[“Were vegetables more nutritious in the past?”google.co.uk/search?q=were+ … nt=gws-wiz] so perhaps the talk-show host took it for granted that the viewer would be up-to-speed on the topic.
He cited plenty of findings… were you not listening attentively enough to follow the information trail he laid, for you to join the dots?
I think his final summing-up of the situation -as we enter into the near-future- hi-lighted the impact that the resultant culmination of this depletion in food proteins and nutrition is starting to have, by triggering obesity.
These are not fake images… the original banana strain is more ‘pineapple’ in texture and taste, and so has a lot less carbs and a lot more flavour and nutrition.
Regardless of the reason… consumers would rather prefer their produce more nutritious and satiating than not, One would presume.
My meals are satiating, and that makes me happy and content… just the thought of eating anything processed or mass-farmed, does not… coz I already know how they make me feel.
A fair point… which is why the individual needs to eat what works for/satiates them.
I cannot currently tolerate most fruits and vegetables… hence my abstinence of them, otherwise I would happily have them in my diet. Who would?
The video you posted is a dumb attempt to lay the problem at the door of Climate Change, and that is the main thrust of the whole thing. So he is rubbish and not worth following.
What you show with the banana can be done with every domesticated crop from apples to zuccini and EVERYTHING in between. This has nothing to do with global warming and CO2 and everything to do with elective breeding. This has been going on for thousands of years.
But the main results of all this breeding is to have made the plant matter more palatable, and less toxic too.
No only has it reduced micronutrients, but harmful lectins and alkaloids.
In some instances it has increased the alkaloids such as in poppy and cannabis.
For the most part slightly less nutrients are no problem at all, as vitamin and mineral deficiencies are rare in the modern world, especially for those eating real food, and the biggest problem we have is how the body can cope with all that dreadful plant matter.
All you really need to live is a pint of milk and a ribeye steak. It turns out that is you do not eat carbs you only need a trace of vitamin C. (which seems the only thing that meat eaters thought themselves at risk of deficeincy wise).
I lived on that with some mackeral and sardines for several weeks this year. The only problem was being bored.
Today I had ribeye steak. I pan fried it with red onions, leek, some chia seeds, garlic, tomatoes, which made a lovely sauce. When that was all cooked I stirred in a large quantity of blanched kale.
I avoid fruit because of fructose, and do not like many veg but know what to do to them to make them edible.
His closing argument is still a cause of concern though, as rising appetites has seen a huge increase in the need for gastric band surgery as appetites spiral out of control.
Ok… but I am talking about the state of our food, not the causal effect of decreasing CO2, on it. We seem to have been talking past each other.
I would say, that the harking back to growing earlier forms of crops [heirloom varieties] and not the mass-commercial varieties, indicates a definite want -and preference- for these more ancient crops… bananas, sweetcorn, tomatoes, potatoes etc…
Well it isn’t… because you have to cook the f out of most plant foods to make them even remotely digestible, and even then, they still reek havoc on the digestion.
I pretty-much subsist on meat, eggs, seafood, low-lectin vegetables, citrus fruit, and Camembert cheese, and nothing else… well, apart from coffee and kombucha, and sometimes wine and rum.
What was your diet like before? I’m guessing a lot more different, than now.
No - that just makes it worst. Not only is he attributing Global warming to plants having less nutrient but he is also trying to suggest a link to gastric bands, which is doubly stupid, hysterical and off topic.
There are far better, accurate and direct arguments for the rise of gastric bands. It’s not because there is less vit C in an orange. It’s because there is too much sugar and other refined carbs in the diet causing obesity. The problem is not mal nutrition the problem is super nutrition of substances that cause fat deposition. And there is a scientificly demonstrable metabolic pathways that shows this to be true.
The fat is that people who take gastric bands do not suddenly get the chance to eat legacy vegetables. They do perfectly well - simply because they are prevented from overeating.
The man is an idiot.
You posted the video which I am commenting on.
Not particularly. I think as long as we avoid food made in factories then we can live healthy lives. Most legacy vegetation is not palatable, and humans were never designed to eat them. If as it seems we are going to be forced to eat less meat then we are going to have to eat modern cultivars. Legacy carrots will not submit to peeling without 60% loss of matter. We do not have the teeth, nor the gut length, to thrive on legacy cabbages, potatoes, etc…
Yes, and for legacy veg you not only have to cook the fuck out of them you have to cook the shit out of them too.
Carnivores, Ketovores, Vegans and Vegetarians are not the ones needed the gastric bands.
It the people who have not yet realised that eating shit in packets is killing them slowly.
Whatever the causes of the steep rise in overeating may be…
My jury’s out, in that there is more than one…
I said ancient cultivars, not prehistoric… the varieties that households have been growing in their gardens/on their farmland for 100s of years. There’s a growing market for it, you know.
Why do you think modern cultivars faultless?
No, that was for all fibrous produce… heirloom or otherwise. Not that I eat any of that fibrous or FODMAP poop anyway… but when I try. : (
…by design?
Elvis comes to mind… in practically eating himself to death, in an era that started the whole fast food/junk food business.
It’s not too much CO2 in the atmosphere.
Hunger is what drives eating.
If you want to know what causes overeating then you need to look into what drives hunger.
Are we agreed so far?
We know that blood sugar (glucose) drives insulin, and that insulin inhibits lectin (the hormone of satiety). We also know that insulin switches off fat burning and commands the body to store fat.
We also know that sucrose is comprised of fructose and glucose. It is hard for the body to use fructose and so when consumed it is immediately converted to liver fat, whilst also suppressing lectin.
We also know that refined carbs start to be converted into sugars in the mouth and are broken down completely before they leave the stomach. Refined carbs are equivalent to sugar.
Excess sugar has other consequences. Insulin acts to store the sugar in the tissues, as excess blood sugar is a toxin especially to blood vessels. Eventually the tissues get overloaded with sugar and reject more by building insulin resistance. This has the effect of requiring the body to pump out more insulin to reduce blood sugar. Meanwhile excess blood sugar attaches itself to haemoglobin, what we call A1C, an excess number of which indicated first pre-diebetes then Type2 diabetes.
All that hunger and fat storage leads to overeating and obesity.
Additionally sugars stimulate the brain’s reward system causing cravings.
This is the key mechanism.
Do you have any others to suggest?
I do not but neither do I think that any cultivar is what we are evolved to eat. By definition.
Agriculture has only been a part of our experience for between 1000-10000 years.
In northern Europe we only started cultivating about 6000 years ago. That is only 200 generations. No time for significant adaptation. What followed from its inception is a drop in life expectancy.
Other causal factors may and might exist, as ‘triggers’ to also overstimulating appetite and cravings.
Agreed… best to eat what works for you, and if that means ‘eggs, meat, cheese, two veg, and citrus’ …as in my case, then so be it.
At my local mini-mart, I spot mainly fresh produce, meat and fish, alcohol, and only the odd naughty treat, in other shoppers’ baskets. And I noticed that near-all the many patisseries -at my end of the high-street- have recently shut down, but the Udderlicious and savoury bakeries are still open for business.
I’m glad the consumer has started voting with their pocket, in eating right.
.
[/quote]
But these triggers relate back to sugar and the stimulation of the limbic/reward system.
Other food tuffs don’t do that.
Even of you were encouraged by advertising to crave a nice juicy ribeye; a steak is satiating, because of the high fat and protein content.
Sugar and the carbs from which they are derived are specifically designed by natural selection to cause hunger and fat storage simply because sweetness is a signal that winter is coming.
The other triggers of cravings are protein and fat, so not just sugar… though sugars are the most easiest to convert into fat stores, hence their addictive lure and nature.
…because it is the easiest food group to sustain the body through a harsh Winter… something that most moderns attempt to override or limit.
I don’t mean starchy carbs, but the beneficial digestible species of plant matter… the vitamins minerals and fibre they contain also being beneficial for maximal satiation… along with the fats and protein from meat and dairy.
Control sugar/carb intake, control the problem…
A gym-goer or athlete cannot build a physique on fat, for energy alone… it’s all about One’s end goal, I’d say.
“Because fat metabolism requires more chemical reactions in cells than metabolizing carbs does, it takes longer to produce the samey amount of energy, meaning people who switch to burning fat can only exercise at a lower intensity compared to those who are burning carbs. 11 Aug 2016” livescience.com/55732-do-fa … -work.html
…bad news for me ^^^ as not an optimal metabolic-state to weight-train or work-out in, is it…
…nothing a pre-workout coffee and orange can’t solve… i.e., fuelling up beforehand.
Well tell that to a longtime weight-trainer, why don’t ya. ; )
“When the body doesn’t have enough carbohydrates, it does increase its breakdown of fat, according to a 2015 study in the journal Metabolism Clinical and Experimental. In that study, ultra-endurance marathoners who were on an extremely low-carb diet could burn fat at twice the rate of those who were on a high-carb diet.”
…good news for you ^^^ …and me, somewhat.
“Still, low-carb, high-fat diets almost always lead to lower performance, according to more than a dozen studies conducted from 1960s to the 2000s.”
I tend to eat (keto/paleo-friendly) carbs on a ‘need to’ basis… so either if my energy is flagging really badly, or if needed for pre or post workout energy.
I never bought into the 5[7]-a-day recommendation [scam] …people were lucky if they even got through 1-a-day, let alone 2 or more. lol
Of course it was only ever about profit… not caring.
Now it’s up to 10-a-day… who can get through all that >>> what a portion size looks like: goodto.com/wellbeing/health … pics-63967 Who on Earth can get through 10 portions of any of those ^^^ every single day?
[b]Is 5 a day enough?
[i]We’ve been told to eat five portions of fruit and veg a day for as long as we can remember. It’s something we’ve all been brought up with, but now it seems this number might be a little on the low side. We might have all heard the rumours of the 5 a day increasing to 7 a day but what about even higher?
Amanda Callenberg, nutritionist at YourZooki (opens in new tab) agrees. She says we really should be aiming more than this.
In fact, she reckons we should go for 7 portions of vegetables and 3 portions of fruit per day. That’s 10 portions overall!
Why so many?
‘The quality of produce we get today is quite poor and depleted of vital nutrients, so we need to be consuming a much higher amount of vegetables and fruit to ensure we are meeting our daily nutrient needs. We also need to think about fibre when we think about health. Fibre is abundant in plants and it has been shown that people who eat a fibre rich diet, and those who include 8 portions or more of vegetables and fruit have a much lower risk of suffering from many chronic diseases.’
Don’t think this is achievable? It’s actually far simpler than you think with our simple guide. There’s also plenty of other surprising foods which count towards your 5 a day![/i][/b]
I posted two things
One claim that a bowl of grapes a day will make you live 5 years longer, from a study funded by grape producers.
And a response from a doctor who looked at the research in detail from where the so-called “journalists” made the claim.
This was not about five a day.
I thought you might like it.
Ok …though growers recommending their produce as ‘vital’ probably inspired the great 5-a-day campaign… buy land, plant a variety of produce, tout them all as the great saviour of health and humanity, pay Social-Media influencers to tout the campaign for you, then watch the cash roll in.
Hmmm… I’ve just realised that there’s next-to-no TV food advertisements… when did that happen? About time though… adverts should be aids to optimal living, not aids to lining manufacturers’ pockets with fat profits of billions, whilst the consumer struggles with health issues and subsisting.
