I'd love to hear more about that course, Mel.
This is a far drift from where this thread started ... but I've continued to think about the issues on both micro and macro levels ... and here are just some random musings.
I think we have to start by recognizing that grains are valuable in the human diet mostly because they provide easily accessible calories. The less refined the grains, the more other trace nutrients will remain in them, since after all they start out as plants - but other than carbohydrate, there is NO nutrient in any grain that isn't MUCH denser, and often much more absorbable, in other types of food.
Then we have to recognize that calories are not a bad thing. I don't think it's too big a leap to assume that no one on this board is food insecure, or that the vast majority of us have never been food insecure. The way western societies are segregated by wealth and income, food security might not even enter into most of our daily thoughts. But it is very real for a very large fraction of the world population, including in the United States, and the main reason acute malnutrition (aka starvation) isn't more common in the USA is because of grain agricultural subsidies, including the food stamp program (you did know that food stamps are a subsidy program administered through the USDA, and that only recently have programs begun to spring up that allow people to use food stamps at farmers' markets). And so what we have in the USA instead of people starving to death on street corners, are people wasting with chronic diseases from subacute nutritional deficiencies and the consequences of clearing excess acids from their systems.
Speaking of acid-forming foods - remember that meats are also acid forming. If I ate meat (including fish and poultry) five times every week, I'd feel just as awful as I would if I ate grain at every meal. As I said before, I think it's easy for a lot of people to overemphasize meat just because it's soooooooo much easier to cook in comparison to vegetables. I guess personally, my meat consumption does resemble the way I *think* of hunter-gatherers eating meat - every now and then the "hunt"comes in and we'll eat the meat until we're sated with it. We might well wind up eating meat five times in a particular week, especially if I bring home a larger chicken. But not again the next week, and probably not for a couple of weeks after that, either.
And then, the way modern people eat grains, they're way easier to prepare than vegetables, too. We either throw some whole grains in a pot of water and simmer until they're edible, or do the same with storebought pasta, or eat some bread that someone else has baked. Cripes, rinsing quinoa is too much trouble for some people (which I know quinoa is not a grain, but anyway). It's a rare family that threshes and grinds their own flour; a bit less rare for a family to maintain a sourdough starter. A family that just bakes their own bread from flour and yeast that someone else has raised/refined/prepared is starting to approach the complexity of preparing vegetables, and that's why we tend to see the same issues surrounding home baking that we do around vegetable consumption - maybe even more so, because of the lesser nutritional value. Time and energy DO enter into it.
On another note ... we eat what we eat. We're not married to our dietary choices, so it isn't "cheating" when we choose something outside our ideal. Some of us follow religious dietary laws, but we all make other dietary choices that, when we decide to choose differently, are NOT a moral failing ... and that's especially true of OTHER people's dietary choices. Is it frustrating to see someone we've tried to help, who's unable, for whatever reason, to feed themselves in a way that doesn't make them sick? Sure it is, just the same as it's frustrating to see a battered woman return to her abuser after we've given her legal help or shelter or whatever. But judging them doesn't help anyone, most especially them and including ourselves. Much more useful would be to acknowledge that we've tried to break a cycle at a point where our intervention was inadequate. Maybe partly because of the nature of our intervention. But much more so because of the enormous cultural and economic pressures pushing people back into the cycle. The more we can learn about the cycle, the better chance we have of changing it.
Some recent discussions on the intersection between food/hunger/nutrition issues and class/ethnicity/gender issues: http://*****magazine.org/article/co-opting-the-coop - ETA - the site even censors valid URLs? Sigh ... the name of the magazine starts with B and rhymes with Witch, you'll have to type it in yourself if you want to read it, I guess ... http://inthesetimes.com/article/1511...nd_femnivores/
A book I read a couple of years ago, very readable to a lay person - though I can't vouch for the accuracy of his sources, since I have no background in either anthropology or evolutionary biology: An Edible History of Humanity by Tom Standage
Important discussions on how the people we trust for dietary advice have been largely co-opted by the processed food industry at the Dietitians for Professional Integrity Facebook page.



comes in and we'll eat the meat until we're sated with it. We might well wind up eating meat five times in a particular week, especially if I bring home a larger chicken. But not again the next week, and probably not for a couple of weeks after that, either.
Reply With Quote
