traditional foods and the glycemic index (was Re: Carbs and Physical Activity)

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>I'm referring to 'traditional' whole

>foods.

>>>>Understood, but even with that restriction, are all " traditional " foods

good?

---->maybe there are, but I can't think of any - at least not 'first choice

foods' which are the foods we talk about all day long, and that most or all

of us can afford to eat. when you get into the period of the broad spectrum

revolution and the fact that people had to resort to second and third choice

foods due to over hunting or the ice age die off of lots of prey species,

then no, i don't think those second/third choice foods are that 'good.' but

i doubt anyone's going to be chowing down on acorns these days when the

availability fo first choice foods (meat, fat, milk, butter, veggies,

fruits) is high, so i don't see it as an issue, at least not at present.

also, obviously, if a person drinks, say, traditional rice beer to excess

that wouldn't be 'good.' but it doesn't make rice beer 'bad' in and of

itself. Traditional foods - veggies, meat, milk, etc were grown in soils (or

were from animals that ate things grown in soils) that had not been stripped

of nutrients and were not bombarded with pesticides and herbicides. as a

rule, they were probably a heck of a lot more nutrient-dense than what

american supermarkets have to offer today, and far less toxic, as i'm sure

you know. they contained more of the body building and repair materials that

we require. i think *that* makes them good.

so maybe i should further qualify: i think that traditional 'first choice'

foods from heirloom breeds (both plant and animal) that are not genetically

engineered are healthy, despite where they may fall on the modern construct

called 'the glycemic index.' maybe i should just put that in my sig line so

in the future i can just simply say i think whole foods are healthy

regardless of where they fall on the glycemic index

>>>>WAP found lots of traditional cultures which didn't meet his

standards for optimum health, and obviously none of them were consuming

modern hybrids let alone GM foods.

-------->right no disagreement there, but in regards to whether it was a

traditional foods *quality* issue, i don't think that was the problem

because the unhealthy groups were either A) vegetarian or semi-veg (not an

indictment of the *quality* of the food but rather the *composition* of the

diet, or they were displacing their traditional foods with the

" displacing foods of modern commerce " -white flour, white sugar, canned

foods and processed veg oils. i don't recall reading of any unhealthy group

that was eating 'bad' traditional foods. if there were a famine and folks

were eating the roots of trees or something...then we're really getting off

base here, because none of us would be eating that!

i think the biggest message from NAPD as well as NT (to me, anyway) is that

we can be healthy by returning to nutrient-dense whole foods - grown

sustainably and properly prepared (to enhance nutrient and probiotic content

as well as neutralize toxins), and just as important - reject the

'displacing foods of modern commerce.' in addition, it would probably

behoove us to use the common characteristics of traditional/primitive diets

as a general guideline. however, each of us has to conform our diet to our

individual needs, since, as scott said, there's no optimal diet for

*everyone.* i think that's why NT and the price foundation haven't come out

with a specific diet, as they recognize the vast differences in individual

needs, yet provide some broad guidelines that anyone can follow, regardless

of their individual needs. you can eat low carb (inuit, masai), high carb

(dinka, maybe swiss, maybe gaelic), med carb(maori?, others), etc and still

be within the healthy traditional paradigm.

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...