Comments for nourish d.c.

Comment on Frutti-tutti part deux by Dorsey

Dorsey — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:51:57 +0000

If we get to a point where our biggest health crisis is people OD’ing on fruit … well, let’s just get there.

Comment on Frutti-tutti part deux by FeedMe

FeedMe — Sat, 14 Aug 2010 01:00:23 +0000

I read both posts on this blog about fruit, and I think I’m less confused than Dorsey. The first post did not say that fructose causes cancer; it said that sugar causes cancer, and that fructose helps cancer grow. I believe that is consistent with what the science says. As for out-of-season fruit and imported fruit, I don’t think the point was that it was less healthy, but that our primitive ancestors weren’t able to buy any fruit in the world any time of year, and thus we eat a lot MORE fruit than they did. One could add that cancer was probably relatively rare for our ancestors, because they didn’t live long enough to get cancer and weren’t exposed to the pollution and junk food that causes cancer, so that particular downside of fruit wasn’t a factor for them. In any event, I love fruit and I don’t think I will reduce my intake despite the recent study on cancer. Feed me.

Comment on Frutti-tutti part deux by Dorsey

Dorsey — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:00:26 +0000

I still don’t follow.
1. The initial article doesn’t establish causation. Cancer cells feed on fructose (as do non-cancerous cells, presumably), but *enabling* cancer isn’t the same as *causing* it.
2. Are blueberries less healthy if consumed in January than they are when consumed in season?
3. Are kiwis less healthy for Northern Europeans than they are to aboriginal New Zealanders? Sorry, but I don’t follow how a fruit is less healthy due to where you reside or what time of year you consumed it.
4. I’m open to the idea that the, ahem, “enhanced” fruits on the market might be less healthy than their cousins in the wild, although you don’t outright say that in this post. And what about certified organic fruit?
5. There’s also a lot of naturally occurring fruit that will kill you dead on the spot. We didn’t blunder into the FDA/supermarket era — some Darwinism was at play.
6. I’m not sure where the argument that one must labor to pick one’s fruit is going. Exercise is beneficial? Duh. Mitigates the cancer risks of fructose? Haven’t read that.

Comment on Steak v. broccoli smackdown by Bob Ragsdale

Bob Ragsdale — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 14:57:56 +0000

Interesting comparison. I just came across the reference to the Broccoli vs Meat comparison at a friend’s website and I too was curious about the numbers. Not that I don’t trust your numbers, but I wanted to check them myself and I used the site you reference above, the USDA Nutrient Data Library (excellent site by the way).

Anyway, I came up with slightly different numbers but pretty much the same conclusion – if you look at it on a weight comparison (which probably makes the most sense, steak beats the pants off of broccoli. If you do a caloric comparison steak narrowly beats broccoli.

Here are my numbers for a weight comparison:
–100 grams of steak cooked = 28.77 grams of protein & 313 kcal
–100 grams of broccoli raw = 2.82 grams of protein & 34 kcal

And my numbers for a caloric comparison:
Here are my numbers for a weight comparison:
–100 calories of steak = 9.19 grams of protein & 31 grams of
–100 calories of broccoli raw = 8.29 grams of protein & 294 grams (that’s a lot of broccoli)

On the plus side: if you ate all your protein via broccoli you would certainly feel full.

Comment on “If you want to eat well, just eat the Weston Price way.” by The Weston A. Price Diet– How it Has Changed My Life

The Weston A. Price Diet– How it Has Changed My Life — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 03:14:15 +0000

[...] See Agnes’ blog about our local Whole Foods Nutrition Meetup event with Dr. Paula Bass, The Connection between Nutrition and Mental Health. [...]

Comment on Steak v. broccoli smackdown by John

John — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 13:53:15 +0000

It’s simple: No cancer causing substances in plant based food like broccoli, unlike steak and meat. Also no saturated fat. Then why eat something your body has to process and filter the hell out of to get the protein when you can get it from a clean source and nothing with a nervous system that senses pain had to die for it? It’s clear and simple to me.

We eat meat because we like it, have an inflated craving/appetite for it and that’s the bottom line. Then we create studies and play with numbers to justify it. Humans are justification machines, anything a human has ever done, positive or negative is justifiable by that person. I do not want animals mass produced as food product and abused in the process horribly. I do not want to make my body a filter for all the un-healthy things contained in animal flesh to get what I need from it when a cleaner, purer, easier to sustain source is available.

Also, it would be very unusual and great to see people look at things for what they are, not what they tell themselves they are, get religion, senseless entitlement issues out of the equation. We have one Earth, for now, with x number of resources, yet instead of seeing that we smokescreen ourselves with facts and figures so we feel justified in thinking and acting like we can have whatever we want (meat, big cars, huge houses, 5 kids, etc.) in whatever quantities we want and that’s what we are entitled to. WE ARE ENTITLED TO NOTHING inherently, we get what we get. We are consuming ourselves and while we do it come up with facts and figures and traditions to support it. I hope we wake up and get what we are doing and slow down to a manageble state soon, before we extinct ourselves and something else emerges from our trash holes to take our place. I hope whatever they are, they can eat plastic and breathe polluted air.

I don’t know, maybe we are doing just what we are designed to do, consume ourselves????……..

Comment on Steak v. broccoli smackdown by Brian

Brian — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 23:06:21 +0000

It is interesting that you are commenting on Dr. Furman’s Book without just reading it. The overwhelming lesson that Dr. Furman is trying to share is that we need to be judging the quality of our food by it nutrient to calorie ratio. Health = nutrients/calories. Nutrients are defined as Macronutrients (protein, carbs and fats) and Micronutrients (vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals) and we need the right amounts of all of the above. It is Micronutrients that Americans are horribly deficient in and this defficiency is the primary cause of heart disease, obesity, diabetes cancer and strokes. The great majority of us suffer and die from these conditions. If you want sufficient levels of micronutrients than the vast majority of the calories that you eat need to come from veggies (especially dark green leafy vegies), fruits, beans, nuts and whole grains. If you are judging your food by this sensible standard H = N/C, than broccoli contributes very positively to your health and eating more than 5 servings per week of animal protein of any kind, lean or not, detracts from your health. High cancer, obesity and heart disease rates are irrefutably linked to populations that eat large amounts of animal protein (meat cheese and milk), and small amounts of fruits and veggies. I hope this helps bring some clarity to the issue.

Comment on Brisket — it’s not just for Pesach by fyqkkxf

fyqkkxf — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 03:57:51 +0000

fvln0N zaxsgetowlpg, [url=http://bkrkhtpbqdpe.com/]bkrkhtpbqdpe[/url], [link=http://lgiuppkvgths.com/]lgiuppkvgths[/link], http://gskwlabbvjis.com/

Comment on Raw Milk in Maryland by agrzoy

agrzoy — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 01:32:38 +0000

FB0Zep kdvfxchvhtlc, [url=http://pzkecdnkjoyv.com/]pzkecdnkjoyv[/url], [link=http://cxuiwciekrpl.com/]cxuiwciekrpl[/link], http://aoaeikszgbbe.com/

Comment on Brisket — it’s not just for Pesach by Tommy

Tommy — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:04:38 +0000

It’s also a staple of Texas barbecue. A nice rub, plus a day of smoke from oak and/or mesquite coals does majestic, sublime things to an otherwise ordinary cut of beef.