,of course talking about difference between fructose(with least of carbons)and starch with the highest number of carbons.
The only difference between white sugar and unrefined sugar is that the white sugar is pure form of the same.
If you decide to eat only white sugar and nothing else you will die soon.If you decide to eat only unrefined sugar and nothing else you will die soon.
If you decide to use only white salt in your foods nothing will happen to you unless you overdose.If you decide to eat any other type of salt,nothing will happen to you unless you overdose.
If you decide to use pasteurized type of milk products nothing happens to you.If you decide to use raw milk nothing happens to you-unless: There is present in it (as Peggy so deliciously put it) some blood and/or pus.Then,you may(or not) get violently sick,in extreme case you may even die.
I am not saying that people shoul not use raw milk if they are willing to take that risk.
I am not willing to do that.
If it's white don't eat it. The 4 white devils are white flour, white processed table salt, white sugar and pasteurized milk. Avoid any food made from any of the white devils!
- If you can't pronounce a word on the label, don't eat it - your liver will not like it.
- If it wasn't here 10,000 years ago, don't eat it."
Right.Let's all move back 10,000 years ago.All 6 billions of us and don't eat any grains or milk product.
So white devils replaced red devils in your mind.well maybe you can tell me what is the difference between 8 carbons in the molecule of carbohydrate and 10,12,14 or 16(or more) carbons in the molecule of hydrocarbons.We are,of course talking about difference between fructose(with least of carbons)and starch with the highest number of carbons.
The only difference between white sugar and unrefined sugar is that the white sugar is pure form of the same.
If you decide to eat only white sugar and nothing else you will die soon.If you decide to eat only unrefined sugar and nothing else you will die soon.
If you decide to use only white salt in your foods nothing will happen to you unless you overdose.If you decide to eat any other type of salt,nothing will happen to you unless you overdose.
If you decide to use pasteurized type of milk products nothing happens to you.If you decide to use raw milk nothing happens to you-unless: There is present in it (as Peggy so deliciously put it) some blood and/or pus.Then,you may(or not) get violently sick,in extreme case you may even die.
I am not saying that people shoul not use raw milk if they are willing to take that risk.
I am not willing to do that.
#55 Posted by
Margaret Donaldson
Jul 21, 2010 7:23 pm CET
>>Margaret I warch Aljazerra, CNN, BBC, Russia Today (R.T), Euronews, out of that lot you get as balanced a story as news generally gives.
RT is the only one of those which I would partially trust, because it does employ some independent journalists. However, the rest are really faces of the same coin. Hearing the official mainstream news read out by five different newsreaders doesn't give you a huge amount of balance or perspective. Think back to the invasion of Iraq - all these outlets were spouting the same nonsense about WMD, which we now know to have been a bare-faced lie.
RT is the only one of those which I would partially trust, because it does employ some independent journalists. However, the rest are really faces of the same coin. Hearing the official mainstream news read out by five different newsreaders doesn't give you a huge amount of balance or perspective. Think back to the invasion of Iraq - all these outlets were spouting the same nonsense about WMD, which we now know to have been a bare-faced lie.
#56 Posted by
jan fleur
Jul 21, 2010 6:46 pm CET
Margaret I warch Aljazerra, CNN, BBC, Russia Today (R.T), Euronews, out of that lot you get as balanced a story as news generally gives.
#57 Posted by
jan fleur
Jul 21, 2010 6:40 pm CET
Having been a vegitarian for 12 years, yougurt (yogabella) as I remembered it ,served me well. Soon the local Potraviny will demise and a market of about five main 'superchains' will sell everything from rabbit polevka to laptops with special forum deals.
#58 Posted by
Margaret Donaldson
Jul 21, 2010 6:28 pm CET
>>You should know that most of pesticides are derived from plant self-preserving chemicals that are directly produced by plants.
Presumably this was something you picked up from one of the adverts on Fox News.
I tell you what: you drink a bottle of RoundUp and I'll eat clean organic fruit with all its "self-preserving chemicals".
Presumably this was something you picked up from one of the adverts on Fox News.
I tell you what: you drink a bottle of RoundUp and I'll eat clean organic fruit with all its "self-preserving chemicals".
#59 Posted by
Daniel Visser
Jul 21, 2010 5:47 pm CET
>> The alternative of life grinding down to 'the supermarket visit' with 'local interaction' removed is a symptom of rural life dependant on the motor car.
Well said Jan. The lack of meaningful engagement with the world and positive social experiences leads to people hanging out on internet forums..... who might I be referring to!
I'm not old, in body or mind, but how things have changed continually surprises me.... Families make their weekend trip to a supermarket and take hours to walk around looking at cheap crap - my parents used to take us on trips to a park or a castle, somewhere outdoors, somewhere usually educational. Now it's let's go to Tesco where we engage via a barcode and a pin-number.
Well said Jan. The lack of meaningful engagement with the world and positive social experiences leads to people hanging out on internet forums..... who might I be referring to!
I'm not old, in body or mind, but how things have changed continually surprises me.... Families make their weekend trip to a supermarket and take hours to walk around looking at cheap crap - my parents used to take us on trips to a park or a castle, somewhere outdoors, somewhere usually educational. Now it's let's go to Tesco where we engage via a barcode and a pin-number.
#60 Posted by
Daniel Visser
Jul 21, 2010 5:41 pm CET
>>I will disagree with anybody who disparages science's contribution to food production.
Jiri, I suggest you read "The Vegetarian Myth" by Lierre Keith if you are interested in agricultural sustainability. A fantastic book.
Jiri, I suggest you read "The Vegetarian Myth" by Lierre Keith if you are interested in agricultural sustainability. A fantastic book.
#61 Posted by
Daniel Visser
Jul 21, 2010 5:34 pm CET
Margaret - It's fun at the moment for me although I can see Jiri becomes quite tiresome. I will stir it up a little and post some information other open minded people might find interesting. I always have time to share nutritional advice
The typical modern western diet can be described as the CRAP diet because it's typically laden with:
C for caffeine
R refined/processed foods
A for aspartame/alcohol/additives
P for pasteurized milk / preservatives
There are many studies out there that connect the diseases of modernity to nutritional deficiencies brought about by the CRAP diet.
Like many people I have an intolerance to pasteurized dairy. Its the #1 food intolerance leading to systemic inflammation, immune system suppression and respiratory problems. I can tolerate good quality raw dairy and I have good digestive and immune function so I am naturally well protected against anything harmful that might get in there.
Advice given by the CHEK Institute (www.chekinstitute.com) is
- If it's white don't eat it. The 4 white devils are white flour, white processed table salt, white sugar and pasteurized milk. Avoid any food made from any of the white devils!
- If you can't pronounce a word on the label, don't eat it - your liver will not like it.
- If it wasn't here 10,000 years ago, don't eat it.
That last point is very much in line with the Primal/Paleo principles that acknowledge that since the advent of agriculture 10,000 years ago humans have devolved (I mean the opposite of evolve) due to the increased consumption of grains and dairy - food with non-optimal nutritional value. This has just accelerated in the last 100 years due to the explosion of "food products".
I take the line that full-fat raw dairy is in a primal grey area. I certainly advise people to eliminate the grains, but with dairy you can either go with the full on Paleo approach of Cordian (see Paleo Diet) or with the Weston A Price Foundation advice. The best thing is to eliminate it for a period and see how you feel - then re-introduce it carefully.
Let's be grateful that in the Czech Republic we still have a choice and our local farmers are able to do something proactive.
Yes Jiri I guess I am a "naturepathy person". I prefer to call myself an exuberant animal :-) I eat a diverse fresh real (local where possible) food diet and I have healed myself from a serious auto-immune disorder. I daily see the destruction to people's health caused by modern processed food products and also see their return to health when they move to real food with nutrition value - not empty calories and numbers on labels.
A nice quote to finish:
Water and Food should always be your first medicine - Hippocrates (460-377 BC)
The typical modern western diet can be described as the CRAP diet because it's typically laden with:
C for caffeine
R refined/processed foods
A for aspartame/alcohol/additives
P for pasteurized milk / preservatives
There are many studies out there that connect the diseases of modernity to nutritional deficiencies brought about by the CRAP diet.
Like many people I have an intolerance to pasteurized dairy. Its the #1 food intolerance leading to systemic inflammation, immune system suppression and respiratory problems. I can tolerate good quality raw dairy and I have good digestive and immune function so I am naturally well protected against anything harmful that might get in there.
Advice given by the CHEK Institute (www.chekinstitute.com) is
- If it's white don't eat it. The 4 white devils are white flour, white processed table salt, white sugar and pasteurized milk. Avoid any food made from any of the white devils!
- If you can't pronounce a word on the label, don't eat it - your liver will not like it.
- If it wasn't here 10,000 years ago, don't eat it.
That last point is very much in line with the Primal/Paleo principles that acknowledge that since the advent of agriculture 10,000 years ago humans have devolved (I mean the opposite of evolve) due to the increased consumption of grains and dairy - food with non-optimal nutritional value. This has just accelerated in the last 100 years due to the explosion of "food products".
I take the line that full-fat raw dairy is in a primal grey area. I certainly advise people to eliminate the grains, but with dairy you can either go with the full on Paleo approach of Cordian (see Paleo Diet) or with the Weston A Price Foundation advice. The best thing is to eliminate it for a period and see how you feel - then re-introduce it carefully.
Let's be grateful that in the Czech Republic we still have a choice and our local farmers are able to do something proactive.
Yes Jiri I guess I am a "naturepathy person". I prefer to call myself an exuberant animal :-) I eat a diverse fresh real (local where possible) food diet and I have healed myself from a serious auto-immune disorder. I daily see the destruction to people's health caused by modern processed food products and also see their return to health when they move to real food with nutrition value - not empty calories and numbers on labels.
A nice quote to finish:
Water and Food should always be your first medicine - Hippocrates (460-377 BC)
#62 Posted by
Jiri Hubacek
Jul 21, 2010 4:59 pm CET
"You can have as much insecticide-covered GM food as you like - with luck it will kill you."
Thank you for your charm,Melusina.
You should know that most of pesticides are derived from plant self-preserving chemicals that are directly produced by plants.However,your mercury saturated brain mater is probably unable to grasp the simple fact of it.
Thank you for your charm,Melusina.
You should know that most of pesticides are derived from plant self-preserving chemicals that are directly produced by plants.However,your mercury saturated brain mater is probably unable to grasp the simple fact of it.
#63 Posted by
Margaret Donaldson
Jul 21, 2010 4:54 pm CET
>>I will disagree with anybody who disparages science's contribution to food production.
You can have as much insecticide-covered GM food as you like - with luck it will kill you.
You can have as much insecticide-covered GM food as you like - with luck it will kill you.
#64 Posted by
Jiri Hubacek
Jul 21, 2010 4:50 pm CET
"I welcome the local farmer's movements as they escape the food cartels and sell real local food direct to local people supporting their local economy rather than increasing shareholder profits of the supermarket giants."
I do not disagree with the above comment.I stand,however,by my assertion that pasteurization is not detrimental to milk values.I also mentioned the fact that "good bacteria" is killed together with "bad" one.It's compromise to get healtier product overall.
You are obviously naturepathy person.I have no problem with that,as long as it acknowledges the basic science's improvements in food industry.I will disagree with anybody who disparages science's contribution to food production.
If Peggy disagree with me on this is another proof that my opinion is correct.
I do not disagree with the above comment.I stand,however,by my assertion that pasteurization is not detrimental to milk values.I also mentioned the fact that "good bacteria" is killed together with "bad" one.It's compromise to get healtier product overall.
You are obviously naturepathy person.I have no problem with that,as long as it acknowledges the basic science's improvements in food industry.I will disagree with anybody who disparages science's contribution to food production.
If Peggy disagree with me on this is another proof that my opinion is correct.
#65 Posted by
Margaret Donaldson
Jul 21, 2010 4:08 pm CET
>>Do you really think pasteurized (and usually homogenized) milk is healthier?
Daniel, you are wasting your time writing an intelligent post on this forum. Jiri doesn't "think" about anything. He expresses his opinion, usually very crudely and forcibly. However his opinions are based on ignorance and hot air.
BTW, you are right, there are significant disadvantages in pasteurizing milk which many people are not aware of.
Daniel, you are wasting your time writing an intelligent post on this forum. Jiri doesn't "think" about anything. He expresses his opinion, usually very crudely and forcibly. However his opinions are based on ignorance and hot air.
BTW, you are right, there are significant disadvantages in pasteurizing milk which many people are not aware of.
#66 Posted by
Daniel Visser
Jul 21, 2010 4:02 pm CET
Jiri, thank you for the opportunity to debate.
Do you really think pasteurized (and usually homogenized) milk is healthier? There is a significant nutrient loss by pasteurization of vitamin C, B12, B6, A, D, calcium, folate, iron, iodine and other minerals - not to mention the destruction of the beneficial bacteria.
Many studies have linked consumption of pasteurized milk with lactose intolerance, allergies, asthma, frequent ear infections, GI problems, diabetes, auto-immune disease, attention deficit disorder and constipation. I for one do not drink pasteurized dairy products and the majority of my clients have found that they are intolerant to pasteurized dairy but are fine with raw dairy.
I disagree with you that an industrial process of pasteurization (and the usual homogenization) does not affect the "life energy" of the milk. It is quite easy to demonstrate that local real food has higher chi than supermarket processed food products - the simple fact that raw dairy is fresh and consumed immediately compared to a supermarket packaged product that is older due to its extended supply chain and storage. Processed foods are typically "dead" foods with little or no life-force. Processing de-natures food.
I welcome the local farmer's movements as they escape the food cartels and sell real local food direct to local people supporting their local economy rather than increasing shareholder profits of the supermarket giants.
I don't think that in the current epidemic of diabetes, cancer, depression, and asthma - the diseases of modernity - people being kept alive with medical drugs is truly living and I don't believe that a longer life expectancy equates to a higher quality of life.
I made a point about
food v food products
"food" is provided by nature and has been around for millions of years
"food products" are produced in factories over the last 100 years - its not food.
A good source of information (not industry or regulatory misinformation) can be found at
www.westonaprice.org
www.realmilk.com
I would also suggest that readers find out about the Pottenger's Cats study to see the effect of processed foods.
My advice to all my clients is to know the source of your food. If you want to consume raw dairy then first find out where it came from and contact or visit the source farm. Healthy happy cows produce healthy safe raw milk. Do not drink raw dairy from a farm that usually produces milk for pasteurized food products - they have no incentive to maintain high levels of hygiene and animal welfare.
Do you really think pasteurized (and usually homogenized) milk is healthier? There is a significant nutrient loss by pasteurization of vitamin C, B12, B6, A, D, calcium, folate, iron, iodine and other minerals - not to mention the destruction of the beneficial bacteria.
Many studies have linked consumption of pasteurized milk with lactose intolerance, allergies, asthma, frequent ear infections, GI problems, diabetes, auto-immune disease, attention deficit disorder and constipation. I for one do not drink pasteurized dairy products and the majority of my clients have found that they are intolerant to pasteurized dairy but are fine with raw dairy.
I disagree with you that an industrial process of pasteurization (and the usual homogenization) does not affect the "life energy" of the milk. It is quite easy to demonstrate that local real food has higher chi than supermarket processed food products - the simple fact that raw dairy is fresh and consumed immediately compared to a supermarket packaged product that is older due to its extended supply chain and storage. Processed foods are typically "dead" foods with little or no life-force. Processing de-natures food.
I welcome the local farmer's movements as they escape the food cartels and sell real local food direct to local people supporting their local economy rather than increasing shareholder profits of the supermarket giants.
I don't think that in the current epidemic of diabetes, cancer, depression, and asthma - the diseases of modernity - people being kept alive with medical drugs is truly living and I don't believe that a longer life expectancy equates to a higher quality of life.
I made a point about
food v food products
"food" is provided by nature and has been around for millions of years
"food products" are produced in factories over the last 100 years - its not food.
A good source of information (not industry or regulatory misinformation) can be found at
www.westonaprice.org
www.realmilk.com
I would also suggest that readers find out about the Pottenger's Cats study to see the effect of processed foods.
My advice to all my clients is to know the source of your food. If you want to consume raw dairy then first find out where it came from and contact or visit the source farm. Healthy happy cows produce healthy safe raw milk. Do not drink raw dairy from a farm that usually produces milk for pasteurized food products - they have no incentive to maintain high levels of hygiene and animal welfare.
#67 Posted by
Jiri Hubacek
Jul 21, 2010 2:18 pm CET
"Healthy raw milk sold locally is a real "food" where the consumer can identify the local source and not a supermarket "food product" with an unknown industrial source. "
Nobody argues that raw milk does not taste good. (it does not for some,though).
Nobody argues that it is not good for farmers to have independent means of selling their products,without a middleman.
Many,though,do and even should argue for some kind of regulation to ensure that these products are safe and healthy.There are, potentially, a number of microbiological agents that could cause a grave sickness in people consuming raw milk.
Most of these agents can be removed by simple pasteurization process(which is basically heating the milk up to temperature that will kill harmfull bacteria.)Granted, so called "good" bacteria is killed together with the harmful ones.
I,for myself would take pasteurized milk over unpasteurized one any time.
Treating milk by pasteurization does not remove any "life energy" or if you like "prana"from the milk.
The standard argument that milk was drank raw since ancient times is correct in this context.
Another context is,of course,that prior to pasteurization discovery many people were sickenned or even died by milk borne microbiological agents.That is not something that could be denied by anybody.
We need to remember,that in those "good,olden" times the life expectancy was often less than thirty years.The pasteurization of food products contributed to quality of life rather than oposite- as sugested by some.
Nobody argues that raw milk does not taste good. (it does not for some,though).
Nobody argues that it is not good for farmers to have independent means of selling their products,without a middleman.
Many,though,do and even should argue for some kind of regulation to ensure that these products are safe and healthy.There are, potentially, a number of microbiological agents that could cause a grave sickness in people consuming raw milk.
Most of these agents can be removed by simple pasteurization process(which is basically heating the milk up to temperature that will kill harmfull bacteria.)Granted, so called "good" bacteria is killed together with the harmful ones.
I,for myself would take pasteurized milk over unpasteurized one any time.
Treating milk by pasteurization does not remove any "life energy" or if you like "prana"from the milk.
The standard argument that milk was drank raw since ancient times is correct in this context.
Another context is,of course,that prior to pasteurization discovery many people were sickenned or even died by milk borne microbiological agents.That is not something that could be denied by anybody.
We need to remember,that in those "good,olden" times the life expectancy was often less than thirty years.The pasteurization of food products contributed to quality of life rather than oposite- as sugested by some.
#68 Posted by
Daniel Visser
Jul 21, 2010 12:14 pm CET
Good quality raw milk from healthy happy grass fed cows has been a healthy food from ancestral days. The modern pasteurization process which destroys the majority of the nutrition in milk is required today because many big dairy business have unhealthy cows being fed a diet of corn and antibiotics, followed by a retail supply chain through industrial dairy processes, warehousing, supermarket to consumer. Healthy raw milk sold locally is a real "food" where the consumer can identify the local source and not a supermarket "food product" with an unknown industrial source. How nice of Tetra-Pak to "warn" me against the perils of eating an ancestral real food (sarcasm intended) rather than a non-food of unknown source packaged in their cartoons.
#69 Posted by
jan fleur
Jul 21, 2010 11:20 am CET
If milk products, yougurt drinks, flavoured milk, etc, can be sold local and the farmers survive then its a great idea. The alternative of life grinding down to 'the supermarket visit' with 'local interaction' removed is a symptom of rural life dependant on the motor car.
#70 Posted by
Margaret Donaldson
Jul 19, 2010 7:07 pm CET
>>untreated milk(if that is true) could cause lots of health problems for people who consume it.
Anyone who has eaten at a Czech restaurant should be able to manage a bit of blood and pus in their milk without suffering too much harm.
Anyone who has eaten at a Czech restaurant should be able to manage a bit of blood and pus in their milk without suffering too much harm.
#71 Posted by
Jiri Hubacek
Jul 19, 2010 4:23 am CET
I think that the farmers initiative is good overall.
Having said that,to offer untreated milk(if that is true) could cause lots of health problems for people who consume it.
There needs to be a caution.The resulting compromise must be beneficial both for farmers and customers.
Farmers are selling milk,not "Prana."
Having said that,to offer untreated milk(if that is true) could cause lots of health problems for people who consume it.
There needs to be a caution.The resulting compromise must be beneficial both for farmers and customers.
Farmers are selling milk,not "Prana."
print
bookmark
email
share
21 °C, Prague, Czech Republic
Get The Prague Post anywhere in the world in print or digital (PDF) format.
#1 Posted by
Daniel Visser
Jul 24, 2010 6:42 pm CET
> the "surplus" grain cannot just be fed to humans - many humans are intolerant to grains and they are of poor nutritional value. Grain is crap food. It makes us obese and kills us with diabetes. It should not be there in the first place. In North America there was diverse prairie until recently - now its infertile acres of land covered with grains.
> stop planting the grains - this destroys the earth as it bares the soil repeatedly - no wonder there is erosion. Monocrops like grains need feeding. with what? of course fossil fuel based man made fertilizers!
> we can't eat soy - it's not a food and never has been, if I am being generous I can call it a condiment.
> quotes fossil fuel requirements for both livestock and plants - this is based on chemical fertilizers being used.
> talks about water shortages - in many regions of the world this is due to arable farming irrigation salinating the land. If we keep growing monocrops the whole planet will become a desert.
We should not feed grain to livestock (its cruel, its kills the animals), but we should not continue to grow the mono-crops of grains thinking mankind can eat them. Land should be returned to sustainable polycultures that support diversity of plants and animals - and humans should eat a diverse mixed diet again.
I have seen a stat somewhere that many people only consume 10 different foods on a regular basis - that's shocking when you consider that there are 200,000 edible plants available to us.
I look forward to the next subject/discussion. Hezky vikend everybody