"We don't want oil money. Supply gas!,"

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g3feiFem3znF5luSm-kLAxudaP8Q
Angry Iran warns Turkmenistan on gas

Several MPs were quoted on Monday as expressing exasperation with the government's handling of the crisis, which has seen dozens of factories shut and left people in both cities and remote villages with poor or no heating.

"Mr President, do you know how my constituency's people have lived without the least heating equipment and in the worst and most difficult conditions?" asked Vali Rayaat, MP from the northern city of Ghaemshahr. "We don't want oil money. Supply gas!," the Etemad Melli newspaper quoted him as saying. . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/business/worldbusiness/15commodities.h...
Chinese and U.S. Demand Drives Commodities Surge
By CLIFFORD KRAUSS
Published: January 15, 2008

. . . A global boom in the cost of commodities, the staple ingredients of a modern economy, is entering its sixth year with no end in sight. Commodities have always been subject to boom-and-bust cycles, but many economists see a fundamental shift driving the markets these days.

As development rolls across once-destitute countries at a breakneck pace, lifting billions out of poverty, demand for food, metals and fuel is red-hot, and suppliers are struggling to meet it. Prices are spiraling, and Americans find themselves in what amounts to a bidding war with overseas buyers for products as diverse as milk and gasoline. . . .

. . . Now, with the United States economy slowing, the question is what happens next. One possibility is that a recession in this country, should it occur, would suppress demand enough that commodity prices would fall substantially for the first time in several years. But many economists argue that demand overseas would keep prices high even with a recession in the United States. That would compound the economic pain for Americans, forcing them to continue paying a premium at the meat counter and the gas pump even as their paychecks suffered. . . .

Edited to cut down an oversized quote.

One possibility is that a recession in this country, should it occur, would suppress demand enough that commodity prices would fall substantially for the first time in several years....That would compound the economic pain for Americans, forcing them to continue paying a premium at the meat counter and the gas pump even as their paychecks suffered. . . .

Sounds fair, spreading the worlds wealth, and it will serve the American people well in their fight against obesity.

It would also mean we would not be getting out of a recession any time soon. That's going to cause a lot of hurt, and won't be a pretty thing to be a part of.

Ah sir , you have not read the words of the wise, as quoted by the wise in the editorial sidebar this morning, have you?

“To be thrown upon one's own resources, is to be cast into the very lap of fortune; for our faculties then undergo a development and display an energy of which they were previously unsusceptible.”
—Benjamin Franklin

"Lucky, lucky, lucky ... fair fortune on Americas brow doth smile" -anon.

Poor Richard had no way of knowing what unlimited credit, 24 hour shopping and the popular media would do to the American mind.

Nice to have the "can do" spirit -- it comes in handy at times -- but if'n I were you, I'd get myself a S&W and learn to use it...

Just in case we're all thrown upon our own resources...

For us non-US people that "S&W" was an obscure reference.

What do them USA types like?
Guns.
What is a popular gun in the US?
Smith & Wesson.

... or is it even more obscure?

"S&W"
=
"Smile and Wave".

I consider resource shortages to be a great gift. Without scarcity, populations consume until they die in their own wastes.

Unfortunately, it looks like we have both source and sink problems simultaneously.

"Climatic changes appear to be destabilizing vast ice sheets of western Antarctica that had previously seemed relatively protected from global warming, researchers reported yesterday, raising the prospect of faster sea-level rise than current estimates."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/13/AR200801...

and it will serve the American people well in their fight against obesity.

I wonder. It's been noted that in the US, anyway, the poor are more prone to obesity than the wealthy. Is it just that the rich can afford gym memberships and personal trainers? Maybe. But there's increasing evidence that the diet recommended by the government since the '70s is bad for you. It's also rich in the carbohydrates that poor people tend to eat.

I'm currently reading Good Calories, Bad Calories, by Gary Taubes. It sounds like a diet book, but it really isn't. Rather, as you would expect from Taubes, it's a science book. In particular, it's about the "science" that led the government, the American Heart Association, etc., to recommend a low-fat diet.

I put "science" in quotation marks, because there's very little research that actually supports the idea that eating meat and fat is bad for you. Instead, it looks more and more like the real killer is carbohydrates. That it's carbs, especially refined carbohydrates like sugar and white flour, that cause obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.

Leanan, my dear, you miss the intent in my post which was merely to add a little irony to the TOD diet, but as you are on the subject of diet in the less than broad sense I would suggest the book 'End of Food by Thomas Pawlick'. He puts figures and facts to a hypothosis I have been babbling about for more years than I care to consider, that the food we eat has been so degraded that one has to eat greater amounts of calories in order to obtain the necessary vitamins minerals etc that the body needs.

"Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we cut bait." -anon

Authorial intent is dead. Especially in an Internet forum. ;-)

Anyway, I didn't miss it, and my comment was not addressed to you in particular. This was just a convenient jumping-off point. I've been thinking about this topic a lot, since hearing of OilManBob's untimely passing from the complications of diabetes.

I thought that the most interesting part of Taubes' book was the historical aspect.

I quite liked, when it comes to books on diets, the Kurzweil book Fantastic Voyage. It is wonderfully (naively) titled how to live long enough to live forever. The main aim of it is to wrap up a whole bunch of interesting recent science on food and diet to help people make dietary changes that will help them live longer and healthier, so they will still be around at that point in time where we beat death by aging.

Of course the latter isn't going to happen... I once thought it might... I once thought we'd see the technological singularity and staggering rate of technological change. Now I think we'll never get there and it'll be one more near miss because of our greedy short sightedness overpopulating ourselves before we make the sort of future breakthroughs that might have helped us manage some of our growing pains.

But I digress... point is I thought there were many interesting dietary points in there if you are reading on diet.

Oh gosh... I missed the far bigger point.

I don't pop in every day to the Oil Drum. I didn't know that OilManBob had passed. That is sad to hear.

Hi responsible,

me, too...just heard. How sad.

This is one of my favorite posts of Bob's, and one we corresponded about:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3005#comment-241682

What we eat is not really food - at least not things that humans would have consumed for the vast majority of our existence. And the idea that we know what effect this will have is absurd.

I have not had time too study, but someone told me that Vitamin C had been bred out of oranges to make way for supplements. I am sure it is possible, but is there any evidence for that kind of tactic?

I wonder, that's really interesting. I wouldn't put it past agribusiness to do that. Another scenario is the switch to N-P-K fertilizer reduced the variety of nutrients and bacteria in the soil, reducing the overall nutrition of the oranges.

So? Just eat sauerkraut.

That's just too much of a conspiracy. The fact is that sugar content in fruits has been going up through breeding to make them better sellers. In this process to reduce the acidity, vitamin C has probably been reduced as well.

I just finished GCBC, and I think it's one of the better pieces of science journalism I've read recently. I knew most of the sad history of the "Ancel Keys/AHA/McGovern hearings" low-fat ideology juggernaut and the damage it has caused from my days on the low-carb newsgroups, but it was uplifting to see the veil of respectability stripped away from that branch of "science" to reveal the rot within. For me the most edifying portions of the book were the last few chapters on carbohydrate metabolism. I now understand much more about the mechanics of the process than I ever did before.

The book raises a couple of ironic issues that are pertinent given all the discussions we've had here recently about the global food supply. The first issue is that the best diet for humans (meat) turns out to be the worst for the planet. The second is that the only way we can keep everybody alive is by increasing cereal consumption at the expense of meat, which will make us all progressively less healthy.

Perhaps a healthier "transition diet" of long pig will be a post-peak feature of some regions.

The book raises a couple of ironic issues that are pertinent given all the discussions we've had here recently about the global food supply. The first issue is that the best diet for humans (meat) turns out to be the worst for the planet. The second is that the only way we can keep everybody alive is by increasing cereal consumption at the expense of meat, which will make us all progressively less healthy.

Yes, that occurred to me, too.

Though there's the possibility of sustainable farms, with cows, chickens, goats, rabbits, etc., as well as vegetables.

And less refined carbohydrates aren't as bad for you.

One of the ironies of our modern food system is that less refined carbs can be more expensive. In my grocery store, brown rice costs twice what white rice does.

My great-grandmother, who was an born an Italian peasant so she knew some stuff about living off the land, lived to 98 never suffered any debilitating disease and could still thread a needle after she turned 90.

My mom tells me she always kept a chicken coop and vegetable garden in her city backyard her whole life and ate an egg every morning and raised a couple of chicks. Once the chickens got too old she took them to a butcher.

My mom said she hardly fed the chickens as they found worms and other bugs in the backyard that would try to get at the fruit in the fruit trees.

My great-grandmother did the same. Her small front yard was filled with a vegetable garden, with a chicken coop along one edge. I thought it was so cool.

Only she butchered the chickens herself. My mom sometimes had to help, and she hated it. Blood everywhere, and all those feathers to pluck.

The best diet for us isn't bad for the planet as long as we're hunter-gatherers with a low worldwide population compared to now.

If we returned to more traditional farming methods, where meat was raised on fallow fields and land not suitable for crops, we could still eat meat, and with the animals exercising and eating their natural diet, it would be much healthier. It would just be less available and more expensive, so we'd be eating less of it.

Pollan, in "The Omnivores Dilemma," says it's the "carbs" added to the animal diet that's at root. When combined with the info from "All Flesh is Grass," I'm very inclined to agree that corn-fed beef, and to a lesser degree overly corn-fed hogs, are quite bad for human health.

But there's increasing evidence that the diet recommended by the government since the '70s is bad for you.

I'm not sure how important that point is. Not many people actually base their diet on the government recommendations. Do you really think Americans have low-fat diet? I sure don't. I think we have both a high fat and a high carb diet.

I don't have the book with me right now, but it lays out the statistics. Americans have cut back on red meat since the government starting telling us to, and we're eating more carbs and less fat.

And we're fatter than ever. So yeah, I think it matters.

A common trend has been to make food more "healthy" by removing the fat and substituting more sugar. I went to the store yesterday to buy yoghurt (which I haven't done for a while). The "standard" yoghurt (i.e. not the "light") had 0 grams of fat and 28(!) grams of sugar in a 6oz container. The "light" yoghurt had Splenda added, which cut the sugar to 7 grams; it still had no fat.

Overweight people are drawn to these so-called healthy foods and wind up eating huge amounts of sugar. More recently it has been high-fructose corn syrup, which I assume will get a big boost with from the corn-based ethanol mandates.

Recent evidence is that certain fats are positively healthy. The reduction of fat in our regular food has, I believe, caused people to go in search of fat in junk food, effictively substituting bad fats for good fats, coupled with a big increase in sugar in both regular food and junk food. Add to that a sophisticated mass marketing campaign that starts with pre-schoolers and never lets up, and it is no wonder that Americans are obese. The rest of the world shouldn't be too smug, either. If/when American mass market consumerism comes to your country, the same thing will happen to you.

One of the points Taubes makes is that there has never been any evidence that fats were bad for us in the first place. According to Taubes in every study that pilloried fat consumption the results are better explained by the consumption of refined carbohydrates. Fat consumption is metabolically neutral, carbohydrate consumption is not.

One of the grimly amusing connections he makes is that the whole whole "fat is bad" mantra may have started with the counterculture in the '60s, when excessive consumption was identified as one of Western society's great evils. A high-fat diet as consumed by the rich became emblematic of decadence and moral failure. A great example of displacement that may have coloured a whole generation of science.

Exactly. And when you realize that, a lot of the "paradoxes" start making sense. The French Paradox (why do they have healthier hearts when they eat all that cream and butter?). The Eskimo, who don't get heart attacks on the traditional diet of meat and fat. (And I suspect it's not because of fish oil.)

There's also the isssue of eating foods that are complimentary to each other and make the combined whole greater than the sum of the parts. This is the beans, corn, squash, and quelites (initially uncultivated greens that were a part of Meso-American diets, which the Spanish called weeds and forced the natives to go without ["Food's Frontier" by Manning]) diet. Essential trace elements are added to the diet by consuming grass/natural diet fed meat and dairy products.

I spent 25+ years as a chef, restaurant manager, and Food Service Director at LTC facilities where a nutritional education was mandated. And since I retired, I've read more books about food and nutrition over the last five years than in all previous years combined. Now I've come full circle to my youth growing up the son of a UC Davis agronomist by now growing, processing and cooking my own foods.

LTC - Lakeland Tech College?

Long Term Care, specifically retirement communities with small SNF (Skilled Nursing Facilities) capabilities.

If there is any fat that is bad, it is the hydrogenised stuff. Back in 1972 I had a Biology professor who was also a nutritionist who preached that natural fats, many of which contained lecithin, were not that bad for you. Margarine on the other hand was evil stuff to be avoided. I took his lecturing to heart I never intentionally ate margarine after that day (in fact always ordered anything I ate in a restaurant without butter, but butter on the side so I could guarantee what was in my food). My suspicions are that part of the rise of heart disease corresponds to the rise in margarine use and hydrogenated oils. I avoid the stuff like the plague. I’d rather use lard or bacon fat than the hydrogenated crap. The fat is bad mantra actually started with autopsies of young men from the Korean war. It was discovered may had early signs of heart disease and fatty deposits in their arteries.

Yeah, there was at least one study that found margarine was worse for you than butter.

It was discovered may had early signs of heart disease and fatty deposits in their arteries.

Yes, but the leaps to eating fat causing the fatty deposits, and the fatty deposits causing heart disease, were not justified.

I totally agree.

Although I never personally checked it out, that study was a military study circa 1954 and should still be available. The comparison was between 18 to 20 year olds who died in the field. It showed that the hearts started to develop lesions on the arterial walls which damaged the cilia that prevent plaque adhering and causing a buildup. The combination of what was probably a viral damage brought on by stress with hydrogenated fat which is not 'native' to the system produced the beginnings of serious buildup problems even at such an early age. Hydrogenation has the effect of preventing the process of rancidity; i.e. nothing [except humans] seems to be in a hurry to work on it. There's a message here.

While the viral component of the plot is still, maybe, under investigation, I'm pretty sure that TPTB are well aware of how and why altered fats are a big part of the problem. The legal implications are colossal, so they'll ban the lot and then make the discovery - who could have known.....? Oh well, it was over a half century ago. When you consider the amount of this stuff that was/is put in your cookies and such over the years, you had to be a monk in Mongolia to miss it.

More recently it has been high-fructose corn syrup, which I assume will get a big boost with from the corn-based ethanol mandates.

Quite the opposite, as the corn sugars are fermented to make ethanol.

[deleted] The Wikipedia answered my questions. :)

I've learned to make my own yogurt - easy as can be if you get a yogurt maker and use professional dairy culture. I use whole organic milk, none of that low fat stuff. The bacteria eat all of the lactose, so there are zero carbs. I put a little fruit into it, but there is no sugar, no preservatives, no artificial flavors and colors, no guar gum or whatever junk the supermarket stuff has - just the pure thing. And yes, it is very good to eat.

I'm starting to realize just how much junk we've been putting up with in this stuff they've been selling us, and I've had enough of it. I'm starting to think about other stuff I could make myself rather than buying the processed junk.

I eat quite a bit of the "homemade" cottage cheese from my corner grocery store, Zara's. I known when they make it, always best the day made. It is edible for a while, but dries out and is not as good in about 3-4 days (but they make it at least twice a week). Borden's et al are NOT the same !

None of my avocados were ripe for lunch, so I took yesterday's cottage cheese and mixed it with 3 cut up Roma tomatoes (only decent tomatoes this time of year) plus salt & pepper (red & black).

I do understand the need for fat in the diet, and avocados are one of my main sources. Olive oil is another (I will even add a few drops of olive oil to a soup).

Best Hopes for Minimally Processed & GOOD Food,

Alan

there's very little research that actually supports the idea that eating meat and fat is bad for you.

Hmm, really?

http://www.goveg.com/healthConcerns.asp :

Research has shown that vegetarians are 50 percent less likely to develop heart disease, and they have 40 percent of the cancer rate of meat-eaters.3,4 Plus, meat-eaters are nine times more likely to be obese than vegans are.5

The consumption of meat, eggs, and dairy products has also been strongly linked to osteoporosis, Alzheimer's, asthma, and male impotence. Scientists have also found that vegetarians have stronger immune systems than their meat-eating friends; this means that they are less susceptible to everyday illnesses like the flu.7 Vegetarians and vegans live, on average, six to 10 years longer than meat-eaters.8

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Non-meat+eaters+have+lower+rates+of+hypert... :

A large British study, with more than 2000 male and close to 9000 female participants, examined the risk of hypertension in meat eaters, fish eaters, vegetarians, and vegans. People with hypertension are at increased risk for both heart disease and stroke. Meat eaters were most likely to report that they had been diagnosed with hypertension (15% of men and 12% of women studied). Vegans were least likely to report being diagnosed with hypertension (close to 6% of men and 8% of women). Self-reported hypertension in fish eaters and vegetarians was between that of meat eaters and vegans. However, there was no significant difference in its occurrence between fish eaters and vegetarians.

In addition to examining whether people had been told they had hypertension, this study also measured blood pressures of the four groups. Meat eaters had the highest measured blood pressure, while vegans had the lowest values. Again, fish eaters and vegetarians had similar blood pressures that were between those of meat eaters and vegans. The main explanation for the differences between the groups was that non-meat eaters, especially vegans, were leaner. The results of this study suggest that a vegan diet may reduce risk of hypertension and that it is not necessary to eat fish to control blood pressure. (This has been recommended by some groups.) Vegans in this study appear to have lower risk of heart disease and stroke due to their lower blood pressure.

http://www.veganhealth.org/articles/research :

Adventist Health Study1

The Adventist Health Study is the only major study on the general health and mortality of vegetarians in the U.S. Many members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church are vegetarian. Here are some details:

Data collected from 1976-1988
34,192 participants, members of the Seventh-day Adventist church
29% were vegetarian
7-10% of the vegetarians were vegan.

Compared to the non-vegetarians, vegetarians had about:

1/2 the high blood pressure and diabetes
1/2 the colon cancer
2/3 the rheumatoid arthritis and prostate cancer
Breast, lung, and uterine cancers tended to be lower in vegetarians but could have been due to random chance.

Google it. The research is quite extensive.

Thanks for posting that information. I personally have become a "convenient" vegetarian about a year ago. Essentially, unlike some who decide to be jerks or hard-arses in regards to their vegetarian diet, I do it as long as I can do so without causing an inconvenience upon my host or a severe inconvenience upon myself. As a result, if given the choice between a Burger King and McDonalds, I'll choose Burger King as I can get a veggie burger. If McDonalds is the ONLY choice, I'll get a fish sandwich. At Thanksgiving, I'm eating only vegetables, but I won't complain about the turkey broth in the stuffing.

I don't give a rat's rear-end about the "welfare of the animals" it's purely a global warming, land use, health, antibiotics, fossil fuel use, fertilizer runoff, etc issue for me. :)

I like animals, some of them more then people, and yet think that if the DOG's hadn't meant for people to eat animals they wouldn't have made them out of meat.

Haha. You're made of meat... *grins* For some reason I'm not allowed to eat people, though.

The trick is to drink plenty of wine with it. It breaks down the fat or something.

Like Alan would say
Best wishes for BBQ in Valhalla.

If 8% of the calories in human breast milk are protein, why do adults need, say, 35-40% of their calories from protein? Until contrary evidence is presented, I think such an amount of protein would be injurious to human health.

I don't think that makes any sense. Babies have different nutritional needs than adults.

Over half the calories in breast milk come from fat. Does that mean adults should eat that much fat? If not, what should it be replaced with?

The research is quite extensive.

It's extensive, but it's contradictory, and it may be barking up the wrong tree. For every study you find that says high-fat diets lead to increased cancer, etc., you can find one that says the opposite. Cherry-pick the studies, and you can claim anything.

And many of these studies do not control for other factors that can affect health. In particular, sugar consumption often goes up with meat consumption (when a country's standard of living increases, for example). Correlation is not causation.

Let's get our apples and oranges straight.

If we are talking about the typical western diet, high fat, high carb, with feedlot-produced meat stuffed with antibiotics and hormones, pesticide-laden, and saturated with additives and other chemicals, then yes, vegetarian/vegan does do very well against that.

If we are talking about the cuisines of traditional cultures, with very modest amounts of free-range meats & dairy, organic vegies, fruits, grains and legumes, all home-cooked from scratch, then those also do very well against the typical western diet.

It is not so clear that vegan/vegetarian does so well against the latter. With the exception of very small amounts of meat and dairy products added to the latter diet, the two diets are (or could be) very close to being identical. I would even venture to wonder if vegans/vegetarians eating a lot of highly processed "health food store fare" might actually be not faring quite as well as those in traditional cultures eating entirely homemade meals cooked entirely from scratch with whole foods.

BTW, Michael Pollan (author of The Omnivore's Dilemma) has just written a new book, In Defense of Food that somewhat addresses this issue. He was on C-Span's Book TV last weekend discussing the new book.

"I would even venture to wonder if vegans/vegetarians eating a lot of highly processed "health food store fare" might actually be not faring quite as well as those in traditional cultures eating entirely homemade meals cooked entirely from scratch with whole foods."

Exactly. A well-balanced diet of natural (unprocessed) food is what is good. And you could probably eat a lot less if you are a westerner.

That's it. Anything else is just someone trying to sell an idea/product or trying to make themselves feel better.

Reality must take precedence over public relations - as Feynman notes.

The problem with studies like this is that they tend to compare mindful vegetarian eaters with members of the general population eating their usual diet. If the usual diet is really bad for you (and we know it is), virtually any kind of careful eating will be better for you. That includes most versions of vegetarianism, as their diets tend to be higher in raw and less processed foods of lower glycemic index, and quite low in junk food, which by definition is very high in sugars and refined starches. So you can draw no conclusions about the role of meat in a diet from such studies - you can't isolate the effects of the meat from the effects of the refined carbs. The researchers can draw conclusions about the harmful effects of meat only by adopting the a priori assumption that the carbohydrates in the "usual diet" are metabolically neutral. They're not, and therein lies the rub.

There are no recent studies I'm aware of that compare a vegetarian diet of any sort to a diet that derives say 80% of its calories from meat proteins and fats. That would be a very interesting study, especially if it included a significant sample size and was of sufficient duration (say 5 to 10 years). I'd volunteer in a flash.

But the studies don’t take into account that a vegetarian has to be very conscious of what she eats to maintain a vegetarian diet and is therefore a very distinct profile with little variance of consumption, versus a meat eater who could be putting just about anything into their diet, McDonalds, Burger King, etc., so the comparisons are faulty as they are too broad. If you found meat eaters, lets say a distinct group of farmers for instance, that ate a diet consisting of meat and good old fashioned natural food, but avoided the processed junk food, I’d bet the statistics would be similar. In fact, in my farming community it is amazing how many very old people there are around her in very good health who eat “bacon with every meal” (exaggeration just to get the point across)

meat-eaters are nine times more likely to be obese than vegans are.

No cause/effect here - the ones who are vegetarian in this society are doing it because they're focused on health or they have some religious beliefs that include a minimalist approach to life. I know vegetarians who are plump, but I can't think of anyone who eats like that who is genuinely badly overweight.

I work in an SDA hospital. 2 questions always come to my mind...

How do so many of them get so fat eating only veggies, and no beer?

How come they all get sick every year, and I don't? They don't eat enuf meat.

Leanan, you are consistently sharp.

that eating meat and fat is bad for you. Instead, it looks more and more like the real killer is carbohydrates.

A little bit of meat and fat go along way to sell a book. How about a thot experiment here? maybe a mildly lewd one even. Suppose for the sake of the experiment we on TOD were to strip you naked even unto your negligent wear and drop you into the nearest jungle ( no, no, not west LA). This without even a household match to your name. I say the result would be that your diet would consist of for the main nuts berries fruit and root vegetables, with possibly a little bit of jungle roadkill and the odd grub in the way of meat and saturated fat. The carbs while filling most of our energy needs would I think, in that diet, not kill as they would be the ones we ate during our evolutionary progress. The potato in our personal diet is the equivalent of oil in our society. When processed they release great and unusual amounts of energy and are equally destructive each in their own sphere.

(Incidently, the comedy team of Cheech and Chong explore the explosive energy of the potato
in their movie The Corsican Brothers with the 'bomb de Terre';)

You mean we have to get off the see food diet?

No. The book argues that the amount you eat matters less than what you eat.

And it may be that the "see food diet" is largely due to eating too many refined carbohydrates. It screws up your body chemistry, eventually leading to obesity and diabetes.

You hear about people eating whole bags of potato chips in a sitting, or whole bags of Oreo cookies or cartons of ice cream. You don't often hear about people eating two dozen eggs at a sitting (the rough equivalent in calories). Eating protein, even not-so-lean protein like eggs, doesn't provoke binging like eating carbohydrates can.

I was just kidding.

People look at weight all the time, but that doesn't take size into consideration. On paper I would be way overweight, but my body fat is only around 10%. As long as you can keep that in check you are fine.

Good food like fish that tastes good raw and grass fed beef is getting very expensive. IMO the most important thing is to stay away from sugar, but with the notation that all substitutes are even worse.

People in South America generally eat enormous amounts of food compared to Americans, are equally lazy, and yet stay in shape well into old age.

Until recently, I used to eat, on average, a pint of Hagen Daz ice cream every night. I've never been overweight and since high school have consistently weighed between 170-175lbs. When we moved, I stopped eating ice cream and now weigh 160lbs. Over the holidays I ate lots of sweets and gained 8lbs. Got sick (from the sugar?) and lost it all. Go figure.

There are enough Iowans around here, maybe someone could confirm this for me..

I heard a discussion of Fats v. 'Lowfat' options, regarding how funny hogfarmers thought it was that people changed to Lowfat and Skimmed milks, because that is one way you can FATTEN your hogs, giving them skim milk. (Don't remember the mechanism, but the body's reaction is to hang onto what fat it can when getting such abnormally de-fatted foods)

Bob

(Mainers and Vermonsters feel free to pitch in too.. not trying to be elitist,)

I can't think of any dairy farmer that also ran hogs and I spent a couple of years as a preteen hanging out with dad cleaning milk cans at the local creamery back in the 1970s. Having dairy cows is a 7x12 job and it leaves one with little time for other activities. There is no such thing as low fat or skim milk at a dairy operation - its all rich and creamy 'cause it comes out of the teat that way :-) We'd get many cans of plain ol' whole milk and then there'd be one can with a lid painted a different color - the cream can. I don't know how they got one that was all cream (pampered cow?) but as I recall it was paid differently than the others. I remember (vaguely) a procedure for checking cream content of batches of milk, too. Every once in a while we'd get a bad one - generally one a day amongst the various dairies. I'd roll it on its edge down to the floor drain, pry the lid off, and try to not get too much on me emptying it out.

The building in the center is the hog house here on the farm. We put in a concrete floor where there had been dirt, and it was subdivided into four "sow crates" on the south side and five on the north. The south side is where the hog sized door to the outside feed lot is located, hence the reduction. Its gone now, but there was a propane tank on the north side and we had a hanging space heater. We kept nine sows and the boar would be a rented loaner - did you know that is a business in rural areas? Factory farms run one very specific breed but we little guys don't like the genetic problems that come with that, so we'd have a nice variety. As I recall Hampshire(white) females and a Poland China boar(black and white) was a common combo for us.

Once a month the feed truck would come, back up to the barn on the left side, and an auger would go through that window. There is a 12' x 12' sealed room with a waist high divider in the middle - we'd have pigs and chickens (theirs is the building on the right), so there'd be two types of feed delivered. The feed truck has four internal bins so we'd get both types at the same time. If your order is too small to warrant the bulk truck running the feed mill puts your stuff in fifty pound double walled paper bags. We'd get a protein supplement for the hogs packaged that way that had to be mixed with the ground grain we fed each morning and night.

I suppose if one had a smaller number of dairy cattle (or a larger number of boys) that running some hogs wouldn't be out of line. The smallness would imply milk cans rather than the bulk tanks the larger operations had and if you caught one that went bad before the can truck arrived it would be a normal thing to mix it with grain for the hogs ...

Barn, hog shed, chicken house

I was a teenager and living with my uncle on his farm at the time.

A farmer up the gravel road got sick and needed some one to milk his 12 cows. Me and my cousin walked each day to his farm and hand milked his cows.

We took the milk to the cream separator ,it was hand cranked. Out come what we called 'blue john' which was basically skim milk. What was seperated out was the cream. We canned up the cream and fed the blue john to the hogs.

So at least on older farms at that time(40's) you did create skim milk. And we did, as many fed it to the hogs , rather than pour it out on the ground. And the cream in milk cans was left for the milkman to pick up on his run.

airdale

That's really interesting.

I suspect hog farmers have a lot they could teach scientists about human nutrition. Pigs being omnivores, like humans.

But potato chips, sandwich cookies, and ice cream are *not* food that you could find in Mrs. Ydnurg's thot experiment. These things have been created very recently, as evolutionary time goes. Humans do not have 'evolutionary experience' eating these things, and it should be no surprise that humans have trouble eating these things.

Never underestimate the Iron Triangle. Another thot experiment: suppose there were huge corporations that sold meat and dairy. Wouldn't they do whatever it took to increase sales? And us human primates, not being born with the knowledge of what to do with these novel items, and born with the knowledge that food is *scarce!* I am sure that none of my distant ancestors ever passed up the chance to eat calorie rich, nutrient dense meat! And I am also sure that these chances didn't come often.

Another thing to worry about is bioaccumulation or biomagnification. Way back in 1962 Rachel Carson wrote "Silent Spring" and was the recipient of much bad press, even though her science checked out. DDT went from algae to zooplankton to small fish to large fish to large predatory birds, and the birds showed symptoms like infertility first, as they had the highest level of DDT in their systems. The DDT (and its breakdown product DDE) would not break down very fast, and higher and higher levels would accumulate-fastest and highest in animals with long lives and at the top of food chains. Dmitry Orlov, in his essay "The New Age Of Sail" shows that he understands this, and projects a bleak future:

The vegans abstain from eating animal flesh not because of their tastes or their sense of ethics, but because most animal flesh has become toxic. The increased mining and burning of coal, tar sands, shale, and other dirty fuels, dust storms blowing in from desertified continental interiors, and the burning and degradation of plastic trash, have released into the biosphere so much arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, dioxins, and numerous other toxins, that the vast majority of predatory species, non-vegan humans among them, have become extinct. Since toxin concentrations increase as they travel up the food chain, certain top predators, such as belugas and orcas, went first, followed by most non-vegetarian animals. Along with chemical toxins, the biosphere became inundated with long-lived radionucleotides from derelict nuclear installations left over from the hasty attempts to ramp up nuclear power generation. Those built near the coasts are still bubbling away underwater due to rising ocean levels. And so the only surviving humans are those clever enough to realize that only the plants remain edible.

http://www.energybulletin.net/19396.html

Taubes, Atkins and others going against the high carb tide are right. Especially for people with Type II diabetes in their family tree due to the "genetic defect" of insulin resistance. But Taubes gets called a crank for spreading the truth, even if his detractors can't back up their cult dogma. The official recommendation to consume polyunsaturated fats based on their cholesterol lowering property points to who the real cranks are. The cholesterol gets diverted to reinforce cell membranes since polyunsaturated fats are structurally inferior to saturated fats. The story of Baycol is a nightmare taking this voodoo medicine to the extreme (i.e. liquifaction of tissues due to suppression of coenzyme Q10 production and hence cholesterol production by a statin). Interesting how the factors causing cholesterol oxidation and arterial wall damage (i.e. free radicals from preservatives) are not the target of concern but an essential molecule produced by the body is. Reminds me of the bleeding practiced by the doctor quacks of the past.