Eating Paleo, Dreaming of Grain
Options
Replies
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
now you are moving the goal posts..
we are still waiting for the peer reviewed study showing that wheat grown today adversely affects humans as opposed to the wheat grown 10,000 years ago ...
I was actually replying here to the first of your (many) demands for information, i.e.CountryMom03 wrote: »The grain we have today vs the grain we had back in the old ages up until around 1960's are totally diff, and also grown and processed differently on top of that.
LOL oh really …
what would those differences be?????
So are we in acknowledgment now that today's grains are modified?
And so are today's fruits, and... btw, do you eat broccoli? Cauliflower?
Not at all relevant to the point I was addressing, which was to clarify that fact that the grains grown today are strains that were developed in the 1950/60s.
Okay, so Borlaug modified wheat to produce it on a larger scale to feed a growing world population. He was also not the first to modify wheat. Stating it like some monster wheat was created is just sensationalism. Wheat has been messed with since man has figured out he could selectively breed it.
SO where does that leave the whole argument?
Find me an agricultural food product that has not had human intervention?
Thank you! Now I'm glad someone has acknowledged the point, at least.
(I shouldn't let it, but it winds me up no end when I see people disputing known historical facts.)
Not so fast. You didn't address this:mamapeach910 wrote:Also, you haven't proven that it's not anything other than another in a long line of modifications. The other poster made it sound like it was some drastic change to the inherent nature of the wheat. You even went so far as to be hyperbolic with "not really wheat".
Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. You haven't provided it.
Care to give it a go?
You added that after I answered... (:-)
Borlaug was the one who introduced mutant strains of wheat. His wheat was shorter and thicker (so it would stand up) and resistant to disease. Now, I'm certainly not qualified to make a judgement on how 'important' those developments were, but someone thought they were significant enough to give Borlaug a Nobel Prize for.
He literally save millions of lives. Millions. So, yeah, I'd say that his work was 'important.'
Billions, with a "B"!
0 -
Skycake510 wrote: »I love how people on restrictive diets always report the same non-specific symptoms improving, even if they're diametrically opposed to one another. Vegans, fruitarians, paleo, keto, etc. always say they have more energy, less brain fog, less depression, better body composition, and greater sexual prowess than before said diet. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you *the placebo effect*. You feel better because you think you'll feel better. /slow clap
Since you asked: I, personally, have the same extremely high level of sexual prowess that I did as an omnivore. I guess you can't improve on perfection.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
now you are moving the goal posts..
we are still waiting for the peer reviewed study showing that wheat grown today adversely affects humans as opposed to the wheat grown 10,000 years ago ...
I was actually replying here to the first of your (many) demands for information, i.e.CountryMom03 wrote: »The grain we have today vs the grain we had back in the old ages up until around 1960's are totally diff, and also grown and processed differently on top of that.
LOL oh really …
what would those differences be?????
So are we in acknowledgment now that today's grains are modified?
And so are today's fruits, and... btw, do you eat broccoli? Cauliflower?
Not at all relevant to the point I was addressing, which was to clarify that fact that the grains grown today are strains that were developed in the 1950/60s.
Okay, so Borlaug modified wheat to produce it on a larger scale to feed a growing world population. He was also not the first to modify wheat. Stating it like some monster wheat was created is just sensationalism. Wheat has been messed with since man has figured out he could selectively breed it.
SO where does that leave the whole argument?
Find me an agricultural food product that has not had human intervention?
Thank you! Now I'm glad someone has acknowledged the point, at least.
(I shouldn't let it, but it winds me up no end when I see people disputing known historical facts.)
Not so fast. You didn't address this:mamapeach910 wrote:Also, you haven't proven that it's not anything other than another in a long line of modifications. The other poster made it sound like it was some drastic change to the inherent nature of the wheat. You even went so far as to be hyperbolic with "not really wheat".
Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. You haven't provided it.
Care to give it a go?
You added that after I answered... (:-)
Borlaug was the one who introduced mutant strains of wheat. His wheat was shorter and thicker (so it would stand up) and resistant to disease. Now, I'm certainly not qualified to make a judgement on how 'important' those developments were, but someone thought they were significant enough to give Borlaug a Nobel Prize for.
He literally save millions of lives. Millions. So, yeah, I'd say that his work was 'important.'
Billions, with a "B"!
Obligatory Carl Sagan gif:
0 -
pawamonster wrote: »
OP, so many people in a desperate effort to lose weight follow the latest fad diet that has books on the best seller list. They severely restrict their diets, struggle for a few months, and then give up and just decide they are destined to be overweight and unhealthy, that weight loss is too complicated. The veterans here are constantly trying to make sure newbies hear the message that you don't HAVE to restrict anything. You just have to eat less calories than you burn. And everyone has a different way of getting there. So yes, they get really worked up when posters suggest that you need to cut out types of food, ingredients, or entire food groups, because there are lots of newbies lurking and reading and possibly giving up because they don't want to stop eating pasta or drinking soda or whatever.
The Whole 30 is an elimination diet intended to help people with allergies or medical issues determine if a particular food is at the root of their problems, so if that isn't what you are doing it for, I'm not sure why you are hesitant to "cheat". If you aren't accurately measuring and logging your food, it's possible that you simply aren't eating enough to fuel your workouts.
And I'm confused by the idea that Whole 30 and Paleo and low carb are all basically the same thing. I guess Whole 30 and Paleo are a little similar, but I didn't think either was intended to be low carb. You can still eat plenty of carbs and not eat grains.
Anyway, OP welcome to the MFP fun!0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Skycake510 wrote: »I love how people on restrictive diets always report the same non-specific symptoms improving, even if they're diametrically opposed to one another. Vegans, fruitarians, paleo, keto, etc. always say they have more energy, less brain fog, less depression, better body composition, and greater sexual prowess than before said diet. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you *the placebo effect*. You feel better because you think you'll feel better. /slow clap
Poppycock.
It just means there are a variety of methods that work. And the best method to use will depend on the individual.
And even there are some cases where it is placebo effect, if the person feels better then mission accomplised. The power of the mind, and all that.
The power of the mind, aka placebo.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
Borlaug did nothing more than fancy, knowledge-enhanced selective breeding, a process that has been going on since man figured out he could do it.
He got a Nobel Prize because a lot of people saw it as an advancement towards solving world hunger.
There is nothing fundamentally different about the wheat.
Hmm, pretty sure you might be downplaying his contribution just a tad. I'm not going to get into a debate about it, and it's getting far, far away from the point of the thread, but I'll leave you with a few snippets from his obituary:
"When Borlaug was doing his groundbreaking work in the 60s, he didn’t have the advanced tools that breeders have today. He used something called “mutation breeding.” That method uses radiation or mutagenic chemicals to increase the number of gene mutations in a population of seeds and then a search is made for the extremely rare cases where the mutation is beneficial. Compared to modern biotechnology this is a pretty crude approach, but that was the only method Borlaug had to speed up the process of trait selection."
Doesn't sound to me like something that just happens on its own in nature, but I'm not a scientist.
Selective breeding doesn't either.And then:
"It is likely that he saved more human lives than any other person in history. He did it by developing far more productive wheat than had ever been grown. His “short stature” wheat had shorter, thicker stems so that it could hold bigger heads of grain that would otherwise “lodge” (collapse over on to the ground where it can’t be harvested). It was also resistant to the devastating wheat disease called “Stem Rust.”"
I would classify this as "fundamentally different", but again, I'm not a scientist...
By this criteria, every modification (by selective breeding or otherwise) will make the crop "fundamentally different".
Everything we eat is fundamentally different from that found in nature. Why do you think this is bad?
Well, his modifications were apparently significant enough to prevent mass starvation at the time.
And I don't, necessarily, think it is bad. (I don't actually know what you mean, in fact.)
Well, again, repeating myself, he mutated the stalk and the seeds.
Mutating the seeds had already been done, so he was just repeating an earlier accomplishment.
He also shortened the stalk. That? Not a change to the part we eat, but it allowed more food to grow on the same plant.
Can you see that he didn't really do anything that hadn't been done before but apply some science to a process that mankind had already engaged in 8,000 years prior, some good logical thinking (hey, it'll be too heavy if we make the seeds bigger, so... hmmm... shorter stalk!) and fear-mongering Luddites are making it sound like he adulterated the end product in doing so?
0 -
If you are determined to stick with the whole30, I would suggest eating more starch and carbs from paleo sources. Grains do not have the monopoly on those things.0
-
pawamonster wrote: »People get passionate about junk information being passed about as if it were from Moses on Mt. Sinai. That's what gets people's ire up.
Then other people get all defensive because they get called out on their information that they can't verify with a reputable scientific source.
I was one of those people once - the one spouting off about processed this and chemicals that and I was put in my place here, about a year ago I guess. I skulked off with my tail between my legs and then really thought about everything that the Mean People here were saying...and I also considered my own craziness at trying to find the "right foods to eat so I'm not poisoning my family or myself" - and how distressing the whole thing is every time a new "report" comes out saying this is bad but this other thing is now good, and not bad anymore, and coffee is going to kill you and coffee is a health food and the dang olive oil you're buying is rancid but wait, this brand is not...and on and on an on. Books like Wheat Belly and Grain Brain and Eat to Live and every other "new fad" you can think of are churned out quickly, seems like every week there's something new - making authors and publishers a lot of money...meanwhile...
What gets people stirred up? Fear. Don't eat this or you'll get sick. This is poison. This will kill you. This is a toxin you need to be rid of it. You need to stop eating that poison food and eat this food...blah blah blah blah.
If you read any articles on how to market well, (I'm in real estate so I have looked into ways to market homes...) one of the top things in successful marketing is to instill fear... or even more specifically... fear of loss. (This is why you see realtors put things like "Won't last! Act now or it will be gone!" on listings..) In the subject of food - well, people fear the loss of longevity and good health...so these marketing campaigns trigger a response.
Pavlov's dogs if you will..
TL; DR - yeah, sorry. I ramble.
Speak, @wizzybeth. I didn't expect this thread to explode like this, but I should have seen it coming. Did you see the interview I linked above to the interview about food purity and religious thought?
If interested in that, I'd recommend Matt Fitzgerald's book Diet Cults. Fun and quick read.
Edit: oh, I see it was already recommended upthread.0 -
The Whole 30 is an elimination diet intended to help people with allergies or medical issues determine if a particular food is at the root of their problems, so if that isn't what you are doing it for, I'm not sure why you are hesitant to "cheat". If you aren't accurately measuring and logging your food, it's possible that you simply aren't eating enough to fuel your workouts.
As I said upthread (after SezxyStef asked), I think the eating too little hypothesis is a good one, and that simply increasing Whole30 approved carbs is something to try.
I'll jump in here to say that I actually get what OP is doing--I considered a Whole30 because I find having constraints on what I am eating for a period of time can force me out of a rut, spark me to be more creative, etc., and focusing on whole foods and home cooked ones are what I try to do anyway. I didn't do it because (1) I actually think eating more legumes and less meat might be a better thing to focus on; (2) at the time I considered it potatoes weren't permitted and I think that's stupid; and (3) I know I have no issues with dairy and love dairy, so didn't want to do that. But I do get how for some of us--not all-constraints can be useful just to change things up.
You can do it without a formal program, but sometimes it makes it more fun to do a program.
The only reason I'd object is if someone starts claiming (unlike OP) that it's the only healthy way to eat or healthier than numerous other options that include wheat and legumes and dairy, etc. I also think the number of people who think they have issues with the foods excluded by Whole30 is grossly inflated due to trendiness (other than dairy, as lactose intolerance is common, and of course some people are celiac, but I don't expect them to find out based on this kind of thing), but honestly, who cares.
Oh, and the assertion way upthread that humans didn't eat grains pre agriculture is of course false.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »The Whole 30 is an elimination diet intended to help people with allergies or medical issues determine if a particular food is at the root of their problems, so if that isn't what you are doing it for, I'm not sure why you are hesitant to "cheat". If you aren't accurately measuring and logging your food, it's possible that you simply aren't eating enough to fuel your workouts.
As I said upthread (after SezxyStef asked), I think the eating too little hypothesis is a good one, and that simply increasing Whole30 approved carbs is something to try.
I'll jump in here to say that I actually get what OP is doing--I considered a Whole30 because I find having constraints on what I am eating for a period of time can force me out of a rut, spark me to be more creative, etc., and focusing on whole foods and home cooked ones are what I try to do anyway. I didn't do it because (1) I actually think eating more legumes and less meat might be a better thing to focus on; (2) at the time I considered it potatoes weren't permitted and I think that's stupid; and (3) I know I have no issues with dairy and love dairy, so didn't want to do that. But I do get how for some of us--not all-constraints can be useful just to change things up.
No legumes, no dairy, no potatoes? My soul hurts.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »The Whole 30 is an elimination diet intended to help people with allergies or medical issues determine if a particular food is at the root of their problems, so if that isn't what you are doing it for, I'm not sure why you are hesitant to "cheat". If you aren't accurately measuring and logging your food, it's possible that you simply aren't eating enough to fuel your workouts.
As I said upthread (after SezxyStef asked), I think the eating too little hypothesis is a good one, and that simply increasing Whole30 approved carbs is something to try.
I'll jump in here to say that I actually get what OP is doing--I considered a Whole30 because I find having constraints on what I am eating for a period of time can force me out of a rut, spark me to be more creative, etc., and focusing on whole foods and home cooked ones are what I try to do anyway. I didn't do it because (1) I actually think eating more legumes and less meat might be a better thing to focus on; (2) at the time I considered it potatoes weren't permitted and I think that's stupid; and (3) I know I have no issues with dairy and love dairy, so didn't want to do that. But I do get how for some of us--not all-constraints can be useful just to change things up.
You can do it without a formal program, but sometimes it makes it more fun to do a program.
The only reason I'd object is if someone starts claiming (unlike OP) that it's the only healthy way to eat or healthier than numerous other options that include wheat and legumes and dairy, etc. I also think the number of people who think they have issues with the foods excluded by Whole30 is grossly inflated due to trendiness (other than dairy, as lactose intolerance is common, and of course some people are celiac, but I don't expect them to find out based on this kind of thing), but honestly, who cares.
Oh, and the assertion way upthread that humans didn't eat grains pre agriculture is of course false.
Oh, ITA. But if it's making her feel run down, it's not like she's doing it because of health reasons or something like that, so I just mean don't run yourself into the ground out of curiosity's sake 0 -
I would take the orange juice out and replace it with a whole apple. Processed juices can have lots of sugar(they do add extra fructose) in them. Unless you make your own.
Remember to change what foods you eat each day or you will get bored quickly. You want meals to be 350-400 calories each.
Remember Carbs are energy for you. You can get these from all veggies. You start high in the carbs in the morning....... and drops. That could be the reason for you being tired! Just increase your afternoon carbs and see how that goes.
so the sugar in orange juice is now worse than the apple sugar??? That is a new one.
They put extra fructose and sugar in juices0 -
I would take the orange juice out and replace it with a whole apple. Processed juices can have lots of sugar(they do add extra fructose) in them. Unless you make your own.
Remember to change what foods you eat each day or you will get bored quickly. You want meals to be 350-400 calories each.
Remember Carbs are energy for you. You can get these from all veggies. You start high in the carbs in the morning....... and drops. That could be the reason for you being tired! Just increase your afternoon carbs and see how that goes.
so the sugar in orange juice is now worse than the apple sugar??? That is a new one.
They put extra fructose and sugar in juices
ok so orange juice sugar is now bad; apple sugar is good; does this mean that added sugar is better than or worse than orange juice sugar? I am getting confused0 -
I would take the orange juice out and replace it with a whole apple. Processed juices can have lots of sugar(they do add extra fructose) in them. Unless you make your own.
Remember to change what foods you eat each day or you will get bored quickly. You want meals to be 350-400 calories each.
Remember Carbs are energy for you. You can get these from all veggies. You start high in the carbs in the morning....... and drops. That could be the reason for you being tired! Just increase your afternoon carbs and see how that goes.
so the sugar in orange juice is now worse than the apple sugar??? That is a new one.
They put extra fructose and sugar in juices
So?0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
Borlaug did nothing more than fancy, knowledge-enhanced selective breeding, a process that has been going on since man figured out he could do it.
He got a Nobel Prize because a lot of people saw it as an advancement towards solving world hunger.
There is nothing fundamentally different about the wheat.
Hmm, pretty sure you might be downplaying his contribution just a tad. I'm not going to get into a debate about it, and it's getting far, far away from the point of the thread, but I'll leave you with a few snippets from his obituary:
"When Borlaug was doing his groundbreaking work in the 60s, he didn’t have the advanced tools that breeders have today. He used something called “mutation breeding.” That method uses radiation or mutagenic chemicals to increase the number of gene mutations in a population of seeds and then a search is made for the extremely rare cases where the mutation is beneficial. Compared to modern biotechnology this is a pretty crude approach, but that was the only method Borlaug had to speed up the process of trait selection."
Doesn't sound to me like something that just happens on its own in nature, but I'm not a scientist.
Selective breeding doesn't either.And then:
"It is likely that he saved more human lives than any other person in history. He did it by developing far more productive wheat than had ever been grown. His “short stature” wheat had shorter, thicker stems so that it could hold bigger heads of grain that would otherwise “lodge” (collapse over on to the ground where it can’t be harvested). It was also resistant to the devastating wheat disease called “Stem Rust.”"
I would classify this as "fundamentally different", but again, I'm not a scientist...
By this criteria, every modification (by selective breeding or otherwise) will make the crop "fundamentally different".
Everything we eat is fundamentally different from that found in nature. Why do you think this is bad?
Well, his modifications were apparently significant enough to prevent mass starvation at the time.
And I don't, necessarily, think it is bad. (I don't actually know what you mean, in fact.)
Well, again, repeating myself, he mutated the stalk and the seeds.
Mutating the seeds had already been done, so he was just repeating an earlier accomplishment.
He also shortened the stalk. That? Not a change to the part we eat, but it allowed more food to grow on the same plant.
Can you see that he didn't really do anything that hadn't been done before but apply some science to a process that mankind had already engaged in 8,000 years prior, some good logical thinking (hey, it'll be too heavy if we make the seeds bigger, so... hmmm... shorter stalk!) and fear-mongering Luddites are making it sound like he adulterated the end product in doing so?
Yup, and as Wheelhouse mentioned earlier, another plant food that has been specifically bred to be different in the modern era is ALMONDS.
Paleolithic people didn't eat ALMONDS (but likely did eat the seeds of the wheat ancestor plants) because they were DEADLY POISONOUS.
But hybridized wheat=BAD and hybridized almonds=Paleo goodness. Riiiiiight.
I'm shocked at the lack of enthusiasm for my true-blue Paleo experience of bugs and beer. I am dissapoint.0 -
HeySwoleSister wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
Borlaug did nothing more than fancy, knowledge-enhanced selective breeding, a process that has been going on since man figured out he could do it.
He got a Nobel Prize because a lot of people saw it as an advancement towards solving world hunger.
There is nothing fundamentally different about the wheat.
Hmm, pretty sure you might be downplaying his contribution just a tad. I'm not going to get into a debate about it, and it's getting far, far away from the point of the thread, but I'll leave you with a few snippets from his obituary:
"When Borlaug was doing his groundbreaking work in the 60s, he didn’t have the advanced tools that breeders have today. He used something called “mutation breeding.” That method uses radiation or mutagenic chemicals to increase the number of gene mutations in a population of seeds and then a search is made for the extremely rare cases where the mutation is beneficial. Compared to modern biotechnology this is a pretty crude approach, but that was the only method Borlaug had to speed up the process of trait selection."
Doesn't sound to me like something that just happens on its own in nature, but I'm not a scientist.
Selective breeding doesn't either.And then:
"It is likely that he saved more human lives than any other person in history. He did it by developing far more productive wheat than had ever been grown. His “short stature” wheat had shorter, thicker stems so that it could hold bigger heads of grain that would otherwise “lodge” (collapse over on to the ground where it can’t be harvested). It was also resistant to the devastating wheat disease called “Stem Rust.”"
I would classify this as "fundamentally different", but again, I'm not a scientist...
By this criteria, every modification (by selective breeding or otherwise) will make the crop "fundamentally different".
Everything we eat is fundamentally different from that found in nature. Why do you think this is bad?
Well, his modifications were apparently significant enough to prevent mass starvation at the time.
And I don't, necessarily, think it is bad. (I don't actually know what you mean, in fact.)
Well, again, repeating myself, he mutated the stalk and the seeds.
Mutating the seeds had already been done, so he was just repeating an earlier accomplishment.
He also shortened the stalk. That? Not a change to the part we eat, but it allowed more food to grow on the same plant.
Can you see that he didn't really do anything that hadn't been done before but apply some science to a process that mankind had already engaged in 8,000 years prior, some good logical thinking (hey, it'll be too heavy if we make the seeds bigger, so... hmmm... shorter stalk!) and fear-mongering Luddites are making it sound like he adulterated the end product in doing so?
Yup, and as Wheelhouse mentioned earlier, another plant food that has been specifically bred to be different in the modern era is ALMONDS.
Paleolithic people didn't eat ALMONDS (but likely did eat the seeds of the wheat ancestor plants) because they were DEADLY POISONOUS.
But hybridized wheat=BAD and hybridized almonds=Paleo goodness. Riiiiiight.
I'm shocked at the lack of enthusiasm for my true-blue Paleo experience of bugs and beer. I am dissapoint.
I'm down for eating bugs, and have eaten ants off a tree before.
0 -
girlviernes wrote: »HeySwoleSister wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
Borlaug did nothing more than fancy, knowledge-enhanced selective breeding, a process that has been going on since man figured out he could do it.
He got a Nobel Prize because a lot of people saw it as an advancement towards solving world hunger.
There is nothing fundamentally different about the wheat.
Hmm, pretty sure you might be downplaying his contribution just a tad. I'm not going to get into a debate about it, and it's getting far, far away from the point of the thread, but I'll leave you with a few snippets from his obituary:
"When Borlaug was doing his groundbreaking work in the 60s, he didn’t have the advanced tools that breeders have today. He used something called “mutation breeding.” That method uses radiation or mutagenic chemicals to increase the number of gene mutations in a population of seeds and then a search is made for the extremely rare cases where the mutation is beneficial. Compared to modern biotechnology this is a pretty crude approach, but that was the only method Borlaug had to speed up the process of trait selection."
Doesn't sound to me like something that just happens on its own in nature, but I'm not a scientist.
Selective breeding doesn't either.And then:
"It is likely that he saved more human lives than any other person in history. He did it by developing far more productive wheat than had ever been grown. His “short stature” wheat had shorter, thicker stems so that it could hold bigger heads of grain that would otherwise “lodge” (collapse over on to the ground where it can’t be harvested). It was also resistant to the devastating wheat disease called “Stem Rust.”"
I would classify this as "fundamentally different", but again, I'm not a scientist...
By this criteria, every modification (by selective breeding or otherwise) will make the crop "fundamentally different".
Everything we eat is fundamentally different from that found in nature. Why do you think this is bad?
Well, his modifications were apparently significant enough to prevent mass starvation at the time.
And I don't, necessarily, think it is bad. (I don't actually know what you mean, in fact.)
Well, again, repeating myself, he mutated the stalk and the seeds.
Mutating the seeds had already been done, so he was just repeating an earlier accomplishment.
He also shortened the stalk. That? Not a change to the part we eat, but it allowed more food to grow on the same plant.
Can you see that he didn't really do anything that hadn't been done before but apply some science to a process that mankind had already engaged in 8,000 years prior, some good logical thinking (hey, it'll be too heavy if we make the seeds bigger, so... hmmm... shorter stalk!) and fear-mongering Luddites are making it sound like he adulterated the end product in doing so?
Yup, and as Wheelhouse mentioned earlier, another plant food that has been specifically bred to be different in the modern era is ALMONDS.
Paleolithic people didn't eat ALMONDS (but likely did eat the seeds of the wheat ancestor plants) because they were DEADLY POISONOUS.
But hybridized wheat=BAD and hybridized almonds=Paleo goodness. Riiiiiight.
I'm shocked at the lack of enthusiasm for my true-blue Paleo experience of bugs and beer. I am dissapoint.
I'm down for eating bugs, and have eaten ants off a tree before.
Did it clear your "brain fog," clear up acne, make your hair long and lush, and/or lead you to a Crossfit strongwoman victory?
In other news, this thread already contained "Government agenda" and "Big Pharma." I believe we all win a prize if we see "toxins" and/or "chemicals" in future posts.0 -
OP, up your electrolytes. Get more sodium, potassium and magnesium. It will help with your energy levels. This coming from someone who eats keto and WISH she knew this when she first started.
Ignore the haters. It's typical for those who don't eat the same way to come in here and start with the bashing.0 -
HeySwoleSister wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
Borlaug did nothing more than fancy, knowledge-enhanced selective breeding, a process that has been going on since man figured out he could do it.
He got a Nobel Prize because a lot of people saw it as an advancement towards solving world hunger.
There is nothing fundamentally different about the wheat.
Hmm, pretty sure you might be downplaying his contribution just a tad. I'm not going to get into a debate about it, and it's getting far, far away from the point of the thread, but I'll leave you with a few snippets from his obituary:
"When Borlaug was doing his groundbreaking work in the 60s, he didn’t have the advanced tools that breeders have today. He used something called “mutation breeding.” That method uses radiation or mutagenic chemicals to increase the number of gene mutations in a population of seeds and then a search is made for the extremely rare cases where the mutation is beneficial. Compared to modern biotechnology this is a pretty crude approach, but that was the only method Borlaug had to speed up the process of trait selection."
Doesn't sound to me like something that just happens on its own in nature, but I'm not a scientist.
Selective breeding doesn't either.And then:
"It is likely that he saved more human lives than any other person in history. He did it by developing far more productive wheat than had ever been grown. His “short stature” wheat had shorter, thicker stems so that it could hold bigger heads of grain that would otherwise “lodge” (collapse over on to the ground where it can’t be harvested). It was also resistant to the devastating wheat disease called “Stem Rust.”"
I would classify this as "fundamentally different", but again, I'm not a scientist...
By this criteria, every modification (by selective breeding or otherwise) will make the crop "fundamentally different".
Everything we eat is fundamentally different from that found in nature. Why do you think this is bad?
Well, his modifications were apparently significant enough to prevent mass starvation at the time.
And I don't, necessarily, think it is bad. (I don't actually know what you mean, in fact.)
Well, again, repeating myself, he mutated the stalk and the seeds.
Mutating the seeds had already been done, so he was just repeating an earlier accomplishment.
He also shortened the stalk. That? Not a change to the part we eat, but it allowed more food to grow on the same plant.
Can you see that he didn't really do anything that hadn't been done before but apply some science to a process that mankind had already engaged in 8,000 years prior, some good logical thinking (hey, it'll be too heavy if we make the seeds bigger, so... hmmm... shorter stalk!) and fear-mongering Luddites are making it sound like he adulterated the end product in doing so?
Yup, and as Wheelhouse mentioned earlier, another plant food that has been specifically bred to be different in the modern era is ALMONDS.
Paleolithic people didn't eat ALMONDS (but likely did eat the seeds of the wheat ancestor plants) because they were DEADLY POISONOUS.
But hybridized wheat=BAD and hybridized almonds=Paleo goodness. Riiiiiight.
I'm shocked at the lack of enthusiasm for my true-blue Paleo experience of bugs and beer. I am dissapoint.
Well, I think some enthusiasm is building for cricket flour in some quarters.
But yeah, almonds are not paleo. Other nuts existed and they ate them. Different forms of berries. None of the berries they're eating now, of course. They've all been hybridized too.
But man, you find a big berry, and you cross it with other berries? You're a smart farmer. You zap a wheat embryo to make it produce bigger wheat seeds because technology has advanced enough to enable you to selectively do that and cross it with other grasses that have shorter stalks?
EBIL. Pure ebil. You're creating mutant wheat that's not real food anymore.
0 -
HeySwoleSister wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »HeySwoleSister wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
Borlaug did nothing more than fancy, knowledge-enhanced selective breeding, a process that has been going on since man figured out he could do it.
He got a Nobel Prize because a lot of people saw it as an advancement towards solving world hunger.
There is nothing fundamentally different about the wheat.
Hmm, pretty sure you might be downplaying his contribution just a tad. I'm not going to get into a debate about it, and it's getting far, far away from the point of the thread, but I'll leave you with a few snippets from his obituary:
"When Borlaug was doing his groundbreaking work in the 60s, he didn’t have the advanced tools that breeders have today. He used something called “mutation breeding.” That method uses radiation or mutagenic chemicals to increase the number of gene mutations in a population of seeds and then a search is made for the extremely rare cases where the mutation is beneficial. Compared to modern biotechnology this is a pretty crude approach, but that was the only method Borlaug had to speed up the process of trait selection."
Doesn't sound to me like something that just happens on its own in nature, but I'm not a scientist.
Selective breeding doesn't either.And then:
"It is likely that he saved more human lives than any other person in history. He did it by developing far more productive wheat than had ever been grown. His “short stature” wheat had shorter, thicker stems so that it could hold bigger heads of grain that would otherwise “lodge” (collapse over on to the ground where it can’t be harvested). It was also resistant to the devastating wheat disease called “Stem Rust.”"
I would classify this as "fundamentally different", but again, I'm not a scientist...
By this criteria, every modification (by selective breeding or otherwise) will make the crop "fundamentally different".
Everything we eat is fundamentally different from that found in nature. Why do you think this is bad?
Well, his modifications were apparently significant enough to prevent mass starvation at the time.
And I don't, necessarily, think it is bad. (I don't actually know what you mean, in fact.)
Well, again, repeating myself, he mutated the stalk and the seeds.
Mutating the seeds had already been done, so he was just repeating an earlier accomplishment.
He also shortened the stalk. That? Not a change to the part we eat, but it allowed more food to grow on the same plant.
Can you see that he didn't really do anything that hadn't been done before but apply some science to a process that mankind had already engaged in 8,000 years prior, some good logical thinking (hey, it'll be too heavy if we make the seeds bigger, so... hmmm... shorter stalk!) and fear-mongering Luddites are making it sound like he adulterated the end product in doing so?
Yup, and as Wheelhouse mentioned earlier, another plant food that has been specifically bred to be different in the modern era is ALMONDS.
Paleolithic people didn't eat ALMONDS (but likely did eat the seeds of the wheat ancestor plants) because they were DEADLY POISONOUS.
But hybridized wheat=BAD and hybridized almonds=Paleo goodness. Riiiiiight.
I'm shocked at the lack of enthusiasm for my true-blue Paleo experience of bugs and beer. I am dissapoint.
I'm down for eating bugs, and have eaten ants off a tree before.
Did it clear your "brain fog," clear up acne, make your hair long and lush, and/or lead you to a Crossfit strongwoman victory?
In other news, this thread already contained "Government agenda" and "Big Pharma." I believe we all win a prize if we see "toxins" and/or "chemicals" in future posts.HeySwoleSister wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »HeySwoleSister wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
Borlaug did nothing more than fancy, knowledge-enhanced selective breeding, a process that has been going on since man figured out he could do it.
He got a Nobel Prize because a lot of people saw it as an advancement towards solving world hunger.
There is nothing fundamentally different about the wheat.
Hmm, pretty sure you might be downplaying his contribution just a tad. I'm not going to get into a debate about it, and it's getting far, far away from the point of the thread, but I'll leave you with a few snippets from his obituary:
"When Borlaug was doing his groundbreaking work in the 60s, he didn’t have the advanced tools that breeders have today. He used something called “mutation breeding.” That method uses radiation or mutagenic chemicals to increase the number of gene mutations in a population of seeds and then a search is made for the extremely rare cases where the mutation is beneficial. Compared to modern biotechnology this is a pretty crude approach, but that was the only method Borlaug had to speed up the process of trait selection."
Doesn't sound to me like something that just happens on its own in nature, but I'm not a scientist.
Selective breeding doesn't either.And then:
"It is likely that he saved more human lives than any other person in history. He did it by developing far more productive wheat than had ever been grown. His “short stature” wheat had shorter, thicker stems so that it could hold bigger heads of grain that would otherwise “lodge” (collapse over on to the ground where it can’t be harvested). It was also resistant to the devastating wheat disease called “Stem Rust.”"
I would classify this as "fundamentally different", but again, I'm not a scientist...
By this criteria, every modification (by selective breeding or otherwise) will make the crop "fundamentally different".
Everything we eat is fundamentally different from that found in nature. Why do you think this is bad?
Well, his modifications were apparently significant enough to prevent mass starvation at the time.
And I don't, necessarily, think it is bad. (I don't actually know what you mean, in fact.)
Well, again, repeating myself, he mutated the stalk and the seeds.
Mutating the seeds had already been done, so he was just repeating an earlier accomplishment.
He also shortened the stalk. That? Not a change to the part we eat, but it allowed more food to grow on the same plant.
Can you see that he didn't really do anything that hadn't been done before but apply some science to a process that mankind had already engaged in 8,000 years prior, some good logical thinking (hey, it'll be too heavy if we make the seeds bigger, so... hmmm... shorter stalk!) and fear-mongering Luddites are making it sound like he adulterated the end product in doing so?
Yup, and as Wheelhouse mentioned earlier, another plant food that has been specifically bred to be different in the modern era is ALMONDS.
Paleolithic people didn't eat ALMONDS (but likely did eat the seeds of the wheat ancestor plants) because they were DEADLY POISONOUS.
But hybridized wheat=BAD and hybridized almonds=Paleo goodness. Riiiiiight.
I'm shocked at the lack of enthusiasm for my true-blue Paleo experience of bugs and beer. I am dissapoint.
I'm down for eating bugs, and have eaten ants off a tree before.
Did it clear your "brain fog," clear up acne, make your hair long and lush, and/or lead you to a Crossfit strongwoman victory?
In other news, this thread already contained "Government agenda" and "Big Pharma." I believe we all win a prize if we see "toxins" and/or "chemicals" in future posts.
yes, yes, yes, and yes!! I owe it all to the lemon ant.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions