View previous topic | View next topic

Eating: Nutrition

Page 1 of 4
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

eggshaped
152377.  Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:38 pm Reply with quote

A place to post general nutrition facts.

In a 2000 study, a group of Thai and Swedish women were fed some meals. The first meal was a spicy Thai dish which the Swedes found too spicy, it turned out that the Thais absorbed the most iron. A second dish of hamburgers, spuds and beans, preferred by the Swedes lead to the Scandinavian group absorbing more iron. Finally, a third dish: a tasteless mush high in nutrients was served. Neither group absorbed much iron.

The moral of this story? Eat what you like.

S: The Gospel of Food, Glassner

 
Flash
152414.  Wed Feb 28, 2007 5:01 pm Reply with quote

I wonder whether we ought to have a pop at the idea that foods can be categorised as either unequivocally 'good' or unequivocally 'bad'? Not sure I can see a good way to do it, mind.

 
eggshaped
152455.  Thu Mar 01, 2007 4:02 am Reply with quote

Yes, I think that is the idea of Glassner's book. Will report back on Monday once I've finished it.

 
Gray
152481.  Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:39 am Reply with quote

There's a fascinating article here about the very recent ability of humans to break down animal milk. Only in the last few hundred years did we manage to get the genes to develop lactase in our systems, and break down the sugars in milk.

One can't help wondering why most Asian communities didn't also get the gene (they're almost all lactose-intolerant). No readily-domesticable ungulates? Why?

Ability to create lactose was bound to happen because the benefits of being able to tend a herd of goats/cows/camels and eat them and milk them would have been - and still are - huge. They are your mobile processing plant, turning inedible (to you) grass into food and drink.

And they walk themselves along too, and multiply automatically, and you can wear them when they're dead.

This announcement comes to you from the Goat Marketing Board.

 
eggshaped
152490.  Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:09 am Reply with quote

last year Bunter was attempting to get a handle on the fact that goat might me the most eaten meat in the world. The idea is that it is not banned by any major religions and is eaten with allacraty in countries with large populations.

Dunno if we ever got it sorted.

 
MatC
152520.  Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:15 am Reply with quote

Which itself raises an interesting question: can we say why goats are universally kosher?

 
eggshaped
152523.  Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:21 am Reply with quote

Here's a Fact Sheet from Ohio State University.

Quote:
Goat is the most frequently consumed meat in the world.


But to be honest, I think we found more evidence to the contrary.

 
Gray
152593.  Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:42 am Reply with quote

Some forthcoming evidence that vitamin supplements aren't necessarily good for you:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19325934.000

 
eggshaped
152600.  Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:49 am Reply with quote

If you were on a desert island and could drink only water and eat only one food, which food would you choose?

Oh, there's an orange tree there as well.

 
MatC
152700.  Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:50 am Reply with quote

People officially classed as “overweight” live longer than those officially classed as “normal,” according to research in the US by the Centres for Disease Control and the National Cancer Institute. Several studies have suggested that people need to put on weight as they grow older. A professor of sociology at the University of Southern California commented on the findings: “What is officially deemed overweight these days is actually the optimal weight.” (Independent, 21 Apr 05).

In 2006, a Harvard study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that it was “women on the medically approved low fat diet who have the higher risk of heart disease.” (Daily Telegraph, 26 Jan 07).

A study of children, by Goteborg University in Sweden, found that the children who ate the least fat were the fattest. Those who ate the most fat were not likely to be obese. (Western Daily Press, 31 Jan 07).

 
MatC
152705.  Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:55 am Reply with quote

Gray wrote:
There's a fascinating article here about the very recent ability of humans to break down animal milk. Only in the last few hundred years did we manage to get the genes to develop lactase in our systems, and break down the sugars in milk.

One can't help wondering why most Asian communities didn't also get the gene (they're almost all lactose-intolerant). No readily-domesticable ungulates? Why?

Ability to create lactose was bound to happen because the benefits of being able to tend a herd of goats/cows/camels and eat them and milk them would have been - and still are - huge. They are your mobile processing plant, turning inedible (to you) grass into food and drink.

And they walk themselves along too, and multiply automatically, and you can wear them when they're dead.

This announcement comes to you from the Goat Marketing Board.


Most cats are lactose intolerant.

http://www.cat-world.com.au/CatMilk.htm

(But I wonder why, evolving alongside us for so long, more cats haven’t evolved to take advantage of our cow-bothering habits? Is it just that there hasn’t been enough time yet?)

 
Flash
152796.  Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:16 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
Most cats are lactose intolerant.

As are all hedgehogs, aren't they? This was discussed on another thread recently and might make a quick Gen Ig question.

 
Gray
152799.  Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:28 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
But I wonder why, evolving alongside us for so long, more cats haven’t evolved to take advantage of our cow-bothering habits? Is it just that there hasn’t been enough time yet?)

There's no advantage in them becoming lactose-tolerant. We give them everything they need already, so there's no selection pressure on them changing to adapt.

Domestication is the 'ultimate' evolutionary trick. Unless your hosts develop nuclear weapons, of course.

Oddly, they can't make their own vitamin A, so they 'farm that out' to mice, whose livers they need to eat occasionally (if they're not being fed 'full meals' by us humans, that is).

 
MatC
152875.  Fri Mar 02, 2007 5:24 am Reply with quote

Gray wrote:
There's no advantage in them becoming lactose-tolerant. We give them everything they need already, so there's no selection pressure on them changing to adapt.

Domestication is the 'ultimate' evolutionary trick. Unless your hosts develop nuclear weapons, of course..


But one of the things we give them is milk - so wouldn't natural selection mean that the lactose-tolerant would have a better than average chance of passing on their genes?

 
Gray
152878.  Fri Mar 02, 2007 5:30 am Reply with quote

Only if those that can't stomach the milk die before they give birth. This is unlikely as we humans care for them by giving them other nutrition (all cat food contains vitamin A).

As there's no life-or-death pressure on lactose tolerance for domesticated animals, the gene for lactase becomes a 'drifter' and there's no selection pressure on it to be passed on or not in the presence of other nutrition.

Now if we only fed them milk, and stopped them going out, then the feline population would very quickly become lactose tolerant. But we'd all be sad.

What's odd is that the cats still lap up the milk - they don't seem to know, and from what I've witnessed, they don't seem to suffer terrible stomach cramps afterwards.

 

Page 1 of 4
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group