[QUOTE=Martti Kujansuu;1056316]Premise that Scots Pine phloem does not contain any significant amounts of nutrients is wrong as the following lists prove. The numbers are from the study by Finnish Defence Forces and indicate the maximum amount nutrients in dry product measured from the samples collected during December.
Compared to some fungi and berries, the phloem is much more nutrient-rich than e.g. common mushroom, false morel or bilberry.
[b]General[/b] (in 100 g)
- Glucose: 7.0 g
- Protein: 2.7 g
- Starch: 2.1 g
[b]Vitamins[/b] (in 100 g)
- B1: 0.16 mg
- B2: 0.42 mg
- C: 13.8 mg
[b]Elements[/b] (in 100 g)
- Arsenic: 0.006 mg
- Aluminium: 31.5 mg
- Bromine: 0.2 mg
- Boron: 1.2 mg
- Cadmium: 0.09 mg
- Calcium: 100 mg
- Copper: 0.01 mg
- Chromium: 0.02 mg
- Fluorine: 0.15 mg
- Iron: 5.7 mg
- Lead: 0.02 mg
- Manganese: 29 mg
- Magnesium: 150 mg
- Mercury: 0.002 mg
- Molybdenum: 0.02 mg
- Nickel: 0.02 mg
- Phosphorus: 120 mg
- Potassium: 400 mg
- Rubidium: 1.1 mg
- Selenium: 0.001 mg
- Silicon: 3 mg
- Sulphur: 70 mg
- Zinc: 7.9 mg[/QUOTE]
Nutrients - so what? Are they bound up in the fiber, making them unusable to humans? I have this gut feeling we aren't digesting tree bark very efficiently.
90% of the nutrition in kale is useless because humans can't digest and absorb it. It looks really impressive on paper. Now, divide by 10. How impressive is it?
Squash and potatoes are more nutritious than greens - you can actually digest that nutrition. But, but...the carbs!
[QUOTE=ChocoTaco369;1057437]This reminds me of the cellulose added to those "low carb tortillas" that have a massive amount of insoluble fiber to cut the net carbs to near nothing. The problem is "cellulose" is essentially sawdust. Mmm. Wood chips.
Seriously, just use tapioca starch or potato starch. If you want something THAT BADLY, just accept the empty calories. At least it's benign empty calories. It may add to your waistline but it won't take away from your health.[/QUOTE]Exactly what I said. Sawdust. Yummy. :confused:
As for "team Choco", well if by that j3nn means eating a variety of real whole foods, who is NOT on team Choco including Primal people at various macro ratios? Sawdust just does not count as "real food" unless you are starving (or trying to sell overpriced novelty 'flours' to health conscious folks).
Wood chips in... splinters out?
[I]Honey, bring the tweezers!!![/I]
[QUOTE=sbhikes;1056357]I wonder if it has a piny taste like pine nuts. You could make tasty crackers with a pine nut and rosemary flavor. Could be delicious. I would definitely try it if I found it in a store. Of course, I'm 1/4 Finnish so I'm a little crazy to begin with.[/QUOTE]
I would try it, too, even though I'm not Finnish (just a whoooole lotta German). My last trip to the Vaterland, my family was offering me other products from pine - I think it was pine syrup.
It is really interesting knowing how many edible things there are out there, so thanks Martti.
[QUOTE=Paleobird;1057662]As for "team Choco", well if by that j3nn means eating a variety of real whole foods, who is NOT on team Choco including Primal people at various macro ratios? Sawdust just does not count as "real food" unless you are starving (or trying to sell overpriced novelty 'flours' to health conscious folks).[/QUOTE]
Yes, that's exactly what I meant; I eat a variety of foods, including starches and fruits. If tree bark is your thing, so be it. I've never had it, and it doesn't sound very appetizing, but I would try it, and if I liked it, I'd eat it again. I wouldn't deliberately avoid it just because something else might be closer to perfect. This isn't really about tree bark, though. I say if someone likes it and tolerates it, go for it. It's as paleo as you can get in nature.
So to answer your question: lots of people around here don't have a truly varied diet. They have a varied diet within their own dietary confinements. Not the same thing. That's like saying you listen to a variety of music but you really only listen to a variety of country and techno, you never listen to hip-hop or rock because they're not the "best" music.
See, I don't see not eating grain, sugars and starches as a "dietary confinement" at all. (Just using my diet as a f'instance. Not that you were meaning to single out LCHF dieters or anything.) If anything I see leaving out less than optimal foods as liberating. It liberates space on my plate that could be better filled by the optimal foods *for me*. I'm really enjoying the freedom lately form the tyranny of the CW mindset that every meal has to be "balanced".
I understand what you're saying, paleobird. You feel you have made your diet efficient rather than wasteful and non-optimal. Maybe you have! But what you believe to be less-than-optimal might be perfect for someone else at the time. Perfect nutritional profiles are good in theory, but it doesn't always work in practice as flawlessly as expected. Too many variables, including fault tolerance. We all know that 103-year-old smoker who drinks beer and eats Cheetos for breakfast.
Plus, palatability matters. Humans generally like variety, the spice of life and all that. I don't think your diet is wrong for you, but I don't think it's as varied as you believe it is. Whether that matters or not, I don't know. Maybe it doesnt! But I believe by default of omnivorism that including all food groups is superior to excluding them. The fact that our body will make glucose and saturated fat is evidence enough of how important both of these are to optimizing our health. If they weren't important, our body wouldn't resort to plan B to ensure we have them. Plan A is dietary intake, of course.
I do agree with you about letting go of the balanced meal mindset. Eating a meal comprised of nothing but a whole roasted chicken OR an entire watermelon is not bad. I do this sometimes, but generally like a little of everything.
Palatability is definitely important. I don't eat potatoes, rice and such, not because I am depriving myself of these things, but because I honestly don't like them. This is the same reason I am eating less and less vegetable matter. I'm only eating ones now that taste good *to me* on their own without gobs of cream sauce, seasonings, or fat to mask the taste plus things that enhance the flavor of my meat like salsas and mushrooms.
I think your blanket generalization that "including all food groups is [B]superior[/B] to excluding them" is just that, a blanket generalization based on CW or Choco worship:p
I do eat a judicious amount of potatoes and rice, as "safe starches" or resistant starch, but these require quite a bit of fat for flavor. Potatoes need butter, olive oil, and/or cream; rice ditto. I made a batch of risotto last night just by coincidence (very easy to make, BTW, good quickie dinner) but without olive oil and Parm and the sauteed mushrooms, arborio is a very bland food.
Inclusion requires palatability, and has to carry as few negatives (cf., gluten) and as many positives (nutrients) as possible. Potatoes and rice are just sort of neutral on that scale. I can go a long time without them and not feel deprived, and not suffer any nutritional lack.
[QUOTE=Paleobird;1058426]See, I don't see not eating grain, sugars and starches as a "dietary confinement" at all.[/QUOTE]
When I yelp all the restaurants around me, I feel pretty confined.