Non-cooked, simple food is healthiest



Joseph Littleshoes wrote:

>
>
> French and Chinese are classic examples of this but Indian fits very
> well also. And the more expensive the restaurant is the less likely it
> is to exemplify the food of the people of the culture it is
> representative of, except in the most general way.
>
> Both China and India have had for a very long time, much longer than the
> west, the concept of "fast food" street vendors selling quickly and
> easily prepared foods of the people, but once you get these cooks inside
> a building, they begin to **** up their food in order to attract a more
> select clientele.
>
> In the west the restaurant we know to day is of fairly recent
> development. And owes much to the French revolution.
>

There are lots of places in the world where a lot of people live in a room
or small apartment without decent facilities for cooking. In places like
that they get their food from food vendors. I know several people who have
done the English teaching thing in the orient and they all got into the
habit of eating out most of the time. One niece recently went to Korea where
she says you can get a darned good meal for under $5. It's hardly worth
cooking at home for that price. When large numbers of people are getting
their food from the vendors and restaurants, it is safe to say that the food
of the restaurants is the food of the people.
 
On 10 Mar 2006 09:07:39 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>> haven't you heard that skin is really, really, really, really bad for you?
>
>Don't tell me I'm actually going to *learn* something in this thread.
>
>I thought potato skin was GOOD for you. Something about all the iron
>and minerals in dirt working their way into the skin.

The vitamins/minerals are concentrated in the skin, but so are the
toxins. It's one of those deals where you just have to do what you
like and know that you're missing something either way.

serene
 
serene wrote:

>
> >
> >I thought potato skin was GOOD for you. Something about all the iron
> >and minerals in dirt working their way into the skin.
>
> The vitamins/minerals are concentrated in the skin, but so are the
> toxins. It's one of those deals where you just have to do what you
> like and know that you're missing something either way.

There is selanum in the eyes and the green skin of potatoes. There no problem
with the skin if more mature spuds.
 
"Dave Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> serene wrote:
>
>>
>> >
>> >I thought potato skin was GOOD for you. Something about all the iron
>> >and minerals in dirt working their way into the skin.
>>
>> The vitamins/minerals are concentrated in the skin, but so are the
>> toxins. It's one of those deals where you just have to do what you
>> like and know that you're missing something either way.
>
> There is selanum in the eyes and the green skin of potatoes. There no
> problem
> with the skin if more mature spuds.
>
>

I wonder if, by "toxins", she also meant the **** that's sprayed on them.
Or, in the case of potatoes, the soil is fumigated.
 
[email protected] wrote:
>>I am talking about extended family in India who live simple lives, buy
>>their vegetables and fruits fresh, cook everyday using whole grains
>>and don't eat out at all.
>
>
> I apologize in advance for being ignorant; all I know of Indian food is
> what I find in restaurants, and it doesn't strike me as healthy. Yes,
> it's vegetarian, but it's also high in fat and sugar. Many dishes are
> deep-fried (I could live on samosas), and there's a reliance on dairy
> (ghee, milk, cheese). Don't even get me started on dessert: the ones
> that aren't solid sugar are made of coconut or sesame, right? AFAIK,
> those oils are one-way tickets to a heart attack.
>

I understand - if you think of Indian food as you find in restaurants in
the US. They are pretty badly made and greasy to boot. I am just talking
of everyday fare that is simple Indian food - steamed vegetables,
dhal(lentils), chapatis, plain rice, fresh fruit. The stuff you get in
restaurants here is usually North Indian banquet fare in India, hardly
eaten at homes all the time. When we were growing up, oil and sugar were
rationed to households, I don't remember the amount that each
ration-cardholder got, but I remember my mother had to plan carefully to
not run out.
 
"Kamala Ganesh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:hTIQf.221$Jz4.140@trnddc08...
> [email protected] wrote:
>>>I am talking about extended family in India who live simple lives, buy
>>>their vegetables and fruits fresh, cook everyday using whole grains
>>>and don't eat out at all.
>>
>>
>> I apologize in advance for being ignorant; all I know of Indian food is
>> what I find in restaurants, and it doesn't strike me as healthy. Yes,
>> it's vegetarian, but it's also high in fat and sugar. Many dishes are
>> deep-fried (I could live on samosas), and there's a reliance on dairy
>> (ghee, milk, cheese). Don't even get me started on dessert: the ones
>> that aren't solid sugar are made of coconut or sesame, right? AFAIK,
>> those oils are one-way tickets to a heart attack.
>>
>
> I understand - if you think of Indian food as you find in restaurants in
> the US. They are pretty badly made and greasy to boot. I am just talking
> of everyday fare that is simple Indian food - steamed vegetables,
> dhal(lentils), chapatis, plain rice, fresh fruit. The stuff you get in
> restaurants here is usually North Indian banquet fare in India, hardly
> eaten at homes all the time. When we were growing up, oil and sugar were
> rationed to households, I don't remember the amount that each
> ration-cardholder got, but I remember my mother had to plan carefully to
> not run out.

Oh no. Are you saying we've raped Indian cuisine here, in the same way we've
turned Chinese food into something never ever seen in China?
 
Dave Smith wrote:

> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > French and Chinese are classic examples of this but Indian fits very
>
> > well also. And the more expensive the restaurant is the less likely
> it
> > is to exemplify the food of the people of the culture it is
> > representative of, except in the most general way.
> >
> > Both China and India have had for a very long time, much longer than
> the
> > west, the concept of "fast food" street vendors selling quickly and
> > easily prepared foods of the people, but once you get these cooks
> inside
> > a building, they begin to **** up their food in order to attract a
> more
> > select clientele.
> >
> > In the west the restaurant we know to day is of fairly recent
> > development. And owes much to the French revolution.
> >
>
> There are lots of places in the world where a lot of people live in a
> room
> or small apartment without decent facilities for cooking. In places
> like
> that they get their food from food vendors. I know several people who
> have
> done the English teaching thing in the orient and they all got into
> the
> habit of eating out most of the time. One niece recently went to Korea
> where
> she says you can get a darned good meal for under $5. It's hardly
> worth
> cooking at home for that price. When large numbers of people are
> getting
> their food from the vendors and restaurants, it is safe to say that
> the food
> of the restaurants is the food of the people.

I expressed myself poorly. There are the equivalent of authentic street
vendors in buildings and no longer mobil 'street vendors'. That sell
good food at a good price and are primarily patronized by students and
the working class, some of these are real dives with bad food very
cheap. In my experience i am more likely to get bad food at a high end
restaurant than i am at a 'dive'. It has been my experience that a lot
more of the prestige type restaurants are more about being there, almost
as theater, than it is about dinning or even eating. There are of
course exceptions to this rule. Chez Paneese in Berkeley and i am told 1
Market in SF are very up scale expensive places but the food is superb.
And in the Michelin system one earns a star or 2 more with the food than
the décor.

I once ate at a French restaurant in SF that had Picasso's on the wall
Baccarat Crystal on the table with silver and porcelain, aubousson
carpets on the floor and a profusion of antiques and tromp l' oile
(sp?) decoration all very lovely and elegant but the food was awful,
however people did not really go there to eat or for nutrition.

Now Maxwell's Plum was great, equally elegant (at least IMO) yet not
pretentious and very good food.

Whatever end of the spectrum one comes from, in restaurants there is
always that subtle quality of it not being "home cooking" this home
cooking seems to be of a quality that is rarely if ever duplicated in
commercial establishments, but if there at all is more likely to be at
the lower (economic) end of the spectrum. Though i expect people to
argue this point, that the high end places couldn't exist if the food
was not superb, and in many cases it is but it is still just that much
further from the aforementioned 'home cooking' or 'food of the people',
the local ethnic cuisine unencumbered by fad, fashion or economics.
---
JL
 
Doug Kanter wrote:

> "Kamala Ganesh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:hTIQf.221$Jz4.140@trnddc08...
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >>>I am talking about extended family in India who live simple lives,
> buy
> >>>their vegetables and fruits fresh, cook everyday using whole grains
>
> >>>and don't eat out at all.
> >>
> >>
> >> I apologize in advance for being ignorant; all I know of Indian
> food is
> >> what I find in restaurants, and it doesn't strike me as healthy.
> Yes,
> >> it's vegetarian, but it's also high in fat and sugar. Many dishes
> are
> >> deep-fried (I could live on samosas), and there's a reliance on
> dairy
> >> (ghee, milk, cheese). Don't even get me started on dessert: the
> ones
> >> that aren't solid sugar are made of coconut or sesame, right?
> AFAIK,
> >> those oils are one-way tickets to a heart attack.
> >>
> >
> > I understand - if you think of Indian food as you find in
> restaurants in
> > the US. They are pretty badly made and greasy to boot. I am just
> talking
> > of everyday fare that is simple Indian food - steamed vegetables,
> > dhal(lentils), chapatis, plain rice, fresh fruit. The stuff you get
> in
> > restaurants here is usually North Indian banquet fare in India,
> hardly
> > eaten at homes all the time. When we were growing up, oil and sugar
> were
> > rationed to households, I don't remember the amount that each
> > ration-cardholder got, but I remember my mother had to plan
> carefully to
> > not run out.
>
> Oh no. Are you saying we've raped Indian cuisine here, in the same way
> we've
> turned Chinese food into something never ever seen in China?

Not quite yet, not completely but were getting there.
---
JL
 
Dee Randall wrote:


> Life Expectancy - India
> http://www.plan-international.org/wherewework/asia/india/?view=textonl
> y 64 years -- I assume this includes male and female
>
> Life Expectancy - U.S.
> All races 77 years - both sexes
>
> It would be interesting to know what the life expectancy difference
> would be if all Indians were eating the same diet and had healthful
> living conditions; or a diet that the American-Indians eat. Dee Dee

Medical care, especially for children, is a far more important
determiner of average life expectency.



Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)
 
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 11:17:37 -0800, in rec.food.cooking, serene wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 09:02:26 -0600, "jmcquown"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>> Most people agree that a potato is good food until you fry it or mash
>>> it and add salt and butter and milk to it. Then it becomes high
>>> calorie, high fat and probably less healthy. It is better just
>>> microwaved, boiled or baked, period.
>>>
>>Who are "most people"? I'd like to meet them. I'd also like to meet the
>>person who eats baked potatoes without adding some butter, sour cream or
>>even some other additions.
>
>I love plain baked potatoes, but I also like them with yummy fatty
>stuff on them. If I were to guess, I'd say *most* people think fried
>potatoes are really really good, or fast-food restaurants would
>suddenly be serving plain baked potatoes with their double
>cheeseburgers.
>
I put barbecue sauce on my baked potatoes, that's enough.

Doug
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/
 
"Joseph Littleshoes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>> Oh no. Are you saying we've raped Indian cuisine here, in the same way
>> we've
>> turned Chinese food into something never ever seen in China?
>
> Not quite yet, not completely but were getting there.
> ---
> JL
>
>

And let's not forget the so-called "Mexican" served in so many restaurants
here, many of whose ingredients are beyond the financial reach of many
people in Mexico.
 
Default User wrote:

> Medical care, especially for children, is a far more important
> determiner of average life expectency.


Medical care is also a far more important determiner of specific life
expectency (that is, a determiner for the individual, skip the
averages). This is a point that should be repeated. With all the
emphasis on diet and nutrition in the news, and with all connections
between specific diets and specific illnesses, it is easy to miss the
connection between car wrecks and death and the connections between lack
of medical care and death and the connections between infectious disease
and death, etc. Sometimes it sounds like every illnesses is a simple
matter of not eating enough brown rice and every individual who lived
before the days of processed foods lived a happy, healthy, long life
before dying peacefully in their sleep at age 90.


--Lia
 
>> Oh no. Are you saying we've raped Indian cuisine here, in the same way
>> we've
>> turned Chinese food into something never ever seen in China?
>
> Not quite yet, not completely but were getting there.
> ---
> JL
>

Over the centuries when other countries have invaded and they have
intertwined the two cuisines, I've heard it said that the cuisine has
changed for the good. All is not lost here with our melting 'pot' of
different ethnic cuisines.
Dee Dee
 
"Dee Randall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>> Oh no. Are you saying we've raped Indian cuisine here, in the same way
>>> we've
>>> turned Chinese food into something never ever seen in China?
>>
>> Not quite yet, not completely but were getting there.
>> ---
>> JL
>>
>
> Over the centuries when other countries have invaded and they have
> intertwined the two cuisines, I've heard it said that the cuisine has
> changed for the good. All is not lost here with our melting 'pot' of
> different ethnic cuisines.
> Dee Dee
>

Correct, but if you've ever tasted real Chinese food, you know that the
melting pot can get messy.
 
OK, let me explain it this way. If a rolled oat is "processed", your
body would have to somehow find it different. Same with the green bean.
Unless you eat green beans raw, a canned green bean (without added salt
was the example I used) is not processed either. Your stomach, health,
metabolism, is not able to tell the difference between a rolled oat and
a whole oat, assuming you also boil the oats before you eat them. There
is nothing ADDED to oats and green beans. Rolling and drying does not
change the food in this case. You couldn't make the same argument for
grapes vs. raisins however because a chemical change takes place there.
It seems to me you think packaging or packing is the same as
processing.
 
Now that's funny. Vegetarians do seem to be sensitive, quirky and a
little hypochondiacal, so maybe that explains the absenteeism. Perhaps
they just needed time off to meditate.

For me, it is strictly a choice based on health. My 9-year-old eats
meat and drinks 2% milk every day and I don't try to convert her, so I
really have no political agenda to change anyone's food preference
except my own. If I read a convincing article that said beef was
suddenly better for you, I would start eating it again, too. The jury
is still out, so perhaps it doesn't make a lot of difference whether
you eat meat or not. I think my diet is healthier for me, but that's
just an opinion. I am thin but I could easily gain weight even on a
vegetarian diet.
 
[email protected] wrote:

> OK, let me explain it this way. If a rolled oat is "processed", your
> body would have to somehow find it different. Same with the green bean.
> Unless you eat green beans raw, a canned green bean (without added salt
> was the example I used) is not processed either. Your stomach, health,
> metabolism, is not able to tell the difference between a rolled oat and
> a whole oat, assuming you also boil the oats before you eat them. There
> is nothing ADDED to oats and green beans. Rolling and drying does not
> change the food in this case. You couldn't make the same argument for
> grapes vs. raisins however because a chemical change takes place there.
> It seems to me you think packaging or packing is the same as
> processing.
>

Wait a minute! I do a lot of homecanning and I will tell you canned
green beans are most definitely processed whether or not you add salt.
The processing for string or wax beans is 20 minutes at 10 pounds
pressure. While good, they have a different texture, flavour and have
lost some nutrients because of the processing. The only difference
between my homecanned beans and store bought is the absence of
bug/animal parts, salt, and preservatives. Check the ingredient label
on green beans. They process *canned* green beans is a *processing
plant* also known as a *canning factory*. IMO drying does change the
food as it removes moisture that ultimately means on the molecular level
the food is changed. You say drying does not alter the food then use an
example using raisins? Raisins are dried grapes minus their water
content. So if according to your argument a chemical change takes place
when you dry grapes it is reasonable to say a chemical change takes
place to any food dried including oats.
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> OK, let me explain it this way. If a rolled oat is "processed", your
> body would have to somehow find it different. Same with the green bean.
> Unless you eat green beans raw, a canned green bean (without added salt
> was the example I used) is not processed either. Your stomach, health,
> metabolism, is not able to tell the difference between a rolled oat and
> a whole oat, assuming you also boil the oats before you eat them. There
> is nothing ADDED to oats and green beans. Rolling and drying does not
> change the food in this case. You couldn't make the same argument for
> grapes vs. raisins however because a chemical change takes place there.
> It seems to me you think packaging or packing is the same as
> processing.
>

Canned vegetables are heated during processing. In other words, they're
cooked.
 
Actually, I gave up meat for health reasons (you might say "perceived"
health reasons) and weaned myself off meat. At first I craved it. Then
I would only eat it once or twice a week and either turkey breast or
chicken breast only. One day I was having lunch with my daughter and
she was eating a steak and cheese at Subway. When she finished, there
was a lot left over so I thought I would finish it. I could not stand
the smell. That is a true story. Since then, I smell meat and it always
has a rotten, wild and gamey smell to it. I could choke it down no
doubt, but I don't really want or need to. There is no political agenda
or point I'm trying to make other than I don't eat meat and don't want
to. My 9-year-old still eats meat and drinks 2% milk every day. I don't
try to change her, so I wouldn't try to change strangers on message
boards.
 
No, a chemical change does not take place when you roll oats any more
than a chemical change takes place when you eat an apple vs. when you
place it in a juicer, then drink the entire result of juice plus apple
pulp. Oats are dried to begin with so they do not mold, so any oats you
buy whole or rolled are going to be dry. Visually, rolled oats are a
little different and I suppose you could make some esoteric, obscure
point that that difference could translate into some internal chemical
changes in how you perceive the food, but that nonsense aside, rolled
oats and whole oats are equivalent nutritionally. Corn Flakes are
processed. Rolled oats are not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back