Originally Posted by hummingmom
IMO, it makes the most sense to choose one traditional way of eating
(either from a specific country, or a more general category such as coastal Asian, European agrarian, hunter-gatherer, etc.), learn as much about it as you can, and then prepare most of your meals along those lines, while applying Price's guidelines for maximizing nutrient density. It doesn't necessarily have to be the diet of your own ancestors; Stefansson
did well on the meat-based diet he learned from the Inuit, and, conversely, so did Native American children who were put on a "white man's diet" that was based on raw milk and whole grains. Still, there's a lot to be said for cultural connectedness.
This makes so much sense to me. I am still confused about food and diet in a huge huge way. But it does make sense to me to simplify ad get down to basics and not do too much mixing and matching. I would love to learn more about the local diet where I live, with my ancestry being highly mixed and my sons ancestry being even more complex. Food and nutrition definitly has the potential to be a full time job.
Originally Posted by savithny
I've been reading anthro/bio articles on various diets and dietary adaptations of different groups, and read a really interesting one the other day about the adaptation of different groups of Plains Indians. Groups that lived out on the plains lived largely off Bison, and the researchers were interested in the fact that those groups had such strong beliefs and taboos that they would nto eat fish, even when the fish were spawning in the streams they got their water from. Fishing is one of the easiest ways to get large amounts of good fat and protein -- yet high Plains groups would eat fat-depleted bison rather than rich fatty fish. It turns otu that there was so little fat in bison meat by the end of the winter that their stomachs were not adapted to the amount of fat in the fish, and eating fish would cause fat malabsorption syndrome and make them sick. Instead, those groups would combine their low-fat bison with stored carb foods --- dried berries and tubers that they dug up -- to ensure that they didn't die of "lean protein starvation."
Groups living at the edges of the plains would eat the fish -- but they did not rely as much on bison, but ate more different foods and also a lot of nuts, so their stomachs could handle the sudden surge of dietary fat when the spawning fish showed up in the spring.
So even groups who were closely related and lived quite close together would have a very different diet with very different fat/protein/carb percentages -- but they were adapted very well to the lifestyle that they led.
Your post highlighted for me how wrong we can be with assuptions. As I was reading your post I was wondering how it was that these people had a taboo against a potentially healthy food option. And yet it turns out there was wisdom in that choice.
I worry that we are so far removed from the ability to study and know health that we will have lost it before we even know which questions to be asking. But that is totally OT
Originally Posted by crystalsun
Thanks for the heads up... I'm still new here and didnt realize I was going against the guidelines... I was just looking for information and I know that the Mothering mamas know what's up.
I have learnt so much from mothering mama's
This place has me questioning all sorts of assumptions I had.
I am still trying to figure things out for myself.