Forums: Climbing Information: Technique & Training:
Nutrition
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Technique & Training

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All


jt512


Jun 10, 2011, 2:53 PM
Post #51 of 74 (2533 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [patrickh] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

patrickh wrote:
jt512 wrote:
patrickh wrote:
Low fat dairy never sits well with me. The high temperatures low fat dairy is exposed to denatures the lactose and proteins. My body handles things like heavy cream and full fat, plain yogurts much better. Besides, they taste better and the dangers are extremely exagerated. I use raw dairy whenever possible.

Boy, have you been sold a load of goods.

Jay

1) do you truely not have anything better to do than to start fights on the Internet?

Actually, I was just making a comment.

In reply to:
2) who are you to say what works better for me?

I didn't say what works better for you.

In reply to:
3) do you ever provide any support for your attacks?

Like I said, I was just making a comment.

Jay


Toast_in_the_Machine


Jun 10, 2011, 4:30 PM
Post #52 of 74 (2516 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [patrickh] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

patrickh wrote:
You're wrong. Humans have only been consuming grains for about 10,000 years.

(snip)

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/grains-and-human-evolution.html


Try again with some facts:

Source: Science http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5960/1680
In reply to:
The role of starchy plants in early hominin diets and when the culinary processing of starches began have been difficult to track archaeologically. Seed collecting is conventionally perceived to have been an irrelevant activity among the Pleistocene foragers of southern Africa, on the grounds of both technological difficulty in the processing of grains and the belief that roots, fruits, and nuts, not cereals, were the basis for subsistence for the past 100,000 years and further back in time. A large assemblage of starch granules has been retrieved from the surfaces of Middle Stone Age stone tools from Mozambique, showing that early Homo sapiens relied on grass seeds starting at least 105,000 years ago, including those of sorghum grasses.

Or another one earlier than the 10k you gave:

http://news.discovery.com/...rs-neanderthals.html

In reply to:
She and her colleagues analyzed mortar and pestle-type stones that were found at three sites: Bilancino II in the Megello Valley of Italy, Kostenki 16 at Pokrovsky Valley, Russia; and Pavlov VI in southern Moravia, Czech Republic. Since modern humans as well as Neanderthals inhabited these regions, the researchers think it's possible that either or both groups had cooking know-how.

The food preparation tools were found to contain the remains of starch grains from various wild plants, including cattail rhizomes, cattail leaves, moonworts, the ternate grapefern, lady's mantle, burdock, lettuce roots, rye, burr chervil root, parts of edible grasses, edible seeds and more.


patrickh wrote:
I won't spend much time on this, because it's a well accepted fact and not debated. The neolithic age began about 10,000 years ago. What seperated the paleolithic from the neolithic age? ...modern agriculture (primarily the milling of grains).

Humans have been around for about 250,000 years

So, as you can clearly see, we've only been consuming grains for about 1/25th of our existance. I don't believe that has given evolution enough time for us adapt to a diet high in grains. Compounding the fact is that we have consumed grains in the amounts we do today for only a couple of centuries.

Just because something is "well accepted" in non-scientific circles, doesn't make it so.

Based on newer science (evidence of grain usage prior to 10k) - care to change your opinion that people didn't eat grains for about half of our existence? Or at least, that it is a possibility?

Now, if you want to debate the percentages of grains of the diets of early humans, I would love to see some evidence.


enigma


Jun 10, 2011, 5:19 PM
Post #53 of 74 (2513 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2279

Re: [altelis] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

altelis wrote:
patrickh wrote:
altelis wrote:
How is this different than anything else we eat? Except for the correction there that it passes into the portal circulation, where it passes through the liver before getting into the general circulation. And if this was truly a problem, why don't we see the inflammatory response in these other tissues like we do in the small intestine of people with Celiac?

It's very different. Gluten doesn't necessarily even make it to the liver. It can pass directly into the blood stream through the lining of the intenstines. As I mentioned in my previous post, I believe it does cause inflammation in other tissues. The idea is just now starting to be studied. Gluten is the only problem with grains. The relative low amounts of micronutrients, its affect on gut flora, and its impact on blood ph all contribute as well.

Explain to me, how:

1) making it to the blood stream through the lining of the intestines is different than other nutrients

2) how it doesn't necessarily even make it to the liver even though it is passing into the blood supply of the intestines

Some sort of link to these studies, or mention of the ideas of these studies, would be much appreciated.

What effect does it have on gut flora?

Is this what you learned from all those student loans I've been paying for?


patrickh


Jun 10, 2011, 5:37 PM
Post #54 of 74 (2509 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 24, 2011
Posts: 36

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

The grains mentioned in your paper differ greatly from the strains of wheat and barely we consume today. I can't read the full text of your first article and the second mentions dates only 30,000 years back. The seeds from cattails are not the same as the genetically engineered wheat that makes up a great portion of our cereals today.

Do you have any evidence to suggest what proportions of early human diet came from grain? The problem is that different cultures differ greatly in what is eaten even to this day. What people ate during the paleolithic era was based on calorie density and ease of access. I highly doubt that in most areas it was easy to gather a bunch a grains, grind them up, etc. than it was to slaughter one grazing animal that likely provided many more calories.

Here we see that worldwide averages for hunter/gatherer diets are low CHO, but grains aren't even mentioned.

In reply to:
Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 Mar;71(3):682-92.

Plant-animal subsistence ratios and macronutrient energy estimations in worldwide hunter-gatherer diets.

Cordain L, Miller JB, Eaton SB, Mann N, Holt SH, Speth JD.


Source

Department of Health and Exercise Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA. cordain@cahs.colostate.edu


Abstract

Both anthropologists and nutritionists have long recognized that the diets of modern-day hunter-gatherers may represent a reference standard for modern human nutrition and a model for defense against certain diseases of affluence. Because the hunter-gatherer way of life is now probably extinct in its purely un-Westernized form, nutritionists and anthropologists must rely on indirect procedures to reconstruct the traditional diet of preagricultural humans. In this analysis, we incorporate the most recent ethnographic compilation of plant-to-animal economic subsistence patterns of hunter-gatherers to estimate likely dietary macronutrient intakes (% of energy) for environmentally diverse hunter-gatherer populations. Furthermore, we show how differences in the percentage of body fat in prey animals would alter protein intakes in hunter-gatherers and how a maximal protein ceiling influences the selection of other macronutrients. Our analysis showed that whenever and wherever it was ecologically possible, hunter-gatherers consumed high amounts (45-65% of energy) of animal food. Most (73%) of the worldwide hunter-gatherer societies derived >50% (> or =56-65% of energy) of their subsistence from animal foods, whereas only 14% of these societies derived >50% (> or =56-65% of energy) of their subsistence from gathered plant foods. This high reliance on animal-based foods coupled with the relatively low carbohydrate content of wild plant foods produces universally characteristic macronutrient consumption ratios in which protein is elevated (19-35% of energy) at the expense of carbohydrates (22-40% of energy).


patrickh


Jun 10, 2011, 5:40 PM
Post #55 of 74 (2507 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 24, 2011
Posts: 36

Re: [enigma] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

enigma wrote:

Is this what you learned from all those student loans I've been paying for?

Was this in response to me or Altelis? Either way, it's highly innapropriate.


altelis


Jun 10, 2011, 5:56 PM
Post #56 of 74 (2501 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168

Re: [patrickh] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

She was responding to me. I'm a medical student, and she has some pretty far-out ideas about how we pay for school, supposed perks we get, admission practices, etc. She also has some of the most idiotic views on science, life, and necessity of logic I've ever seen.

She is too ignorant to realize that my inability to understand what you were talking about was because I actually do understand the physiology and anatomy at issue. You did provide info on the increase absorption in light of gluten, but you still didn't show how the liver was bypassed- ie how are nutrients in the portal system getting past the liver?

I will say, patrickh, while I don't really agree with a lot of the conclusions you've drawn, I do appreciate that you have at least done some significant research into these things, and for the most part use good sources. Again, I don't think you are drawing reasonable conclusions from all these sources, but unlike most of the pissing matches on here about nutrition, exercise phys, etc., I think this one is pretty interesting and civil. Cheers all (except of course one, um, riddle of a user-HA).


jt512


Jun 10, 2011, 6:11 PM
Post #57 of 74 (2498 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [altelis] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

altelis wrote:
I will say, patrickh, while I don't really agree with a lot of the conclusions you've drawn, I do appreciate that you have at least done some significant research into these things, and for the most part use good sources.

All he is doing is cherry-picking the literature for sources that support his belief. That's not doing valid research.

Jay


altelis


Jun 10, 2011, 6:13 PM
Post #58 of 74 (2494 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168

Re: [jt512] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

No its not, and like I said, even given the cherry picking he is drawing some far out conclusions not supported by the articles.

But, even given all that, its better than most pissing matches on here. That said, enigma's joined the convo, so that may have just signaled the beginning of the end.


patrickh


Jun 10, 2011, 7:32 PM
Post #59 of 74 (2482 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 24, 2011
Posts: 36

Re: [jt512] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:

All he is doing is cherry-picking the literature for sources that support his belief. That's not doing valid research.

Jay

I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but this is pure bullshit. I've don't hours worth of pubmed searches. The problem is there aren't any well controlled studies that show that saturated fat consumption is the primary cause for CVD, stroke, etc. You haven't contributed anything more to this discussion that insults.


altelis


Jun 10, 2011, 7:37 PM
Post #60 of 74 (2479 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168

Re: [patrickh] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Dietary fats aren't the primary factor associated w/ CVD; hypercholesterolemia is. You are, as far as I understand, correct there.

You are, however, forgetting that there are other deadly problems that are directly related to diets high in saturated fats.

to start...
In reply to:
Saturated fat, vitamin C and smoking predict long-term population all-cause mortality rates in the Seven Countries Study
Daan Kromhouta, Bennie Bloemberga, Edith Feskensa, Alessandro Menottia,b, Aulikki Nissinenc and for the Seven Countries Study Group
+ Author Affiliations

aDivision of Public Health Research, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
bDivision of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
cDepartment of Public Health and General Practice, University of Kuopio, Finland.
Reprint requests to: Prof. Daan Kromhout, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Division of Public Health Research, PO Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands. E-mail: daan.kromhout@RIVM.nl
Accepted August 23, 1999.
Abstract

Background The Seven Countries Study has shown that population mortality rates for various chronic diseases are related to diet and smoking. This paper addresses the associations between diet, smoking and 25-year all-cause mortality.

Methods Baseline surveys were carried out between 1958 and 1964 on 12 763 middle-aged men constituting 16 cohorts in seven countries. In 1987/88 equivalent food composites representing the average food intake of each cohort at baseline were collected and chemically analysed in one central laboratory. During 25 years of follow-up 5973 men died and age-adjusted population mortality rates were calculated for each cohort.

Results Multivariate linear regression analyses showed that the population intake of saturated fat and the prevalence of smoking were positively associated with population all-cause mortality rates. Population vitamin C intake was inversely associated with all-cause mortality. It was calculated that a reduction in saturated fat intake of 5% of energy, a 20 mg/d increase in vitamin C and a 10% decrease in the prevalence of smokers may decrease the 25-year all-cause population mortality rate by 12.4% (95% CI : 5.6, 19.4%) at an average population all-cause mortality rate of 45%.

Conclusion At the population level saturated fat, vitamin C and cigarette smoking are important determinants of all-cause mortality.


patrickh


Jun 10, 2011, 7:38 PM
Post #61 of 74 (2479 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 24, 2011
Posts: 36

Re: [altelis] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

altelis wrote:
No its not, and like I said, even given the cherry picking he is drawing some far out conclusions not supported by the articles.

Which conclusions were "far out" and "not supported" by the studies I posted? We disagreed about the merits of the hypertensive study, but I'd hardly call that conclusion "far out". However, I posted quite a few well controlled studies that show directly that HFD's and saturated fat haven't been correlated to stroke and CVD. You have yet to post a single well controlled study that contradicts this.


altelis


Jun 10, 2011, 7:40 PM
Post #62 of 74 (2474 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168

Re: [patrickh] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

If you go back and look at the logic of what you are trying to demonstrate with the hypertension studies, you'll see your conclusions really are far out.

And you'll see I just posted (probably while you were posting) that I agree, most studies show there isn't a clear link between dietary saturated fat and CVD. But there are strong links between saturated fats and morbidity and mortality. And I posted up a paper too...


patrickh


Jun 10, 2011, 7:42 PM
Post #63 of 74 (2474 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 24, 2011
Posts: 36

Re: [altelis] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

altelis wrote:
Dietary fats aren't the primary factor associated w/ CVD; hypercholesterolemia is. You are, as far as I understand, correct there.

You are, however, forgetting that there are other deadly problems that are directly related to diets high in saturated fats.

to start...
In reply to:
Saturated fat, vitamin C and smoking predict long-term population all-cause mortality rates in the Seven Countries Study
Daan Kromhouta, Bennie Bloemberga, Edith Feskensa, Alessandro Menottia,b, Aulikki Nissinenc and for the Seven Countries Study Group
+ Author Affiliations

aDivision of Public Health Research, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
bDivision of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
cDepartment of Public Health and General Practice, University of Kuopio, Finland.
Reprint requests to: Prof. Daan Kromhout, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Division of Public Health Research, PO Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands. E-mail: daan.kromhout@RIVM.nl
Accepted August 23, 1999.
Abstract

Background The Seven Countries Study has shown that population mortality rates for various chronic diseases are related to diet and smoking. This paper addresses the associations between diet, smoking and 25-year all-cause mortality.

Methods Baseline surveys were carried out between 1958 and 1964 on 12 763 middle-aged men constituting 16 cohorts in seven countries. In 1987/88 equivalent food composites representing the average food intake of each cohort at baseline were collected and chemically analysed in one central laboratory. During 25 years of follow-up 5973 men died and age-adjusted population mortality rates were calculated for each cohort.

Results Multivariate linear regression analyses showed that the population intake of saturated fat and the prevalence of smoking were positively associated with population all-cause mortality rates. Population vitamin C intake was inversely associated with all-cause mortality. It was calculated that a reduction in saturated fat intake of 5% of energy, a 20 mg/d increase in vitamin C and a 10% decrease in the prevalence of smokers may decrease the 25-year all-cause population mortality rate by 12.4% (95% CI : 5.6, 19.4%) at an average population all-cause mortality rate of 45%.

Conclusion At the population level saturated fat, vitamin C and cigarette smoking are important determinants of all-cause mortality.

This is my last post on the subject.

Your study is weak to say the least. It's based on a survey from half a decade ago. It is far from well controlled and relies entirely on the honesty and accuracy of the individuals surveyed. They show correlation, but not cause and effect. Additionally, they don't controll for other factors that may show even stronger correlations to mortality.


patrickh


Jun 10, 2011, 7:43 PM
Post #64 of 74 (2470 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 24, 2011
Posts: 36

Re: [altelis] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

altelis wrote:
If you go back and look at the logic of what you are trying to demonstrate with the hypertension studies, you'll see your conclusions really are far out.

And you'll see I just posted (probably while you were posting) that I agree, most studies show there isn't a clear link between dietary saturated fat and CVD. But there are strong links between saturated fats and morbidity and mortality. And I posted up a paper too...

Now, you're just being absurd. I don't agree with you, so my conclusions are far out.

Peace out. Have a good weekend.


altelis


Jun 10, 2011, 7:48 PM
Post #65 of 74 (2467 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168

Re: [patrickh] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

If you were to go back and look at my post history, you'll see that, in the face of good evidence and logic, I have changed what I believe. I have no dog in this fight. Its not about it being different than my perspective, its about being logical and evidence based.

And as far as the article I've posted, in conjunction with some of the other things you've said, you MAY understand what bench research can show, but you clearly don't understand the power and techniques and accepted conclusions that can and can't be drawn from large scale epidemiological cohort studies.


climbs4fun
Moderator

Jun 10, 2011, 8:56 PM
Post #66 of 74 (2447 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 9629

Re: [altelis] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Gentlemen, thank you for keeping it civil. I did receive the complaint and feel that her posts are always a lot out there, but in this case doesn't warrant a reaction from moderators, but this thread will be watched. Please send me a PM if there is something I need to take a look at.


jt512


Jun 10, 2011, 9:06 PM
Post #67 of 74 (2446 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [altelis] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

altelis wrote:
No its not, and like I said, even given the cherry picking he is drawing some far out conclusions not supported by the articles.

But, even given all that, its better than most pissing matches on here.

True. Unfortunately it is exactly like every argument I've ever had on any nutrition forum with a Paleo diet believer (or a believer in any diet that starts with a capital letter, for that matter). They're all True Believers, they all have their one-sided Pubmed searches to back them up, and there is nothing that can change their minds. Did you see what Patrickh did about the grains?

Patrickh: Humans have only been eating grains for 10,000 years.

Toast: No, anthropology has shown that hominins ate grains over 100,000 years ago.

Prtrickh: Those grains were different.

You will not win—not in the sense that you will convince him of anything. However, if you scored the exchange like an Intelligence² debate, where the winner is decided by the percentage of the audience who changed their beliefs as a result of the debate, you won long ago.

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on Jun 11, 2011, 12:20 AM)


altelis


Jun 11, 2011, 6:32 AM
Post #68 of 74 (2422 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168

Re: [jt512] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I've heard of the Intelligence Squared debates, but must admit I really know nothing about them. That sounds like a really interesting way to score a debate.

What did you think of the US News & World Report ranking of diets?


altelis


Jun 11, 2011, 6:36 AM
Post #69 of 74 (2420 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168

Re: [climbs4fun] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I just want to be clear here, that I didn't report Enigma's post.

It is ridiculous, but hardly report worthy. Taken at face value (ie ignoring the smarminess), I took it as pride, like she is happy that (at least in her mind), she's had the privilege to "buy me" such a great education.

Thanks Enigma, I owe you one!Cool


jt512


Jun 11, 2011, 9:15 AM
Post #70 of 74 (2412 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [altelis] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

altelis wrote:
I've heard of the Intelligence Squared debates, but must admit I really know nothing about them.

They're often very good. I think all the past ones are online.

In reply to:
That sounds like a really interesting way to score a debate.

Their voting procedure is good in concept but badly flawed as implemented, the result being a bias in favor of the side of the argument with the most support pre-debate.

The way they do it is they take a vote before the debate and a vote after, and compare the results to determine the winner. Say, for instance that the pre-debate numbers were 200 people in favor of the motion, 1000 opposed. And let's say that, as a result of the debate, 100% of the in-favor group opposed the motion in the final vote, and 30% of the original opposed group switched to in-favor. Then the only sensible conclusion to draw would be that the team arguing against the motion won; however, the team arguing for the motion would be declared the winner, because of the final numbers: 300 in favor, 900 opposed.

In reply to:
What did you think of the US News & World Report ranking of diets?

I'd never heard of it. The idea sounds rather preposterous.

Jay


herites


Jun 11, 2011, 11:32 AM
Post #71 of 74 (2396 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 10, 2011
Posts: 210

Re: [herites] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Posting a recipe for lecso, and this happens a few days later. Awesome. "Hungarian food is hot." has a new meaning.


Toast_in_the_Machine


Jun 13, 2011, 5:20 AM
Post #72 of 74 (2368 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [patrickh] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

patrickh wrote:
The grains mentioned in your paper differ greatly from the strains of wheat and barely we consume today. I can't read the full text of your first article and the second mentions dates only 30,000 years back. The seeds from cattails are not the same as the genetically engineered wheat that makes up a great portion of our cereals today.

While JT pointed out how this isn't refuting the evidence that humans ate grains far longer than you (and the non scientific source said), I want to point out there is one food in your local megamart which is genetically identical to, and was eaten by early humans: oysters. I would say snails a well, but eating snails the right way (butter, cheese, garlic, shallots, herbs) disqualifies it.

patrickh wrote:

Do you have any evidence to suggest what proportions of early human diet came from grain? The problem is that different cultures differ greatly in what is eaten even to this day. What people ate during the paleolithic era was based on calorie density and ease of access. I highly doubt that in most areas it was easy to gather a bunch a grains, grind them up, etc. than it was to slaughter one grazing animal that likely provided many more calories.

Why should anyone listen to what you think on this issue? You don't have a grasp on the latest discoveries and seem you seem unable to process new evidence. I need JT's link showing how people who aren't experts think they know more than they they do. What is that effect again?


slackwareuser


Jun 28, 2011, 2:26 AM
Post #73 of 74 (2282 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 29, 2005
Posts: 11

Re: [herites] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

herites wrote:
Posting a recipe for lecso, and this happens a few days later. Awesome. "Hungarian food is hot." has a new meaning.

To be precise, you did not post a recepie of lecsó Smile

First of all, the recepie of any Hungarian food - with the (possible Tongue ) exceprion of cakes - begins with "chop an onion into tiny pieces and simmer". I mean, how could you possibly make lecsó without onion??

Secondly, "any veggies will do" is just not true. Lecsó is based on paprika (50-90%), and always has tomato in it (up to 50%, but a friend of mine who hates the taste of tomato puts just 1 small tomato in lecso - but it has to be there), and some (but not all) other veggies can be added.

Like you said, bacon or sausage is optional, but it is always a relatively small amount, chopped into small pieces/rings, and if you use bacon, it goes in the pan first, and you use the fat from it instead of oil to simmer the onion pieces on.

Finally, eggs are not part of the lecsó proper. Lecsó is the "veggie stew" (onion, paprika, tomato + possible other veggies and optional bacon/sausage pieces, simmered until the whole thing is kind of boiling a little in the water from the veggies). If you add scrambled eggs, it's lecsó and scrambled eggs.

Hope this helps clear up some of the debated things in this thread Tongue

(And no, it's not off topic! This thread is called "Nutrition"...)


herites


Jun 28, 2011, 4:01 AM
Post #74 of 74 (2275 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 10, 2011
Posts: 210

Re: [slackwareuser] Nutrition [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Now lets start the debate about which chowder is better, the one which is made near Tisza, or the other near the Danube ;) Also, the proper recipe for Wiener Schnitzel (no, it can't be pork)

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Climbing Information : Technique & Training

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?
$156.56 (10% off)
$53.96 (10% off)
$174.56 (10% off)
$17.95 (10% off)



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook