<Food Sovereignty and the Collapse of NationsThe Oil DrumPeak Oil Media>
<DrumBeat: July 25, 2008DrumBeatDrumBeat: July 27, 2008>

150 comments on DrumBeat: July 26, 2008

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

rawguy on July 26, 2008 - 10:21am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Nuts are good; they're high in fat, and a healthy diet has small amounts of fat. Fat can be converted to calories, but it takes a lot more of the body's energy to make the conversion; therefore, fat isn't the preferred fuel (it's more for cell lubrication). Thus, the caloric EROI is not as good as fruits, but if that's all there is, they'll do in a pinch.

On the other hand, fruit sugar converts to muscle glycogen without much tax; it's a cleaner burning fuel.

rawguy

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
wolverine on July 26, 2008 - 12:45pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Nuts are also valuable for their protein content. This will help maintain muscle quality and mass in lieu of animal-based proteins that may become scarcer with increasingly costly energy.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Bryant on July 26, 2008 - 2:05pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Fat can be converted to calories, but it takes a lot more of the body's energy to make the conversion; therefore, fat isn't the preferred fuel (it's more for cell lubrication). Thus, the caloric EROI is not as good as fruits, but if that's all there is, they'll do in a pinch.

That sounds like seriously flawed reasoning, can you back up that statement with some factual material?

My reading suggests that fat is one of the critical factors in surviving on a subsistence diet. Many cultures, including the those on the Korean peninsula raised animals for fat production.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
biologist on July 27, 2008 - 7:48pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

There is a lot of biochemistry to this, see the textbooks for details (e.g. Lehninger or Stryer). I don't have the exact efficiency numbers at my fingertips but they don't seem to be the main thing. Fat has a much higher energy content than carbohydrates and is the preferred long-term fuel for most body tissues. However, the brain runs on glucose only, and on some weird stuff called ketone bodies in case of starvation. This is a reason for trying to have a balanced diet that has both fat and carbohydrates. In addition to the above, carbohydrates can be mobilized quickly and some energy can be extracted from them in the absence of oxygen (e.g. overworked muscle), whereas fat can only be used in the presence of oxygen. On top of this, glucose/carbohydrates can be converted into fat easily, but not the other way round. All together, "fats burn in the flame of carbohydrates" as Stryer puts it on p. 478 of the third edition...

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ET on July 26, 2008 - 8:44pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Nuts are good; they're high in fat, and a healthy diet has small amounts of fat. Fat can be converted to calories, but it takes a lot more of the body's energy to make the conversion; therefore, fat isn't the preferred fuel (it's more for cell lubrication). Thus, the caloric EROI is not as good as fruits, but if that's all there is, they'll do in a pinch.

On the other hand, fruit sugar converts to muscle glycogen without much tax; it's a cleaner burning fuel.

Lots of stuff here to contest. My own reading leads me to believe that a healthy diet is high in fat and protein and low in veggie carbs and totally void of sugars and refined carbs. The 'cell lubrication' thing really has me scratching my head.

Meat is premium food. If one has to be a veggie, nut protein is probably the best bet for the high protein in a healthy diet. Too much fructose, IMO, can be bad, since it is matabolized by the liver into fat. Fruits are probably good in moderation.

Read 'Good Calories, Bad Calories'

1
Comments can no longer be added to this story.