Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pine Bark Flours

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

  • #46
    In terms of Primal.... I think there are two kinds of people, those happier with a smaller range of foods, and those that prefer more variety. LOL, it's not a pissing contest about who can eat the smallest range of foods. If having a plate with meat and 2 sides that are actually good for you keeps a person from hitting McDonalds, it's fine.

    I'm on day 10 of Whole 30.... it's limiting. I can deal with it for 30 days. But then I just want something like primal pancakes on day 31. The more foods we are aware of that add variety without toxins, the better we can stay compliant. For some people, the variety may not be desirable- maybe they flourish on meat and veggies.

    At any rate, does it really matter if one fit, lean healthy person is having their burger on a pinebark or coconut flour bun, and the other fit lean healthy person is having their burger on a pile of spinach?

    http://maggiesfeast.wordpress.com/
    Check out my blog. Hope to share lots of great recipes and ideas!

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by magnolia1973 View Post
      In terms of Primal.... I think there are two kinds of people, those happier with a smaller range of foods, and those that prefer more variety. LOL, it's not a pissing contest about who can eat the smallest range of foods. If having a plate with meat and 2 sides that are actually good for you keeps a person from hitting McDonalds, it's fine.

      I'm on day 10 of Whole 30.... it's limiting. I can deal with it for 30 days. But then I just want something like primal pancakes on day 31. The more foods we are aware of that add variety without toxins, the better we can stay compliant. For some people, the variety may not be desirable- maybe they flourish on meat and veggies.

      At any rate, does it really matter if one fit, lean healthy person is having their burger on a pinebark or coconut flour bun, and the other fit lean healthy person is having their burger on a pile of spinach?
      I get what you mean, but interestingly all your examples seem more about form than content. A person could eat all the makings of a primal pancake on a Whole 30, nuts, eggs, what have you (oops on me if that's false...), but they can't whiz it all up and call it a pancake (that's the "sex with your pants on", I think?). Anyway, the allowance or avoidance of pancakes and buns is a different kind of variety.

      No point really, it's just that your examples struck me. Maybe it's your subconscious? = D

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Martti Kujansuu View Post
        There have been at least two studies done on this topic, one with humans in 1917 and one with mice in 1979. Both of them agree that the nutrients in the bark are usable to humans and mice, but it is not advisable to receive more than e.g. 10 % of the daily energy requirements from the bark due to the resins and other ingredients left in the bark. Essentially this means that you are consuming the bark for its vitamins and minerals, not for the fats, proteins and carbohydrates.

        Über den Nährwert der Fichtenbaumrinde beim Menschen (pg. 654-)
        Or you could eat actual human food to get the same or more vitamins and minerals without getting the "resins and other ingredients" in tree bark. I've been to a lot of different restaurants spanning cultures all over the world. I have yet to see bark on the menu. There's probably a reason.
        Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
          I have yet to see bark on the menu. There's probably a reason.
          Bark was on the menu of many of the people living up in the North for centuries. At 60 or 70 degrees north, you do not have that many choices during the winter time for nutrients, assuming the hunting does not succeed. So, I do not agree that bark could not be labeled as "human food". It is food as much as e.g insects are to the people living at the Equator.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
            In case you're interested in anything outside your current mindset, I recommend the book "Primal Body, Primal Mind: Beyond the Paleo Diet for Total Health and a Longer Life" by Nora Gedgaudas. She makes a very convincing argument that the greatest part of humanity's evolution has taken place during ice ages and therefor a diet of mostly animal products with supplemental veggies and fruits on the side now and then is really the optimal diet for our genetic makeup and ketosis would have been the default metabolic state most of the time. The fact that we are omnivores and can live on many different macronutrient ratios just means we are flexible enough to make it through times when the hunt didn't go well.
            But it's not, is it? I'd argue that the use of fire to cook our foods is the greatest contribution to our evolution.

            We have never had a carnivorous digestive track, nor did we evolve as primarily hunters from day one. We evolved from mostly vegetarian primates to meat-eating omnivores to digest meat, not the other way around, and not o e extreme to another. We didn't go from herbivore to carnivore, we went from herbivore (primate relatives) to omnivore. We have never been physiological carnivores, so how could a carnivorous diet be optimal to our evolution? Convenient does not equal optimal. We evolved to survive, but survive does not equal thrive. Historically, there has never been an abundance of nose-to-tail foods like there is today. The same argument about eating animals can be made; "we ate animals when plants were scarce."


            There is no micronutrient that you can find in any plant that can not be found in greater concentration in animal products. What animals do is take the nutrients and process them for us into a much more bio available format.
            Because historically, humans always had this luxury at their disposal?!
            | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

            “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

            Comment


            • #51
              Can someone just please pass the twinkies so we can move forward...Eat the bark, or don't! It's an individuals choice, plain and simple...next!
              Free your mind, and your Grok will follow!

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by j3nn View Post
                But it's not, is it? I'd argue that the use of fire to cook our foods is the greatest contribution to our evolution.

                We have never had a carnivorous digestive track, nor did we evolve as primarily hunters from day one. We evolved from mostly vegetarian primates to meat-eating omnivores to digest meat, not the other way around, and not o e extreme to another. We didn't go from herbivore to carnivore, we went from herbivore (primate relatives) to omnivore. We have never been physiological carnivores, so how could a carnivorous diet be optimal to our evolution? Convenient does not equal optimal. We evolved to survive, but survive does not equal thrive. Historically, there has never been an abundance of nose-to-tail foods like there is today. The same argument about eating animals can be made; "we ate animals when plants were scarce."

                Because historically, humans always had this luxury at their disposal?!
                Ketosis is the state we are born in and it would be the default state for more people if they got out of their own way and stopped eating so much sugar. The above mentioned book makes the case very convincingly that, in extreme cold climatic conditions of the ice ages we would have eaten mostly meat (lettuce doesn't grow in permafrost.)

                I never said we were carnivores, omnivores heavy on the meat light on the veggies when times were good and heavier on the veggies in times of need.

                I totally agree with you about cooking but what does that have to do with the price of tree bark in Finland?

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                  Ketosis is the state we are born in
                  No it's not. It takes several days post-birth for the pathways to develop and adaptation to occur. We are born sugar-burners, commonly become benignly hypoglycemic after birth, and rapidly adapt to compensate for our loss of constant glucose supply in the womb. Ketones are only up to 25% of energy fuel for an infant. And studies show that as few as 47 infants out of 21,342 were in strong ketosis. No surprise considering breast milk is comprised of 40% carbohydrate.

                  The above mentioned book makes the case very convincingly that, in extreme cold climatic conditions of the ice ages we would have eaten mostly meat (lettuce doesn't grow in permafrost.)
                  You're postulating that all humans during every ice age endured the most frigid climates and none lived in or migrated to the warmer climates or ate tubers and nuts in cold storage? Oh, and animal sources were so plentiful through all of these times because the animals magically had plants to eat but humans did not, so we just feasted on animals because they were so easily accessed. This is not an accurate account of dietary evolution, especially because human populations weren't concentrated in colder climates until upper Paleolithic, usually after the planet heated up again, and necessary hunting tools weren't widely used in lower Paleolithic, another element critical to acquiring consistent animal foods.

                  I never said we were carnivores, omnivores heavy on the meat light on the veggies when times were good and heavier on the veggies in times of need.
                  That is simply untrue. Regional differences dictated early human diet. There has never been a universally meat-centric human diet. There are countless variations from region to region, and even day to day. You are asserting that plant-heavy diets are inferior, which simply isn't true. Lower meat intake does not automatically equate to a period of famine or "need." That's just nonsense, kitavans and thousands of modern dietary plant-centric centenarians being evidence of this.

                  I totally agree with you about cooking but what does that have to do with the price of tree bark in Finland?
                  Sorry, misread original statement.
                  Last edited by j3nn; 01-13-2013, 02:35 AM.
                  | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

                  “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    As much as I love them, why has this thread turned into a carb debate? The spammer is trying to sell us TREE BARK. If I'm that desperate for nutrients there are heaps of minerals in the dirt in my front garden - and it's free.
                    "I think the basic anti-aging diet is also the best diet for prevention and treatment of diabetes, scleroderma, and the various "connective tissue diseases." This would emphasize high protein, low unsaturated fats, low iron, and high antioxidant consumption, with a moderate or low starch consumption.

                    In practice, this means that a major part of the diet should be milk, cheese, eggs, shellfish, fruits and coconut oil, with vitamin E and salt as the safest supplements."

                    - Ray Peat

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Hey I dunno, I'd try it as a flavouring. Well, except I'm allergic to pine resin. Damn.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by YogaBare View Post
                        As much as I love them, why has this thread turned into a carb debate? The spammer is trying to sell us TREE BARK. If I'm that desperate for nutrients there are heaps of minerals in the dirt in my front garden - and it's free.
                        It is tedious isn't it? Sorry about that. Someone felt the need to snipe at me because I was saying exactly what you are saying here^^^^^and try to *make* the argument about me excluding some foods from my diet.

                        But the point is that tree bark is NOT food. Choosing not to chew on the leg of my dining room table is not relevant to what foods I do or do not eat. Separate subjects.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                          It is tedious isn't it? Sorry about that. Someone felt the need to snipe at me because I was saying exactly what you are saying here^^^^^and try to *make* the argument about me excluding some foods from my diet.

                          But the point is that tree bark is NOT food. Choosing not to chew on the leg of my dining room table is not relevant to what foods I do or do not eat. Separate subjects.
                          Now you're the innocent victim, lol! You came into a thread berating someone's choice of food. Who decides what is and what isn't considered food? Many people say dairy, milk specifically, is not human food, it's for baby mammals.

                          Why did you feel the need to come into this thread if you do not like when someone challenges your assertions of what is ideal? Not everyone wants to gnaw on an animal product every time they eat. Get over it. It doesn't make for an inferior diet makeup.
                          | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

                          “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                            Yum. Tree bark.
                            That's all I said. Since when is that "berating" anybody? Give it a rest J3nn.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                              That's all I said. Since when is that "berating" anybody? Give it a rest J3nn.
                              And then in your following posts you went on and on about how it's a terrible food choice and it's not real food. You replied to my first post in this thread when I wasn't even talking to you mocking the nutritional value of it. Stop playing the victim card when you know you brought nothing but negativity into this thread with your condescending tone in every single post you made.
                              | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

                              “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                OK, now we're down to "tone" arguments. Like I said, give it a rest. Or go eat a pine tree. I really don't care.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X