Hi Good Buddies,
The current western diet is making us sick.....everything from metabolic syndrome, full-blown diabetes, obesity, heart disease, cancer, dental disease, and who knows what other chronic diseases! The majority of its calories are in the form of refined grains, added sugars (mostly in the form of high fructose corn syrup), and the "wrong" kind of fats (those high in saturated fat or in omega-6 fats (the kind from seed oils). Our diet contains way too many empty (non-nutritional) calories, at least 300 more per day than in 1985. Calories supply energy but may be totally lacking in nutrition.
The American diet is dominated by corn and soybeans, in part because they are efficient crops that travel and store well (have a long shelf life). Most of the corn/soy is used for animal feed (making thier diets unnatural and unhealthy). You might think that you don't eat much corn/soy, but listen to this: 75% of the vegetable oils in your diet come from soy (this is 20% of your daily calories!) and more than 50% of the sweeteners you consume come from corn (10% of your daily calories).
Remember the old farms where a dozen different plants and animal species were raised? Cattle, hogs, apples, potatoes, pears, oats, etc. Well, now vast monocultures of a tiny group of plants (most of them cereal grains) have replaced the old diversified farm. And corn and soy farmers are subsidized by the government for their crops. (Tex, correct me if I'm wrong here).
Of course, wheat is the main source of calories in an American's diet, providing 768 calories per day, follwed by corn at 554 cals./day and soy at 257 cals./day. This doesn't leave room for many additional calories in a day does it?
BUT here's the punch line........ THERE IS NO WHEAT, CORN, OR SOY whatsoever in the paleo diet. It couldn't be more different from the typical American diet. What's wrong with this picture? LOL! Lots of food for thought, eh?
Love,
Polly
P.S. My statistics come from Michael Pollan's recent book, "In Defense of Food". I recommend it - very eye-opening.
Paleo Diet vs. typical "western" diet
Moderators: Rosie, JFR, Dee, xet, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh, mbeezie
Paleo Diet vs. typical "western" diet
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.
As someone who grew up on a family farm in the 1950s, and has been involved in farming/ranching/agribusiness all my life, I can attest that the statistics that Polly has stated seem to be generally accurate.
Michael Pollen is very good at finding someone, (or some industry), to blame for our problems, and I have to agree with him that our food industry seems to be broken, (I haven't yet read his latest book, however). In defense of agriculture, I would like to point out that farmers/ranchers find themselves in the same dilemma that the general population faces. Back in the 1950s, virtually every farm was relatively self-sufficient. We bought very few production inputs, and very few groceries. That all changed in the 1960s, when commercial fertilizers, hybrid corn seed, (which had been introduced in the 1950s), and various pesticides became widely available, at affordable proces, and export markets opened up. Suddenly, global demand for U. S. commodities surged, and like any other industry, agriculture responded by taking advantage of production aids, in order to boost production, and farms became more specialized, so that they could concentrate on the global markets for meat and grain.
In all fairness, while it's true that American corn and soybean production is subsidized by the government, this has been going on since before the grain "revolution" of the 1960s, this is a global phenomenon, and the subsidies paid to U. S. producers are only a small fraction of the subsidies paid in many/most of the European nations, for example. In a sense, agricultural producers have been pawns of the government since the "dust bowl" days of the 1930s. The government offers subsidies, (which are often vital to survival during lean years), but in return, producers have to grow mostly what the government dictates for them to grow, (since the subsidies are linked with the specific commodities), so it's no accident that farmers "choose" to grow corn, wheat, and soybeans - those are the crops for which there is huge global demand, and which are subsidized, (and a minimum price guaranteed), by the government. What would you do if you were in a farmer's shoes? - grow something that was in low demand, and for which there was no assurance that you could even sell it before it spoils, let alone at a profitable price?
Probably the main reason why the government subsidizes food production, is because Americans demand "cheap food". The government correctly recognizes that cheap food makes people happy, and voters tend to vote for administrations that promote "cheap food" policies. Therefore, the government wisely promotes the crops that are the most economical to produce, yet yield the highest production potential.
Additionally, farmers are required by the government, (whether they receive any subsidies or not), to participate in commodity promotional organizations, and pay a portion of their sales dollars to those promotional organizations. IOW, farmers are taxed, against their will, to pay a heck of a lot of money each year, to promote corn, soybeans, milk, citrus crops, beef, etc. Is it any wonder why those commodities have developed such huge markets? Trust me, precious few farmers/ranchers would pay those promotional taxes if they had a choice. Clearly, the government dictates which commodities are to be produced in abundance in this country, (and this is true in virtually every developed country of the world), so ultimately, the responsibility of the world's food production lies with government. Sure, farmers and ranchers can choose to buck the trend, and grow some other commodities, if they wish, but considering the extremely high cost of agricultural equipment, and production inputs these days, they do so at a very high risk of financial failure, and success stories are few and far between.
It's kind of like a doctor, fresh out of medical school, trying to decide where to practice, "Let's see now, I only owe about half a million dollars, after finishing my schooling, so where should I hang out my shingle? - somewhere on the Navajo Reservation, in New Mexico, where I will be lucky to earn enough to pay back that money in 500 years, and may have to live on canned dog food during the lean years, or should I go to California, where they pay the big bucks, and I might be able to pay it back in just a few years, or so? Get the picture?
In the final analysis, though, (to lend some semblance of rationality to the role of the world's governments in this whole picture), the main reason why these "favored" crops are promoted and subsidized, is because these commodities provide "optimum choices", (given current technology and existing infrastructure), that allow us to produce enough food, on a sustainable, world-wide basis, to enable us to feed the most people, an "adequate" diet. Granted, it's certainly not the best diet, from a nutritional viewpoint, but should we choose instead, to feed half the world's population a nutritionally-correct diet, while letting the other half starve?
Pollan's thoughts are always interesting, from a theoretical viewpoint, but unfortunately, in the real world, there are no free lunches. We can certainly better our diets, but it will be at the expense of someone else's diet, because most of the world's population cannot afford to pay for a diet without corn, soy beans, or wheat. Also, since we cannot possibly produce enough food by growing alternative crops, to meet world demand, if these crops were to be cut out of the picture, we ourselves would soon discover that we wouldn't always be able to find the food we wanted, and when we did, it would cost us dearly. The era of "cheap food" would be gone.
But yes, everything that Polly said is true. Bear in mind though, that the paleo people had no food security. If they couldn't find something to eat on any particular day, (or week), they just did without. If the problem lasted long enough, they simply starved to death. The modern approach emphasizes food security, and affordability, but apparently, somewhere along the line, good nutrition fell by the wayside, as the government "scientists" convinced us that their "anointed" food pyramid was the proper way to eat, and the medical community went along with that BS. Sooooooooo, while I agree that our food industry as a whole, dropped the ball back during the 1980s, I'm not convinced that food producers and processors are entirely to blame, (as Michael Pollan seems to believe). They are merely selling what the market demands. And what does the market demand? Why, it demands the government's interpretation of what the citizenry wants, of course. What did George Orwell call it in his novel titled "1984"? "Newspeak", if I remember correctly.
IOW, I'm not so sure that those of us in the food production industry, actually fumbled the ball - it seems to have been knocked out of our hands by the government, with the medical community's backing. That said, that still doesn't change the fact that our food machine appears to be broken, and frankly, I don't hold out much hope that it will be fixed, anytime soon. At least, that's the way I see it, FWIW.
Having said all that, though, for those who can afford it, the paleo diet is undeniably a much safer, and more nutritious way to go, IMO. It's just a shame that the world as a whole, can no longer afford it.
Love,
Tex
Michael Pollen is very good at finding someone, (or some industry), to blame for our problems, and I have to agree with him that our food industry seems to be broken, (I haven't yet read his latest book, however). In defense of agriculture, I would like to point out that farmers/ranchers find themselves in the same dilemma that the general population faces. Back in the 1950s, virtually every farm was relatively self-sufficient. We bought very few production inputs, and very few groceries. That all changed in the 1960s, when commercial fertilizers, hybrid corn seed, (which had been introduced in the 1950s), and various pesticides became widely available, at affordable proces, and export markets opened up. Suddenly, global demand for U. S. commodities surged, and like any other industry, agriculture responded by taking advantage of production aids, in order to boost production, and farms became more specialized, so that they could concentrate on the global markets for meat and grain.
In all fairness, while it's true that American corn and soybean production is subsidized by the government, this has been going on since before the grain "revolution" of the 1960s, this is a global phenomenon, and the subsidies paid to U. S. producers are only a small fraction of the subsidies paid in many/most of the European nations, for example. In a sense, agricultural producers have been pawns of the government since the "dust bowl" days of the 1930s. The government offers subsidies, (which are often vital to survival during lean years), but in return, producers have to grow mostly what the government dictates for them to grow, (since the subsidies are linked with the specific commodities), so it's no accident that farmers "choose" to grow corn, wheat, and soybeans - those are the crops for which there is huge global demand, and which are subsidized, (and a minimum price guaranteed), by the government. What would you do if you were in a farmer's shoes? - grow something that was in low demand, and for which there was no assurance that you could even sell it before it spoils, let alone at a profitable price?
Probably the main reason why the government subsidizes food production, is because Americans demand "cheap food". The government correctly recognizes that cheap food makes people happy, and voters tend to vote for administrations that promote "cheap food" policies. Therefore, the government wisely promotes the crops that are the most economical to produce, yet yield the highest production potential.
Additionally, farmers are required by the government, (whether they receive any subsidies or not), to participate in commodity promotional organizations, and pay a portion of their sales dollars to those promotional organizations. IOW, farmers are taxed, against their will, to pay a heck of a lot of money each year, to promote corn, soybeans, milk, citrus crops, beef, etc. Is it any wonder why those commodities have developed such huge markets? Trust me, precious few farmers/ranchers would pay those promotional taxes if they had a choice. Clearly, the government dictates which commodities are to be produced in abundance in this country, (and this is true in virtually every developed country of the world), so ultimately, the responsibility of the world's food production lies with government. Sure, farmers and ranchers can choose to buck the trend, and grow some other commodities, if they wish, but considering the extremely high cost of agricultural equipment, and production inputs these days, they do so at a very high risk of financial failure, and success stories are few and far between.
It's kind of like a doctor, fresh out of medical school, trying to decide where to practice, "Let's see now, I only owe about half a million dollars, after finishing my schooling, so where should I hang out my shingle? - somewhere on the Navajo Reservation, in New Mexico, where I will be lucky to earn enough to pay back that money in 500 years, and may have to live on canned dog food during the lean years, or should I go to California, where they pay the big bucks, and I might be able to pay it back in just a few years, or so? Get the picture?
In the final analysis, though, (to lend some semblance of rationality to the role of the world's governments in this whole picture), the main reason why these "favored" crops are promoted and subsidized, is because these commodities provide "optimum choices", (given current technology and existing infrastructure), that allow us to produce enough food, on a sustainable, world-wide basis, to enable us to feed the most people, an "adequate" diet. Granted, it's certainly not the best diet, from a nutritional viewpoint, but should we choose instead, to feed half the world's population a nutritionally-correct diet, while letting the other half starve?
Pollan's thoughts are always interesting, from a theoretical viewpoint, but unfortunately, in the real world, there are no free lunches. We can certainly better our diets, but it will be at the expense of someone else's diet, because most of the world's population cannot afford to pay for a diet without corn, soy beans, or wheat. Also, since we cannot possibly produce enough food by growing alternative crops, to meet world demand, if these crops were to be cut out of the picture, we ourselves would soon discover that we wouldn't always be able to find the food we wanted, and when we did, it would cost us dearly. The era of "cheap food" would be gone.
But yes, everything that Polly said is true. Bear in mind though, that the paleo people had no food security. If they couldn't find something to eat on any particular day, (or week), they just did without. If the problem lasted long enough, they simply starved to death. The modern approach emphasizes food security, and affordability, but apparently, somewhere along the line, good nutrition fell by the wayside, as the government "scientists" convinced us that their "anointed" food pyramid was the proper way to eat, and the medical community went along with that BS. Sooooooooo, while I agree that our food industry as a whole, dropped the ball back during the 1980s, I'm not convinced that food producers and processors are entirely to blame, (as Michael Pollan seems to believe). They are merely selling what the market demands. And what does the market demand? Why, it demands the government's interpretation of what the citizenry wants, of course. What did George Orwell call it in his novel titled "1984"? "Newspeak", if I remember correctly.
IOW, I'm not so sure that those of us in the food production industry, actually fumbled the ball - it seems to have been knocked out of our hands by the government, with the medical community's backing. That said, that still doesn't change the fact that our food machine appears to be broken, and frankly, I don't hold out much hope that it will be fixed, anytime soon. At least, that's the way I see it, FWIW.
Having said all that, though, for those who can afford it, the paleo diet is undeniably a much safer, and more nutritious way to go, IMO. It's just a shame that the world as a whole, can no longer afford it.
Love,
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Hi Tex,
I certainly enjoyed reading your usual most thoughtful response! It's especially illuminating to hear your views as you are someone in the trenches.
I did know that gov'ts. set the rules and that these rules are not based upon what is optimal necessarily - it seems that quality has been sacrificed for quantity, just like in so many other aspects of life. Of course, the type of agriculture now practiced is not sustainable over the long haul, so hopefully some of the modifications that will have to be made will be more beneficial for human health. And wouldn't it be wonderful to be able to take some of the billions upon billions of dollars spent on health care for chronic diseases and use it to put more quality into agriculture?
I think the gov't involvement became most obvious to me when that previous food pyramid was published - you know, the one that claimed that one should eat 6-11 servings of grains a day. Imagine making a recommendation like that with the increasing obesity and related illnesses in our population!! I guess they had to find uses for those crops that are subsidized. Luckily, there is a more recent food pyramid that corrected that.
I do feel so fortunate that I can afford to eat the kind of diet that my genes need, and I know this is not possible for much of the world. I fear that those of us with hunter-gatherer genes are a potentially endangered group if agribusiness/govts. continue on their current paths.
It's always fun sharing our thoughts!
Love,
Polly
I certainly enjoyed reading your usual most thoughtful response! It's especially illuminating to hear your views as you are someone in the trenches.
I did know that gov'ts. set the rules and that these rules are not based upon what is optimal necessarily - it seems that quality has been sacrificed for quantity, just like in so many other aspects of life. Of course, the type of agriculture now practiced is not sustainable over the long haul, so hopefully some of the modifications that will have to be made will be more beneficial for human health. And wouldn't it be wonderful to be able to take some of the billions upon billions of dollars spent on health care for chronic diseases and use it to put more quality into agriculture?
I think the gov't involvement became most obvious to me when that previous food pyramid was published - you know, the one that claimed that one should eat 6-11 servings of grains a day. Imagine making a recommendation like that with the increasing obesity and related illnesses in our population!! I guess they had to find uses for those crops that are subsidized. Luckily, there is a more recent food pyramid that corrected that.
I do feel so fortunate that I can afford to eat the kind of diet that my genes need, and I know this is not possible for much of the world. I fear that those of us with hunter-gatherer genes are a potentially endangered group if agribusiness/govts. continue on their current paths.
It's always fun sharing our thoughts!
Love,
Polly
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.
Just a thought, but I wonder if it's not another case of YMMV. Just look at how differently all of us respond to various dietary tweaks and inclusions and exclusions. Could it be that there is not in fact one diet that is "the healthiest" for the entire world? Some people do well on high-carb diets, some on high-protein, and some on things like the Mediterranean diet. I think one problem with things like food pyramids is that they assume all bodies are alike, when we may in fact have different needs depending on genetics, environment, and so on.
Love,
Courtney
Love,
Courtney
Hypothyroid 05/05
LC/CC 07/08
Celiac 07/08
LC/CC 07/08
Celiac 07/08
Courtney,
That's a good point, because I believe that various "tribes" of paleo people lived in widely varying climates and environments, especially in later generations, and as a result, they had to have widely differing diets.
Of course, just because one "does well" on a certain type of diet, does not mean that particular diet is optimum for that individual, it just implies that it is "acceptible". There's always the possibility that another diet might work just as well, or better, (until proven otherwise, of course).
Love,
Tex
That's a good point, because I believe that various "tribes" of paleo people lived in widely varying climates and environments, especially in later generations, and as a result, they had to have widely differing diets.
Of course, just because one "does well" on a certain type of diet, does not mean that particular diet is optimum for that individual, it just implies that it is "acceptible". There's always the possibility that another diet might work just as well, or better, (until proven otherwise, of course).
Love,
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Yes, good point Courtney!
And I think this is why so many studies are flawed. They give the same diet to everyone and then try to draw conclusions. It's interesting how nutritional recommendations change over time - even drastically! Remember when eggs were bad? Now they're OK. Remember when they said to supplement with beta-carotene? Now they say not to. Remember when they said margarine was healthier than butter? Not!!! And so on and so forth............ Do you think this means the experts really have no clue! LOL!
Hey, I was just thinking........with all of this genetic thrust for the future......maybe eventually they will be able to use one's genes to determine what diet might be acceptable or even ideal? That way, maybe those of us with hunter-gatherer genes would be given a priority to purchase those foods we need, since they may eventually be in very short supply, with the world's growing population. Sort of like how one must be officially diagnosed "celiac" in the Europe to be able to purchase discounted GF foods.
Love,
Polly
And I think this is why so many studies are flawed. They give the same diet to everyone and then try to draw conclusions. It's interesting how nutritional recommendations change over time - even drastically! Remember when eggs were bad? Now they're OK. Remember when they said to supplement with beta-carotene? Now they say not to. Remember when they said margarine was healthier than butter? Not!!! And so on and so forth............ Do you think this means the experts really have no clue! LOL!
Hey, I was just thinking........with all of this genetic thrust for the future......maybe eventually they will be able to use one's genes to determine what diet might be acceptable or even ideal? That way, maybe those of us with hunter-gatherer genes would be given a priority to purchase those foods we need, since they may eventually be in very short supply, with the world's growing population. Sort of like how one must be officially diagnosed "celiac" in the Europe to be able to purchase discounted GF foods.
Love,
Polly
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.
Hi Polly,
To take that idea a step further, imagine walking into a grocery store, and having clearly-identifiable, and easily read signs near products, that showed which genetic types each product was suitable for. Or, that info could be in the form of a radio-ID tag, or even just a barcode tag, that could be automatically picked up, or scanned, by your cellphone, on the spot. That would seem to be much more practical than setting up individual departments in stores, for each genetic food type, since most products could be used in multiple categories.
If the government gets in on it, though, I'd be afraid that they would view it as another opportunity to levy some taxes, rather than to provide help with no strings attached.
Love,
Tex
To take that idea a step further, imagine walking into a grocery store, and having clearly-identifiable, and easily read signs near products, that showed which genetic types each product was suitable for. Or, that info could be in the form of a radio-ID tag, or even just a barcode tag, that could be automatically picked up, or scanned, by your cellphone, on the spot. That would seem to be much more practical than setting up individual departments in stores, for each genetic food type, since most products could be used in multiple categories.
If the government gets in on it, though, I'd be afraid that they would view it as another opportunity to levy some taxes, rather than to provide help with no strings attached.
Love,
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.