Food Pyramid 3.0

[Guest guest]

The recent post about refugees from low-fat diets or veganism had me

wandering the 'files' section where I came across 's Improved

Food Pyramid. It was definitely a huge improvement over the current

pyramid but I think we can make it even better. In particular, I

don't think WAP taught us that vegetables have to be the base of the

pyramid. Also, I thought it would be more helpful to break down the

catagories by nutrition need and then list the foods that meet that

need, rather than list all the foods. After all, some healthy

primitives had fairly limited diets that did not include all the

differant food catagories, but still found a way to meet there

differant needs.

So I tried to come up with the differant catagories. I did not assign

serving sizes or number of servings needed except to the 'vitality

foods', but that would probably be a good idea. Here's what I came up

with:

Fat soluble activators (EFA's, Fat soluble vitamins A and D, DGLA,

AA):

* egg yolks, butter, animal fat, insect meal, fish liver oils

Muscle foods (protein):

* meat, dairy, eggs

Bone foods (calcium):

*dairy, bone broths, cartaliginous(sp?) tissue and soft bones, leafy

green veggies, some legumes

Gut foods (good bacteria):

*Lacto-fermented veggies, cultured dairy, fermented beverages

carbohydrate (I couldn't think of a catchy name):

*starches, milk/yogurt, soaked/sprouted grains and legumes

Vitality foods - try to have at least one serving of each a week:

*organ meats (particularly liver)

*raw animal products (raw milk, sushi, steak tartar etc...)

*seafood

Filler foods (eat to contentment once the above is met):

* nuts, unrefined vegetable oils, muscle meats, dairy, animal fats

moderation foods

*natural sweeteners like maple syrup and honey

*fruit

[Guest guest]

As a followup, the reason that I thought breaking the pyramid into

nutritional needs rather than food types is that it would explain how

many differant diets that all healthy. For example, the masai met

many nutrional needs with cultured dairy: protein, calcium, fat

soluble activators, carbohydrate, and healthy bacteria. But other

cultures did that in a completely differant way. E.g. a hunter-

gatherer society would use bones and cartalige for calcium.

Any thoughts?

[Guest guest]

-

>Also, I thought it would be more helpful to break down the

>catagories by nutrition need and then list the foods that meet that

>need, rather than list all the foods.

Good idea! Now to the nitpicking. <g>

>insect meal,

How is insect meal prepared? Wouldn't it tend to result in lipid

oxidation, as with wheat flour, milk powder, etc?

>carbohydrate (I couldn't think of a catchy name):

>*starches, milk/yogurt, soaked/sprouted grains and legumes

Milk and yoghurt can be carby, but I don't think they really belong in the

same category as starches and grains and legumes. Dairy protein is better

balanced and much more absorbable, and dairy fat is more saturated and

healthy, and probably is more prevalent even than most legume fat.

>Filler foods (eat to contentment once the above is met):

>* nuts, unrefined vegetable oils, muscle meats, dairy, animal fats

I also wonder about unrefined vegetable oils, though I'd make a distinction

between coconut oil (highly saturated and very healthy) and unsaturated

oils. Since animal foods have PUFA fractions, should we really add any

more PUFAs to our diets? As an occasional treat or condiment some of them

are probably fine, but " eat to contentment " makes those foods sound sort of

like major calorie sources.

-

[Guest guest]

> Good idea! Now to the nitpicking. <g>

>

> >insect meal,

>

> How is insect meal prepared? Wouldn't it tend to result in lipid

> oxidation, as with wheat flour, milk powder, etc?

I was thinking " healthy primitives " insect meal. It was a pretty

random thing to put on the list, except that I was preparing it from

a WAP perspective instead of from the perspective of foods for

westerners.

> >carbohydrate (I couldn't think of a catchy name):

> >*starches, milk/yogurt, soaked/sprouted grains and legumes

>

> Milk and yoghurt can be carby, but I don't think they really belong

in the

> same category as starches and grains and legumes.

Diary is the only source of carbohydrates for the masai. If we're

going to take the " nutritional needs " approach instead of breaking

foods down into differant types approach, then it must be on that

list.

>dairy protein is better

> balanced and much more absorbable, and dairy fat is more saturated

and

> healthy, and probably is more prevalent even than most legume fat.

That's why dairy also made the protein and fat group. Its a very good

food that meets a lot of differant nutritional needs

> >Filler foods (eat to contentment once the above is met):

> >* nuts, unrefined vegetable oils, muscle meats, dairy, animal fats

>

> I also wonder about unrefined vegetable oils, though I'd make a

distinction

> between coconut oil (highly saturated and very healthy) and

unsaturated

> oils.

You're right. Unrefined is probably the wrong word. I think it really

boils down to olive oil and tropical oils.

> but " eat to contentment " makes those foods sound sort of

> like major calorie sources.

That was the idea. I was sort of semi thinking along the lines of

Suze, in that everyone is differant. I think recommending a minimum

number of servings each catagory is the way to go. Then let people

eat whatever their body needs for the rest of their daily calories.

Does that make sense to you, Suze?

[Guest guest]

> but " eat to contentment " makes those foods sound sort of

> like major calorie sources.

>>>>>>That was the idea. I was sort of semi thinking along the lines of

Suze, in that everyone is differant. I think recommending a minimum

number of servings each catagory is the way to go. Then let people

eat whatever their body needs for the rest of their daily calories.

Does that make sense to you, Suze?

****,

The more I think about it the less practical recommending a minimum number

of servings per category seems. It's just that people's needs/requirements

vary so greatly that, what might be an optimal number of servings of say,

fat soluble activators, for one person, may not be optimal or even healthful

for another. As an example, a post-menopausal woman in Alberta, Canada with

faulty parathyroid function (during the winter) may require a lot more

vitamin D than a younger healthier person living in southern Florida. I

think there are just so many factors that affect our nutritional

requirements at any given time. It's not just individual biochemistry but

also stress level, total body burden of toxins, age, gender, lifestyle, etc,

etc. This makes in fairly impossible to say OK, everyone needs a minimum of

3 servings of bone foods per day, don't you think?

I can see some type of chart with the categories you've suggested (with some

refinement), including a description of each category's nutritional

properties perhaps. So it would just be some type of chart with all of the

most important categories of foods and descriptions of their role in health,

but without minimum recommendations (or any quantity recommendations). Have

you read " Biochemical Individuality " by ? I haven't read the

whole thing, but have scanned areas of interest and it seems clear that

individual nutritional needs differ drastically. That's what makes it

impractical to recommend *specific amounts of specific things* to everyone.

As far as the filler foods category goes, I have a bad connotation when I

think of anything as a " filler " because it reminds me of all the

nutritionally empty fillers that go into pet foods. " Filler " to me means

it's kind of worthless. I wonder if the foods could be categorized, instead,

in groups of " first choice foods " down through " third choice " as they are

sometimes referred to when discussing what primitive peoples eat when

provided choice. According to Mark Cohen in " Health and the Rise of

Civilization " humans moved from large game and selected plants ('first

choice', nutrient dense foods, which also provided a higher kcal return for

effort, according to the author) to smaller game and less nutritious plants

as the human population began to burgeon and humans transitioned from

hunter/gatherers to agriculture. I really don't know much about this whole

period of time and the need to start shifting to second and third choice

foods that were less nutrient dense, but Cohen gives an example of acorns

and buckeyes, which he refers to as third choice foods consumed by some

Native American tribes. These foods are actually toxic unless prepared

carefully.

So, instead of " filler foods " perhaps it could be something more like

'second choice' foods, although I see that you have some first choice foods

listed in that category such as muscle meat and animal fats. Hmmm...guess I

should've read that more closely, because now my suggestion of labeling that

category as 'second' or 'third' choice, really wouldn't be appropriate. But

I still like the idea of categorizing foods according to whether were

historically 'first choice' or 'third choice' foods among primitives

because that does imply the nutritional quality of the first choice ones.

But now it's late and I don't think I'm making sense anymore - not even to

myself - so I'm going to stop with my suggestions for tonight.

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

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

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

As an example, a post-menopausal woman in Alberta, Canada with

> faulty parathyroid function (during the winter) may require a lot

more

> vitamin D than a younger healthier person living in southern

Florida.

True, but the foods that have Vitamin D are the same foods with A,

EPA and DHA. The person in southern florida still needs has a

requirement for fat soluble activitors. In the same way that the RDA

is set to be a minimum to avoid clinical deficiencies of differant

essential nutrients, we could create a guide for these food

catagories, and make it clear that this minimum amount may not be

your optimal amount.

> I can see some type of chart with the categories you've suggested

(with some

> refinement), including a description of each category's nutritional

> properties perhaps. So it would just be some type of chart with all

of the

> most important categories of foods and descriptions of their role

in health,

> but without minimum recommendations (or any quantity

recommendations).

That's also an great idea. I'm not wedded to having fixed servings,

so much as spelling out the differant catagories of food types that

healthy primitives do all consume, and then educating people about

them.

Have

> you read " Biochemical Individuality " by ? I haven't

read the

> whole thing, but have scanned areas of interest and it seems clear

that

> individual nutritional needs differ drastically. That's what makes

it

> impractical to recommend *specific amounts of specific things* to

everyone.

It sounds like an interesting book. I've often thought that at some

point we need to start taking that into account in nutritional

research. Instead of just looking at intervention groups as a whole,

we need to start thinking about the distribution of responses.

> As far as the filler foods category goes, I have a bad connotation

when I

> think of anything as a " filler " because it reminds me of all the

> nutritionally empty fillers that go into pet foods. " Filler " to me

means

> it's kind of worthless.

I think I chose the wrong word!

> I still like the idea of categorizing foods according to whether

were

> historically 'first choice' or 'third choice' foods among

primitives

> because that does imply the nutritional quality of the first choice

ones.

But then that leads right into your original objection - first choice

implies its better. Maybe for most people more meat and fat is first

choice, but there are definitely people that do better on quality

carbohydrates.

My intent with the 'filler' catagory was to say that once you've met

your basic needs from the other catagories, then eat basically what

you want providing your not eating the 'displacing foods of modern

commerce'. That includes just about all the foods in the essential

catagories like bone foods and muscle foods, as well as foods like

olive oil and nuts that don't.

I also like your suggestion about the superfoods. It also got me

thinking that herbs and spices would be a good catagory, since they

seem to have healthful properties.

[Guest guest]

-

>Diary is the only source of carbohydrates for the masai. If we're

>going to take the " nutritional needs " approach instead of breaking

>foods down into differant types approach, then it must be on that

>list.

Hmm, I see your point, except that there's no known physiological need for

carbohydrates. While they were the exception, the Masai and the Eskimos

consumed extremely little in the way of carbs and were quite healthy. And

then there's Vilhjalmur Steffanson's experiment. Etc.

>Unrefined is probably the wrong word. I think it really

>boils down to olive oil and tropical oils.

Yeah, I agree, that's a very important distinction.

-

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

Sorry for the delay in my response, I get so easily distracted by new

threads...and this one requires more thought than some other ones.

>>>>

As an example, a post-menopausal woman in Alberta, Canada with

> faulty parathyroid function (during the winter) may require a lot

more

> vitamin D than a younger healthier person living in southern

Florida.

>>>>True, but the foods that have Vitamin D are the same foods with A,

EPA and DHA. The person in southern florida still needs has a

requirement for fat soluble activitors

****Right, but their *minimum requirements* would be quite different from

Canadian's, which was my point - that minimum requirements are an individual

thing -the Canadian's minimum could be much higher than the floridian's.

>>>>In the same way that the RDA is set to be a minimum to avoid clinical

deficiencies of differant essential nutrients, we could create a guide for

these food

catagories, and make it clear that this minimum amount may not be

your optimal amount.

***I thought the RDA is generally considered meaningless these days due to

the very issue I mentioned. Anyway, do we really want to set forth

recommendations that would merely prevent certain deficiencies? Why model it

on the govt's questionable standard?

>>>> I can see some type of chart with the categories you've suggested

(with some

> refinement), including a description of each category's nutritional

> properties perhaps. So it would just be some type of chart with all

of the

> most important categories of foods and descriptions of their role

in health,

> but without minimum recommendations (or any quantity

recommendations).

>>>>That's also an great idea. I'm not wedded to having fixed servings,

so much as spelling out the differant catagories of food types that

healthy primitives do all consume, and then educating people about

them.

***Good! We're on the same page here

Me:

Have

> you read " Biochemical Individuality " by ? I haven't

read the

> whole thing, but have scanned areas of interest and it seems clear

that

> individual nutritional needs differ drastically. That's what makes

it

> impractical to recommend *specific amounts of specific things* to

everyone.

J:

It sounds like an interesting book. I've often thought that at some

point we need to start taking that into account in nutritional

research. Instead of just looking at intervention groups as a whole,

we need to start thinking about the distribution of responses.

****I think holistically oriented nutritionists and nutrition schools are

already doing that. I've seen " Biochemical Individuality " on the reading

list of at least one nutrition school. I believe was the first to

make the important point about the diversity of individual biochemical

requirements.

Me:

> I still like the idea of categorizing foods according to whether

were

> historically 'first choice' or 'third choice' foods among

primitives

> because that does imply the nutritional quality of the first choice

ones.

J:

But then that leads right into your original objection - first choice

implies its better.

****Not so - " First Choice " is more nutritious than second choice, not

necessarily 'better' than another first choice food. Take grains for

example. They are not first choice foods because they yield less nutrition

per kcal than do meat/veggies, at least according to Cohen. Same with

acorns - one example Cohen used. So, my thinking was to perhaps indicate the

historical first choice foods, although now that I think of it, the modern

equivalents may no longer be as nutritionally dense, or not as healthful as

they were prior to factory farming.

>>>>Maybe for most people more meat and fat is first

choice, but there are definitely people that do better on quality

carbohydrates.

***Indicating which meats (grass-fed, heirloom breed, etc) and which carbs

are first choice would in fact help people chose appropriate foods

regardless of whether they do well on carbs or meat and fat. Do you see what

I'm saying? You could list first choice meats and second or third depending

on how it's raised, soil quality of the forage, etc. This kind of goes back

to the thread on what to ask farmers - I started making a list of the

questions - and the questions were really geared toward finding " first

choice " meats, eggs, milk. So, although historically, " first choice " may

have meant, for example, deer meat/organs *in general,* we could modify the

classification to fit today's reality which has varying qualities of beef

(the obvious example). Grass-fed, from nutrient-dense soil would be first

choice beef, whereas corn and antibiotic-fed, hormone-injected feedlot beef

would be third choice.

>>>My intent with the 'filler' catagory was to say that once you've met

your basic needs from the other catagories, then eat basically what

you want providing your not eating the 'displacing foods of modern

commerce'. That includes just about all the foods in the essential

catagories like bone foods and muscle foods, as well as foods like

olive oil and nuts that don't.

***I have no problem with a filler category per se (except the use of the

word " filler " ), it's just that it's based on the premise that the 'basic

needs' have a set definition, which is what I think won't work. I don't

know - I guess this is the hard part- how to organize the categories, spell

out the benefits of each, but without quantifying how much of each is good

for all people. I think that there could be a brief explanation of why we

don't give specific minimum recommendations due to (sometimes vastly)

different individual needs, but perhaps give a few sample profiles of a few

different people just to illustrate the differences, but also how to gear it

towards your own individual needs. For example, you could say person " A "

does best on a diet that is meat and fat based so on an average day she eats

2 servings of the protein category and 2 of the fat soluble activators, and

just one of the carbs, and one of the gut foods. Whereas person b does

better on more carbs so he...blah, blah, blah.

Now I understand why the NRC and govt came up with a simple RDA for

everyone - because it's easy! When you start taking into account individual

needs for optimum health, it becomes difficult to come up with something for

everyone

>>>I also like your suggestion about the superfoods. It also got me

thinking that herbs and spices would be a good catagory, since they

seem to have healthful properties.

****Not a bad idea...but getting more and more complicated because there are

a variety medicinal properties for herbs and spices and contraindications

for many.

Did you think this was going to be easy when you started making pyramid 3.0?

<smile> And after all this refinement, aren't we at version 4.0 by now?

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

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

mailto:s.fisher22@...