Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Time for an interesting thought experiment...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I imagine the biggest problem with this challenge simply is: What makes the RDA's worth listening to? Under what basis is each RDA calculated? Is there strong evidence for each one? I think the answer is probably no, but it would take you weeks to assess each nutrient and what evidence is behind the RDAs.
    http://lifemutt.blogspot.sg/ - Gaming, Food Reviews and Life in Singapore

    Comment


    • #32
      Yes I'd be interested to know what are OPTIMAL nutrition goals (vitamins, minerals, trace elements) not just what is RDA to avoid deficiency.
      And then the food combinations that meet them.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by camel View Post
        Yes I'd be interested to know what are OPTIMAL nutrition goals (vitamins, minerals, trace elements) not just what is RDA to avoid deficiency.
        And then the food combinations that meet them.
        You will NEVER know this. I would love to know also. I think the current RDA system is designed around eating lots of fortified grains (bread/pasta), orange juice, and fortified junk food (think: breakfast cereal, granola bars).

        I think the reality is that you need more omega 3 than omega 6 and all of the essential amino acids. All of the essential amino acids can be found in animal flesh or vegetables combos.

        This is a really good thought experiment! We are basing the success of our search for proper nutrition on CW guidelines. I think if all you ate was oysters and potatoes you would live long and healthy, but the RDA for certain micros is missed.

        Comment


        • #34
          I haven't read this thread, just wanted to jump in on the calcium RDA question.

          I read somewhere that America's RDA for calcium is twice that of other countries... it's the FDA's gift to the dairy lobby. Convince people they aren't getting enough calcium, inundate them with the message that milk is a great source of a calcium, and there ya go, the sheeple will buy more milk.

          My mom's got pre-osteoporosis and when I was growing up, my nutrition was totally lacking, I rarely ate a vegetable, but my mom wouldn't let me leave the breakfast table until I'd choked down a glass of skim milk

          I'm on day 10 of dairy-free, and I don't miss it. I feel more clear-headed and I no longer feel guilty that my lifestyle is dependent on another living being suffering through unnatural, continual lactation.

          Want Milk? The Calcium Myth (Part 3) | One Green Planet
          Last edited by 2ndChance; 10-05-2012, 11:01 AM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by otzi View Post
            8 oz smoked oysters (2 cans)
            8 oz chicken livers
            2 oz almonds
            1/4 of a yellow bell pepper (Vit C)
            3 oz swiss cheese
            1397 Calories, 87g Fat, 38g tot carbs, 116g Protein

            This hits them all. I use FitDay.com's nutrient calculator. If you every have an off day, eat a couple cans of smoked oysters--puts you way up there in most nutrients.
            But, what if you don't like oysters???

            Honest to God, I'm trying to increase the seafood in my family's diet (5yo got scrambled eggs with shrimp this morning for breakfast, he calls the shrimp "noodles" ) but oysters ain't ever going to make it in.

            Liver, I'm trying. But my DH is not certain whether liver is food.

            I guess that's the thing. We could make a menu of optimal foods, but it all comes down to a delicate interplay between individual palate and regional availability. I mean, even if fried tarantula turns out to be a totally perfect superfood with 10000g of O3 and K2 and K1 and whatevers, I won't ever eat it.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by AMonkey View Post
              I imagine the biggest problem with this challenge simply is: What makes the RDA's worth listening to? Under what basis is each RDA calculated? Is there strong evidence for each one? I think the answer is probably no, but it would take you weeks to assess each nutrient and what evidence is behind the RDAs.
              I already said that we're using the RDAs set by the USDA just to give us a standardized goal to shoot for. I recognize that the RDAs aren't always optimal, of course not. But at least it's something to go for! And many people probably aren't even hitting those.
              "The cling and a clang is the metal in my head when I walk. I hear a sort of, this tinging noise - cling clang. The cling clang. So many things happen while walking. The metal in my head clangs and clings as I walk - freaks my balance out. So the natural thought is just clogged up. Totally clogged up. So we need to unplug these dams, and make the the natural flow... It sort of freaks me out. We need to unplug the dams. You cannot stop the natural flow of thought with a cling and a clang..."

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by otzi View Post
                You will NEVER know this. I would love to know also. I think the current RDA system is designed around eating lots of fortified grains (bread/pasta), orange juice, and fortified junk food (think: breakfast cereal, granola bars).

                I think the reality is that you need more omega 3 than omega 6 and all of the essential amino acids. All of the essential amino acids can be found in animal flesh or vegetables combos.

                This is a really good thought experiment! We are basing the success of our search for proper nutrition on CW guidelines. I think if all you ate was oysters and potatoes you would live long and healthy, but the RDA for certain micros is missed.
                Proper nutrition is something we will never fully understand, and I don't think that ANYONE will. I mean, you could say that grass is what cows should be eating, but you can change their entire nutritional profile just by changing the TYPE of grass they're eating!

                The same goes for humans. If we follow the CW guidelines, all we need is a bit of oysters and a handful of offal and bam, we've hit the requirements. But is that really optimal? Do we need more or less of certain nutrients than we are currently recommended to consume? Do offal and oysters REALLY solve all of our nutritional woes so simply? Do we, as humans, actually need more dietary variety than we have thus far even conceived?
                "The cling and a clang is the metal in my head when I walk. I hear a sort of, this tinging noise - cling clang. The cling clang. So many things happen while walking. The metal in my head clangs and clings as I walk - freaks my balance out. So the natural thought is just clogged up. Totally clogged up. So we need to unplug these dams, and make the the natural flow... It sort of freaks me out. We need to unplug the dams. You cannot stop the natural flow of thought with a cling and a clang..."

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by SarahW View Post
                  But, what if you don't like oysters???
                  Scallops. Clams. Mussels. Abalone. Snails. Sardines. Salmon. Tuna. Smelt/salmon/flying fish eggs. Calamari. Octopus. Eel. Shark.

                  This is a short list of the seafood I like. I don't like crustaceans or oysters--but there are approximately a bajillion different things that come out of the ocean that you can eat. And that's just animals. Throw in sea weeds and other marine vegetation and you've got all kinds of options. There is no particular food that you just HAVE to eat if you don't like it.
                  Today I will: Eat food, not poison. Plan for success, not settle for failure. Live my real life, not a virtual one. Move and grow, not sit and die.

                  My Primal Journal

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Drumroll View Post
                    I already said that we're using the RDAs set by the USDA just to give us a standardized goal to shoot for. I recognize that the RDAs aren't always optimal, of course not. But at least it's something to go for! And many people probably aren't even hitting those.
                    Originally posted by Drumroll View Post
                    Proper nutrition is something we will never fully understand, and I don't think that ANYONE will. I mean, you could say that grass is what cows should be eating, but you can change their entire nutritional profile just by changing the TYPE of grass they're eating!

                    The same goes for humans. If we follow the CW guidelines, all we need is a bit of oysters and a handful of offal and bam, we've hit the requirements. But is that really optimal? Do we need more or less of certain nutrients than we are currently recommended to consume? Do offal and oysters REALLY solve all of our nutritional woes so simply? Do we, as humans, actually need more dietary variety than we have thus far even conceived?
                    Please make up your mind.

                    The exercise is pointless as the RDA is what the medical profession thinks is needed to prevent certain diseases of deficiency. They have nothing to do with optimal. Eg the RDA for Vitamin D is set to prevent ricketts but isn't remotely close to what is required to prevent heart disease, dental caries etc
                    Four years Primal with influences from Jaminet & Shanahan and a focus on being anti-inflammatory. Using Primal to treat CVD and prevent stents from blocking free of drugs.

                    Eat creatures nose-to-tail (animal, fowl, fish, crustacea, molluscs), a large variety of vegetables (raw, cooked and fermented, including safe starches), dairy (cheese & yoghurt), occasional fruit, cocoa, turmeric & red wine

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X