The fallacy of eating for specific nutrients (WAS: some nutrient density rankings)

[Guest guest]

Erin,

 

I appreciate your good intention in sharing this sort of information.

 

Still, for most people such information is more misleading than useful. Here

is why ... scientists have identified untold thousands of nutrients. And

untold thousands more remain to be discovered. Therefore, it is literally

impossible to eat for specific nutrients and have much hope of achieving a

healthful diet. The only viable path toward success is to create a diet that

is healthful in the large.

 

Also, as I've written, the notion of deficiency pales in comparison with the

reality of leaching. Most people lose SO many nutrients as a result of diet

and lifestyle. When we choose a more healthful diet, we benefit more, in the

beginning, from what we stop eating than from what we begin eating. For some

reason, probably because everyone has been trained to think in terms of

symptoms and treatments, this concept seems difficult for many to grasp at

first. As with removing certain " foods " , so, too, we must remove certain

" knowledge " ... we must unlearn, then begin to relearn. And what we must

relearn is not simply new information, but an entirely different belief

system, an entirely different way of perceiving and thinking.

 

Best,

Elchanan

 

_____

 

rawfood [rawfood ] On Behalf Of

Erin

Monday, July 02, 2007 6:41 PM

rawfood

[Raw Food] some nutrient density rankings

 

 

As we've been discussing protein, iron, and B12 lately, I thought the

following lists of vegetables ranked from highest to lowest in the

nutrient in question versus its calories (aka, specific nutrient

density).

 

Iron -

http://www.nutritio

<http://www.nutritiondata.com/foods-011119000000001000000.html>

ndata.com/foods-011119000000001000000.html

 

Protein -

http://www.nutritio

<http://www.nutritiondata.com/foods-011078000000001000000.html>

ndata.com/foods-011078000000001000000.html

 

B12 -

http://www.nutritio

<http://www.nutritiondata.com/foods-011116000000001000000.html>

ndata.com/foods-011116000000001000000.html

 

That last one is funny, just cremini mushrooms and yeast.

 

-Erin

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

rawfood , " Elchanan " <Elchanan wrote:

>

> Erin,

>

> I appreciate your good intention in sharing this sort of

information.

>

> Still, for most people such information is more misleading than

useful. Here

> is why ... scientists have identified untold thousands of

nutrients. And

> untold thousands more remain to be discovered. Therefore, it is

literally

> impossible to eat for specific nutrients and have much hope of

achieving a

> healthful diet. The only viable path toward success is to create a

diet that

> is healthful in the large.

 

I don't disagree with this at all. Nevertheless, when people

have either tested or found through nutrition analysis that

their diet is low in a certain nutrient about which we do have

knowledge, it is advisable to learn which foods might help.

You'll notice I made lists of vegetables, so I'm not suggesting

anything unhealthy to obtain them.

 

I believe a varied diet, running the gamut of fruits and veggies

is the way to go. As you, and others like Dr. Joel Fuhrman, have

expressed, there are many micronutrients / phytonutrients about

which we don't know. A nonrestrictive, nonmonotonous diet helps

to ensure we do not unintentionally leave anything out. This is

not eating for specific nutrients.

 

> Also, as I've written, the notion of deficiency pales in comparison

with the

> reality of leaching. Most people lose SO many nutrients as a result

of diet

> and lifestyle. When we choose a more healthful diet, we benefit

more, in the

> beginning, from what we stop eating than from what we begin eating.

For some

> reason, probably because everyone has been trained to think in

terms of

> symptoms and treatments, this concept seems difficult for many to

grasp at

> first.

 

Perhaps, but see above. I think many in the raw foods community

are too restrictive and risk missing the unknown constituennts

you mention in your leading paragraph, and I in my response to it.

Of course, regarding anti-nutrients, Dr. Fuhrman might just say

there are certain foods that should be lightly cooked to remove

those leaching aspects, while maintaining the benefits. This as

opposed to eliminating it altogether.

 

> As with removing certain " foods " , so, too, we must remove certain

> " knowledge " ... we must unlearn, then begin to relearn. And what we

must

> relearn is not simply new information, but an entirely different

belief

> system, an entirely different way of perceiving and thinking.

 

Well, I will concede that a constant challenging of the status

quo, our accepted knowledge, etc., is a good idea. It is what

keeps us from being automatons. Likewise, one must learn to

distinguish between this healthy practice and revolution for

revolution's sake. It's too easy to just reject the common

belief because it is common. (It reminds me of music fans that

suddenly shun their once-beloved artist because s/he has made

it to the radio and become popular with the masses.) We must

be careful not to replace one system of thinking with an equally

rigid one. By the way, I would normally write " should " instead

of " must, " but I'm trying your tendency on for a paragraph.

 

 

-Erin

http://www.zenpawn.com/vegblog

[Guest guest]

rawfood , " Elchanan " <Elchanan wrote:

 

[...]

 

> Also, as I've written, the notion of deficiency pales in comparison

with the

> reality of leaching. Most people lose SO many nutrients as a result

of diet

> and lifestyle. When we choose a more healthful diet, we benefit

more, in the

> beginning, from what we stop eating than from what we begin eating.

 

[...]

 

I wrote my first response on battery power. The joys of country

living. There is no inclement weather here, but we don't need

any around here to lose electricity. Anyway, I'm back from a

short walk in the brisk morning air and the power is back.

 

It occurred to me that we might be talking of different

leaching elements. I was thinking of things like tannins, etc.,

in vegetables. But, I wonder if you were thinking of those in

grains and the like. In that case, I would not have offered up

the light steaming proposed by Dr. Fuhrman. Aside from corn on

the cob, I haven't had grains in months. And, I have cut way

back on legumes, though I'm not as comfortable with that one yet.

 

Incidentally, I don't worry about oxalates, etc. enough to

resort to cooking them. I still eat them raw. Maybe I am

being too cavalier in that decision, but I'm not inclined to

shun them and miss out on, for example, the anti-carcinogenic

properties of the brassica family. And, if you drink tea,

just give some time between your iron-containing foods and

the beverage as the tannins hinder absorption of iron.

 

(I could go on and on [this subject fascinates me greatly],

but it's time to get to work.)

 

 

-Erin

http://www.zenpawn.com/vegblog

[Guest guest]

On Tuesday 03 July 2007 10:46, Erin wrote:

> Well, I will concede that a constant challenging of the status

> quo, our accepted knowledge, etc., is a good idea.  It is what

> keeps us from being automatons.  Likewise, one must learn to

> distinguish between this healthy practice and revolution for

> revolution's sake.  It's too easy to just reject the common

> belief because it is common.  (It reminds me of music fans that

> suddenly shun their once-beloved artist because s/he has made

> it to the radio and become popular with the masses.)  We must

> be careful not to replace one system of thinking with an equally

> rigid one.  

 

The very reason I posted the Ananda Wood article to the files area.

 

> By the way, I would normally write " should " instead

> of " must, " but I'm trying your tendency on for a paragraph.  

>

 

valiant first effort, but must try harder.

 

> -Erin

> http://www.zenpawn.com/vegblog

 

neal.