Tasty Organic Hell

[MobyP]

That's superb news if ever I heard it. Does anyone know about Bresse chickens or Anjou pigeons, organic-wise? I saw them for sale the other day, and I was considering it as a treat.

[bleudauvergne]

I do know poulets de Bresse are a certain breed, but I don't know about what's required to be a certified farmer of this breed, i.e. in order to be selling certified poulets de bresse, do they have to be raised on a certain kind of feed and have open space to run in? Let me do some checking and get back to you.

edit: I've checked. The birds must be:

L'élevage de cette noble production repose sur 3 grands principes :

alimentation sans adjonction de produits synthétiques,

durée de croissance prolongée à 4 mois minimum,

vie en totale liberté sur des parcours herbeux.

feed does not contain synthetic additives

at least 4 months of age

live in total liberty in grassy field.

The only thing that might be suspect is "no synthetic additives", since it does not specifically say that their feed must contain strictly organic material, so even if they don't add "synthetic" stuff, there's nothing guaranteeing the feed is completely insecticide free etc.

It's a toss up. You certainly could have arguments either way.

Edited May 22, 2004 by bleudauvergne (log)

[Verjuice]

I think that the diet is premised on the idea that we derive vitality from the vitality of the foods we eat. The more highly processed something is, the more it is drained of these so-called resources.

Most of us scientific types don't really believe in "vitality". We think that what we derive from the food is nutrients -- and that these can de divided into various macronutrients, micronutrients etc.

I'm with you.

And most, if not all, of the foods we have listed on this page are more nutritionally sound than the foods that are banned from this diet, none of which have anything unique and vital (meaning essential) to contribute nutritionally.

As a general and not-so-general rule, foods that are higher in nutrients and micronutrients tend to be the ones that would be classified as "vital" anyway.

By the way, the Latin root of the word "nutrition" is nutrire, which means to nurture, which means to support and promote growth. We're really talking about the same thing.

[fifi]

I think that the diet is premised on the idea that we derive vitality from the vitality of the foods we eat. The more highly processed something is, the more it is drained of these so-called resources.

Most of us scientific types don't really believe in "vitality". We think that what we derive from the food is nutrients -- and that these can de divided into various macronutrients, micronutrients etc.

There is a lot of evidence though that caffeine and alcohol affect fertitility. However there is some evidence that caffeine improves male fertility, so you might want to allow yourself to cheat on this (at the appropriate times ).

Good luck though Moby and my suggestions are

cheese soufflee

fish 'n' chips

cassoulet (maybe in a few months) as well as any of the other family of pork + beans/pulses dishes like cotechino and lentils.

grilled vegetables and mozzarella

You can also cook pretty much all of Thai food with those restrictions; except for getting some of the organic vegetables.

Roger that, balex.

Ironically, a lot of the things that are written, and believed, by the general public is just plain wrong. Fortunately, most of the folks reading that stuff are not on marginal diets so no harm is done. But when you get extreme, harm can be done, and indeed, has been done. A few examples:

Whole grain versus "refined" (e.g. white versus whole wheat): As it turns out, the ancient assumption that whiter=better is indeed true. If you analyze what is in whole grain flour, you will find higher minerals and other nutrients. However, it doesn't work out that way in the human gut. Certain components of the whole grain tie up other nutrients and make them unavailable for absorption. Also, the higher fiber "moves things through" the gut faster. There have been outbreaks of rickets and other nutritional diseases (Ireland, Iran, Egypt, other parts of Africa) where marginal diets were heavily dependent on whole grains. The same thing happens with corn. Too much untreated corn in the diet and you get pelegra. Corn that is processed (oh the horror) with lye (pozole) releases those nutrients for absorption. The ancient americans were not dummies.

Raw vegetables are good for you: Well, like everything else, in moderation. The same availability of nutrients issue raises its head again. Low digestibility and added fiber don't allow for optimum absorption of what is there. Then the veggies can throw us another curve. They have evolved wicked chemical weapons to keep us from eating them. That was their choice since they can't run away. These compounds fall into the categories of nutrition blockers (e.g.spinach--oxalic acid ties up the calcium and iron that spinach is so famous for), toxins, mutagens, and carcinogens. I don't think that learning how to cook was coincidental to the success of the human race.

Low fat = good: Again, another one of those things that if taken to the extreme is harmful. Some fat is required in the diet to facilitate absorption of the fat soluble vitamins. Up until about the age of four, the human body requires a high fat diet for optimal developement of brain and nerve tissue. We don't really know how much damage has been done by misguided mothers insisting on a low fat diet for the kiddies because they have a horror of having a chubby kid. It makes me wonder if there is an increase in learning and behaviour problems and, if true, can be linked to low fat consumption early in life.

(With thanks to McGee, Steingarten, and Wolke who have done the hard slogging legwork through all of the scientific literature and presented the information in a palatable form.)

Sorry for the rant. I just can't stand it.

All of that being said, these extremes short term probably won't hurt any of us since we are incredibly well fed otherwise. My observation is that if you think you feel better, you do.

[MobyP]

Linda - that's very interesting. What about the metabolising of processed carbs into sugars versus the slow release of whole grain argument? That's the primary concern of the diet I'm on - controlling the nature of the sugar intake.

[fifi]

I have read a bit on that and have seen conflicting information. I have not read nearly enough but what I have seen so far indicates to me that there is still some disagreement in the scientific community. There is also the pesky bother (for the scientists) that all human beings are not alike. That makes for a devil of a time doing research. You need to do all of that research on huge numbers of human beings and then fiddle the results with statistical methods. Then you may have what looks like a perfectly reasonable hypothesis that doesn't apply to me. You get into the same mess with how individuals react to salt intake. The same can be said for how diet affects cholesterol levels.

The only thing that I can see to do with this sort of information is to determine if you are one of those individuals that process carbohydrates, salt, fats, whatever in a particular way that you should limit some things or just don't worry about it.

That being said, I try to hit moderation in everything. Of course... I never succeed.

[mudbug]

it seems a bit odd that this diet bans some simple carbs (pasta and bread) but allows others (rice and potatoes)  nutritionally speaking, aren't they about the same?

As mentioned above, the problem is that pasta and bread are processed and refined by the industrialization of our food supply. The more refined it is, the worse it is for you as a human being. We were meant to eat fresh vegetables and fruits and benefit the most from them for multiple reasons. Crackers, like Saltines are some of the worst as far as being highly refined and bad for you in this context. Refined sugars elicit a strong insulin response that will eventually convert sugar into fat. This isn't even addressing products containing hydrogenated oils or high fructose corn syrup (a sugar refined from corn) of which corn is the crop that is most subsidized by the government. 70% of funding goes to corn, the other 30% is for everything else.

The closer a food is to it's natural state, the better it is for you, which is why farm fresh produce from local growers is increasingly demand.

The diet isn't a fad, it's what has long been the most recommended way of eating.

White bread is created from refined white flour. Not good. White rice has been refined, taking away the brown sheath with contains the nutrients we need (brown rice is better).

As for the whole grain vs white (refined) wheat... you're talking about countries which don't necessarily have balanced diets (not that Americans do even though the food is readily available) based on what they have available, so you have to look every single thing consumed by one human being and what is complementing each other or not. There is a reason why Americans in general are gaining weight as a country, and eating boxed foods and fast foods isn't helping.

Why would I eat processed corn if I can grow it myself and enjoy it seconds off the plant itself?

jackal10, I completely agree with Verjuice. Stress can actually be accentuated by the foods we eat for the following reason:

The glycemic index measures how quickly a carbohydrate digests, enters the bloodstream, and raises blood sugar levels. High glycemic index foods, such as refined flours and high sugar beverages, are quickly digested, causing a rapid rise in blood sugar and insulin levels. Such effects have been linked to diabetes, overeating, and obesity. Low glycemic index foods (in general, foods high in fiber and protein), contribute to a steadier blood sugar level and have been shown to lower cholesterol levels and decrease the risk of diabetes. Many controlled carb diets recommend eating low glycemic index foods, such as beans, dairy products, fruits, and vegetables. Keep in mind that the glycemic index of a food may be balanced in the context of a meal where several foods of varying glycemic levels are consumed.

From Carb Conscious

What will be most interesting is to see whether or not MobyP feels better physically. Sure, it may be in the mind, but it very well may be in the body too... and since they're pretty much attached, if one feels better, the other is going to as well.

Edited May 23, 2004 by mudbug (log)

[balex]

[The more refined it is, the worse it is for you as a human being.

...

The closer a food is to it's natural state, the better it is for you, which is why farm fresh produce from local growers is increasingly demand.

The diet isn't a fad, it's what has long been the most recommended way of eating.

This is absolutely false as a general rule.

I will provide three illustrative counter-examples:

1) Processing milk to make yoghurt since many people are lactose intolerant

2) Processing manioc root (which is poisonous raw) to make tapioca

3) Cooking bones for stock.

In all three cases the processed form is clearly much better for you than the "natural" form.

[jackal10]

The more refined it is, the worse it is for you as a human being. We were meant to eat fresh vegetables and fruits and benefit the most from them for multiple reasons

The closer a food is to it's natural state, the better it is for you, which is why farm fresh produce from local growers is increasingly demand.

All the the above are at best unproven, and in my view untrue. Arguing from what we were "meant" to eat is difficult = there is some argument that we were probably carrion eaters with occaisional fruit as a feast, and hence our reaction to carbs is to convert them to fat for future use. I agree with Fifi above. People who eat only raw food or fruit are nutritionally challenged.

There is no reliable evidence that I know of to show that eating the same weight of whole grain or of processed grain plus the approriate amount of seperate bran has any noticable effect. The major effect of eating whole grain foods is that people tend to eat less total weight of carbs, since the food is tougher, and since they are catering to the health lobby they tend to be cooked with less sugar and fat. Sprinkling bran on their food would have the same effect. However some "health" bars and cereals have high sugar, salt and fat.

Just for interest I have taken out of the cupboard a box of Kellog's All-Bran Bran flakes, and a bag of the processed white flour I make bread from. Reading the small print on the packets

g per 100g
                Bran Flakes                White Flour
Energy kcal     324                            346
Protein          10                             11.7
Carbs            67                             71
Sugars           22                              1.4  <- Lots more sugar in Bran flakes
Fat               2                              1.4
Sodium            0.75                           0    

So bran flakes and refined white flour have virtually identical nutrients, except the bran flakes have a lot more sugar. If I make the flour into bread, with water, yeast and salt, the main change is adding about 1% salt, so even the sodium levels will be similar. I think I'll stay with my morning white toast, rather than switch to bran.

[Pan]

[The more refined it is, the worse it is for you as a human being.

...

The closer a food is to it's natural state, the better it is for you, which is why farm fresh produce from local growers is increasingly demand.

The diet isn't a fad, it's what has long been the most recommended way of eating.

This is absolutely false as a general rule.

I will provide three illustrative counter-examples:

1) Processing milk to make yoghurt since many people are lactose intolerant

2) Processing manioc root (which is poisonous raw) to make tapioca

3) Cooking bones for stock.

In all three cases the processed form is clearly much better for you than the "natural" form.

Well-stated.

We could make a thread out of things that are poisonous if not cooked, fermented, or otherwise treated, and I've started here: Foodstuffs that benefit from "treatment"

Edited May 23, 2004 by Pan (log)

[jackal10]

I think you may be taking the statement too literally.

In general, the longer the time and distance from the source, then yes, there used to be more chance for staling, loss of micro-nutrients, and spoilage from oxidation, enzymatic or micro-biological action.

However with modern packing, processing and controls this is less true, and otherwise unpalatable or unwholesome food is made edible.

For example is properly treated frozen and defrosted food worse nutritionally than the fresh equivalent? I doubt it at any level of significance, although the freeze and thawing may wreck the texture.

I think what concerns most people about food additives or GM crops are the "unkown unknowns" - side effects that may become apparent over the longer term. However that is not so say natural food is necessarily good, we've just been eating it for a long time, so havge some idea what to eat and what to avoid. As was pointed out earlier, many plants protect themselves with toxins, which if eaten in excess or untreated can cause harm. Just because its natural, doesn't meant its good. Lettuce, for example is high in opiates, especially near the stalk.

[bainesy]

Oh well...my two penn'orth (and if there's going to be a ruck between the hedonists of the world and the dieticians then I'm with the former).

Human beings aren't machines, and as well as our digestive tracts we have brains - hell some people even say we've got a soul. Yet some dietary advice seems to bypass this fact (and there is a LOT of pseudo-science bullshit peddled in that field). Our brains tell us when something is pleasureable, and to go further, that feeling one gets eating a fresh Helford oyster, drinking the first swig of beer after a hard summer's day's work, the "god-shot" espresso, foie gras, jamon iberico, manzanilla, cox's orange pippin, is more than pleasure. It is, or can be, euphoria. Now, in the field of bullshit science I am second to none, but I'm damn sure that when I get that feeling it's doing me more good than bad. And isn't that feeling the reason we're here after all? (meaning on eGullet, although, on reflection, maybe I mean it more profoundly).

Of course, there is much to commend a diet comprising 'natural' ingredients - I don't for instance, want that oyster or that apple mucked around with thank you, and, in general terms the 'natural' approach is a positive one. "Organic" is, broadly, a good thing (but transporting organic products half way round the earth to peddle them at inflated prices to gullible supermarket shoppers certainly isn't). But, equally, some foods are immeasurably better in a "refined" state (I'm not sure I want to chew on hops, malt and brewers yeast - I'd rather someone "refined" them first please).

Of course some people are required for health reasons to follow a restrictive diet, but, I wish some of the practitioners would recognise a more holistic (!) approach, and accept that a neo-puritan attitude to food and drink ("drink more water, cut down on alcohol/caffeine/refined foods blah blah blah") might be missing something.

Oh I could ramble on and on, but it's a nice day outside, and the coffee is (clearly) kicking in.

[chromedome]

That being said, I try to hit moderation in everything. Of course... I never succeed.

Me, too...but I don't go overboard with it....

<ducks and runs>

[redfox]

Oops, I've posted about potatoes in your other thread when I see the discussion about them seems to have been taking place more over here. Oh well. Anyway, this doesn't sound too far off from the way we eat / have to eat at my house for various other reasons, so here are some thoughts for things to make:

- Indian food. Lots and lots of recipes would easily work with your restrictions, especially vegetarian ones, and though one's used to having them with rice, chapatis are easily (and traditionally) made with whole flour.

- Sandwiches on wholemeal pita (better, in my view, than white commercial pita bread, and not too much bread in sum as compared to other sandwich-cradling options) with things like nice cheeses, roast chicken, garlicky white bean puree, roasted veggies, eggplant peeled and baked with garlic and capers and balsamic vinegar...

- Various things with barley. People elsewhere have mentioned barley risotto, but it's also lovely in soup and makes a good pilaf.

- I would just skip pasta, really. Anything other than white flour seems like a cruel joke.

- Cauliflower in many guises. It seems to fill that "starch" niche without actually being a starch. I don't much like it in the classic steamed (with or without cheese) mode, but there are many other options. You've seen the endless roasted cauliflower thread, no doubt; it's also good in soup, or as a puree with oodles of cheese and/or cream. I've also recently had it grated in the food processor, which results in a sort of couscous-ish texture. Then it's steamed for about 10-15 minutes and dressed in butter, something somewhat acidic (a vinagrette of some sort, or a white wine reduction -- mine had preserved lemon in) and mixed with fresh herbs. Lovely! Good at room temperature, warm or cold, by itself or for soaking up juices from something.

I don't think this regime has to be a hardship! Finding nice organic things can be a pain, but the range of actual foods available to you sounds well within the bounds of permitting for happy eating.

[Pan]

My brother found noodles made out of konnyaku, and he likes them. I stand to be corrected, but I've been told that konnyaku is pure cellulose and, therefore, zero calories.

[clare h]

oops i too have posted in the other thread by mistake. japenese type food (buckwhaet noodles etc) really helped me out when i was on a similar diet - and although it was tough it really helped me out with a medical condition i had when years of trying other therapies had failed, so i am quite a beliver in these things.

A random aside - have you tried acupuncture for fertility? i see an acupuncturist who is quite well known for helping conception, might be worth a try? If you want her details let me know and good luck!

[Tepee]

Umm, at the risk of sounding like a quack...have you and Mrs. tried ginseng? American, Siberian, Korean, whatever. A friend of mine had problems conceiving after her first child (she took The Pill right after). Someone told her to try ginseng. After she and her husband religiously took it in capsules for 3 months, they conceived and they now have another boy. At that time she was 45, hardly a fertile age. However, on discovering the pregnancy, please abstain from ginseng as it's a stimulant.

[MobyP]

I thought I should let you all know, after your magnificent help with the above diet, that Kate is 3 months pregnant... with twins!

Thanks to all for suggestions. Many were used, and all the support appreciated.

Right. Now, cigars all around - or is eGullet non-smoking?

[slkinsey]

Congratulations, Moby! May I suggest a celebratory dinner of tagliatelle Bolognese?

[tomweir]

Congrats to you and Kate!

Twins? Oooh boy... I was going to tell you my approach to the art of chopping garlic with one hand but you do need one hand free...

[arielle]

Change your doctor, or get a second opinion.

That diet must be just a fad.

I could understand giving up something you are allergic to, or carbs, or fats, but just to stick to wholemeal? Makes no sense

If you need to get fibre up have a daily bowl of bran cereal and go back to eating white bread, flour and rice.

jackal10: NONONONONONONONO!!!!!!!!

It's not just about fibre, Verjuice is right, the problem with white bread (any bread, actually), pasta, and even white rice, is that they have been processed, ie: they are too far removed from their natural state for our bodies to be able to properly digest them. It places a huge amount of stress on the digestive system, but also on the kidneys and liver, as the body attempts to eliminate what it considers 'toxic'. Even if Moby hadn't only done this for such a particular (but very good) reason, I would suggest that he follow a diet closer to this all of the time. It's not about eating nothing but 'raw food', or something that has 'sprout' in its name, it's about enjoying treats now and then, but essentially taking care of your body, so that you can afford to indulge now and then.

Verjuice - Hurrah! Finally, someone who understands that you can love food and wine and still live healthily!

MOBY, CONGRATULATIONS AND THE BEST OF LUCK WITH THE PREGNANCY!!!!!!!!!

Edited September 13, 2004 by arielle (log)