Okay, can you point me to some products that are described as meat and yet contain primarily fish? If you bought "meatballs" and found that they were made out of tuna, I imagine that you would be both surprised and shocked.
However, different diets undoubtedly have large effects on health and longevity. To my mind, the best bet is to look at the diets of those countries with best standards of health and longevity in the population and see if the health benefits can be traced to the diet or whether they're due to genetic differences.
With the complexities of human digestion and the different chemical profiles of different foods, it's incredibly difficult to tease apart the long-term effects of diets, so it's better to start with the long-term effects and work backwards.
In modern society, processed food is food that is processed to benefit the food supplier/seller and not the consumer (although lower prices can be considered a benefit).
There's nothing inherently bad about processing, but it seems that modern food processing is all about reducing food to its constituent parts and then throwing away some of the good bits and recombining the bad bits into something that appeals to consumer tastebuds. Even something as simple as making fruit juice (vs eating the whole fruit) can drastically change how your body reacts to it.
I'd like to argue this point further, but you're just wrong. Fish is a different category to meat. You are confusing meat (flesh of a mammal or bird) and fish (flesh of a fish) or seafood (flesh of a fish or shellfish). The word you are looking for is "flesh". Fish is flesh and meat is flesh, but fish is not meat and meat is not fish.
I've already posted about the BBC documentary (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03t8r4h%5C) but it was quite interesting to see the effects on twins of low carb vs low fat diets.
Surprisingly, the twin on the low-carb diet demonstrated problems with both mental and physical performance. The mental performance was essentially day-trading stocks (Which neither twin had experience of) and the physical performance involved cycling. Although your body can burn fat to produce energy, it doesn't do it quickly enough for hard exercise, so you end up burning muscle mass instead which is typically the opposite effect that you want from exercise.
Sounds like you eat a similar diet to myself. I eat vegetarian with fish (pescetarian), but also avoid gluten (partially gluten sensitive, not full-blown coeliac) which means that I tend to eat more vegetables than grains.
I'm surprised you didn't get enough B12 from the mackerel.
Nope. Onions are mainly carbohydrate (like most vegetables) and have a host of useful nutrients.
Onions can help to reduce inflammation; they're high in chromium (helps to regulate blood sugar); raw onions promote HDL cholesterol production and they contain a variety of organic sulphur compounds.
The only times you should be avoiding onions is if you're going on a hot date; it's a raw onion that has been sliced and kept around for a while or you're a dog (they cannot metabolise onions and it'll generally kill them).
There was an interesting BBC Horizon documentary (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03t8r4h/) on food a couple of weeks ago that tried having a pair of twins go on high fat or high sugar diets for a month. The really interesting part was at the end of the show where they discovered that the very worst foods were ones with a 50/50 fat/sugar ratio. Apparently, fat and carbohydrates aren't found together in nature, so our bodies are tricked by that combination into finding it irresistible.
In general, listening to your body is a good idea, but you have to bear in mind that our bodies are a result of evolution and as such our bodies will try to hoard as many calories as possible.
Also, our bodies are very poor at judging when to stop eating foods that are 50% fat and 50% carbohydrate as that combination almost never happens in nature, yet we find it in ice-cream/donuts/chocolate etc.
In addition, our bodies have no idea about long term health as once you get past reproduction age, evolution gets a lot less interested in your genes.
So, always listen to your body except when it's wrong.
Not exactly. Typically, meat means the flesh of a mammal or bird. Every shop/restaurant I've been in has quite clearly separated meat and fish (except for the obvious surf'n'turf meals). After all, you wouldn't say "meat is fish" would you?
If someone quotes the Daily Mail to me, I'll just disregard their argument without bothering to check if it's one of the very occasional accurate articles. If someone quotes a more credible source, then I'll take time to investigate.
To be honest, you'd be better off quoting some drunk who's living homeless on the street rather than the Daily Mail as the drunk wouldn't bother to twist everything to fit an evil agenda.
That's an interesting question as it will separate vegetarians into different groups according to their reasons for eating vegetarian. A lot of people assume that vegetarians are a single group with a shared set of beliefs and aims, but that's not the case at all. I'm a pescetarian (vegetarian with fish) for a whole bunch of reasons: health, resource usage, mistrust of modern animal husbandry etc.
Animal welfare is not a major concern for me (although I like animals and abhor cruelty), but I think I would abstain from lab-grown meat as I'm not convinced that it would necessarily be a healthy addition to my diet. I'd wait until there were some positive reasons to eat lab-grown meat as I'm not convinced that it would be anything other than a rich-person's food and thus not sustainable world-wide.
I think you'd be surprised by just how much "religion" is actually just made up shit. There's now so many different deities and religions that you can point at almost any idea and say that it was predated by some religious type.
However, there is a whole world of difference between some nutter saying that the voices told him that the world began in fire and scientists proposing actual mechanisms and refutable experiments.
I do agree that cultural diversity is useful and important to scientific progress as approaching problems from different angles is a good thing and can often lead to breakthroughs.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, can you point me to some products that are described as meat and yet contain primarily fish? If you bought "meatballs" and found that they were made out of tuna, I imagine that you would be both surprised and shocked.
However, different diets undoubtedly have large effects on health and longevity. To my mind, the best bet is to look at the diets of those countries with best standards of health and longevity in the population and see if the health benefits can be traced to the diet or whether they're due to genetic differences.
With the complexities of human digestion and the different chemical profiles of different foods, it's incredibly difficult to tease apart the long-term effects of diets, so it's better to start with the long-term effects and work backwards.
In modern society, processed food is food that is processed to benefit the food supplier/seller and not the consumer (although lower prices can be considered a benefit).
There's nothing inherently bad about processing, but it seems that modern food processing is all about reducing food to its constituent parts and then throwing away some of the good bits and recombining the bad bits into something that appeals to consumer tastebuds. Even something as simple as making fruit juice (vs eating the whole fruit) can drastically change how your body reacts to it.
I'd like to argue this point further, but you're just wrong. Fish is a different category to meat. You are confusing meat (flesh of a mammal or bird) and fish (flesh of a fish) or seafood (flesh of a fish or shellfish). The word you are looking for is "flesh". Fish is flesh and meat is flesh, but fish is not meat and meat is not fish.
I'd draw you a Venn diagram, but I can't draw.
He only slipped as he was trying to avoid some sugar that someone had dropped.
Sorry, the link should be http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03t8r4h/
I've already posted about the BBC documentary (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03t8r4h%5C) but it was quite interesting to see the effects on twins of low carb vs low fat diets.
Surprisingly, the twin on the low-carb diet demonstrated problems with both mental and physical performance. The mental performance was essentially day-trading stocks (Which neither twin had experience of) and the physical performance involved cycling. Although your body can burn fat to produce energy, it doesn't do it quickly enough for hard exercise, so you end up burning muscle mass instead which is typically the opposite effect that you want from exercise.
Sounds like you eat a similar diet to myself. I eat vegetarian with fish (pescetarian), but also avoid gluten (partially gluten sensitive, not full-blown coeliac) which means that I tend to eat more vegetables than grains.
I'm surprised you didn't get enough B12 from the mackerel.
Know how to find out if someone can talk? Just wait, they'll tell you.
I'm not a fan of Atkins, but you're bang on the money about temporary diets.
Nope. Onions are mainly carbohydrate (like most vegetables) and have a host of useful nutrients.
Onions can help to reduce inflammation; they're high in chromium (helps to regulate blood sugar); raw onions promote HDL cholesterol production and they contain a variety of organic sulphur compounds.
The only times you should be avoiding onions is if you're going on a hot date; it's a raw onion that has been sliced and kept around for a while or you're a dog (they cannot metabolise onions and it'll generally kill them).
That seems to be a bit of a non sequitor, but I reckon you came from your mom. Probably from the USA if I had to guess a region.
There was an interesting BBC Horizon documentary (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03t8r4h/) on food a couple of weeks ago that tried having a pair of twins go on high fat or high sugar diets for a month. The really interesting part was at the end of the show where they discovered that the very worst foods were ones with a 50/50 fat/sugar ratio. Apparently, fat and carbohydrates aren't found together in nature, so our bodies are tricked by that combination into finding it irresistible.
Moderation in all things. Especially including moderation.
In general, listening to your body is a good idea, but you have to bear in mind that our bodies are a result of evolution and as such our bodies will try to hoard as many calories as possible.
Also, our bodies are very poor at judging when to stop eating foods that are 50% fat and 50% carbohydrate as that combination almost never happens in nature, yet we find it in ice-cream/donuts/chocolate etc.
In addition, our bodies have no idea about long term health as once you get past reproduction age, evolution gets a lot less interested in your genes.
So, always listen to your body except when it's wrong.
Not exactly. Typically, meat means the flesh of a mammal or bird. Every shop/restaurant I've been in has quite clearly separated meat and fish (except for the obvious surf'n'turf meals). After all, you wouldn't say "meat is fish" would you?
Except for all the statistical studies that show longer lifespans and better health.
Probably not. Being male and everything. Also, voice class?
If someone quotes the Daily Mail to me, I'll just disregard their argument without bothering to check if it's one of the very occasional accurate articles. If someone quotes a more credible source, then I'll take time to investigate.
To be honest, you'd be better off quoting some drunk who's living homeless on the street rather than the Daily Mail as the drunk wouldn't bother to twist everything to fit an evil agenda.
Sometimes... but most of the time you just drag yourself down to their level.
Not defending them, but it's not murder unless they're killing humans. "Slaughtered" would be a better word to use.
Mmmm! Finger-lickin' good! (Especially with green ketchup)
That's an interesting question as it will separate vegetarians into different groups according to their reasons for eating vegetarian. A lot of people assume that vegetarians are a single group with a shared set of beliefs and aims, but that's not the case at all. I'm a pescetarian (vegetarian with fish) for a whole bunch of reasons: health, resource usage, mistrust of modern animal husbandry etc.
Animal welfare is not a major concern for me (although I like animals and abhor cruelty), but I think I would abstain from lab-grown meat as I'm not convinced that it would necessarily be a healthy addition to my diet. I'd wait until there were some positive reasons to eat lab-grown meat as I'm not convinced that it would be anything other than a rich-person's food and thus not sustainable world-wide.
I think it'd be far more interesting for a company to start producing lab-grown long pork. That would start the real ethical debates.
I think you'd be surprised by just how much "religion" is actually just made up shit. There's now so many different deities and religions that you can point at almost any idea and say that it was predated by some religious type.
However, there is a whole world of difference between some nutter saying that the voices told him that the world began in fire and scientists proposing actual mechanisms and refutable experiments.
I do agree that cultural diversity is useful and important to scientific progress as approaching problems from different angles is a good thing and can often lead to breakthroughs.