At 05:57 PM 4/12/97 -0600, you wrote:
Pat:
>> Are any commonly found and eaten phytoestrogenic or chemical estrogen
>>look-alike compounds heat labile?
Kirt:
>Let's assume they aren't. Would you be tempted to cook all your veggies as
>a result?
Not at all, but would be less concerned when eschewing debatable market
produce and using my own organic but processed vegetables.(I do not blanch
tomatoes, corn (I buy this from an organic local), peppers; fruits (oh yes,
I have 5 blueberries, a small nectarine, 3 quince, a huge pear, an immature
pair of filberts, wild blackberries, raspberries, and am planting rhubarb
this spring--I am focusing on perennials when possible, adding hardy
artichoke this year and adding more asparagus. It would be pleasant to
eliminate this brand new feeling of question over these uncooked but frozen,
and the other cooked and frozen foods, such as squashes which do not freeze
well to my enjoyment, but which I will nevertheless continue to eat, as you
can well imagine. I reckon this will amount to 25% of my calories, and will
force me to be extremely circumspect about giving in to occasional falls off
of wagons. Not a bad or difficult regime, just could be healthier...because
it's a good thing I love to swim, as every time I try to walk on water I get
dunked.
(escargots)
>They have not yet tasted good enough to swallow for this fellow (the two
>time I tried this year).
I am not hungry enough to harm her.I released her a mile away near a stream,
she will have to swim across my lake to get back to the lettuce!
>No to hedging and must to documentation. Hmm, I shoulda left this one be
>like everyone else :/ ;)
Oh. Is that a problem? /(^v^)\
>The biggest problem with fruit is overeating it. When it is overeaten as
>part of a restricted diet (like fruitarian, or raw-vegan) the possibility
>for danger is enhanced. I think for folks like yourself who are eating a
>variety of foods there is less Danger. Nevertheless, most instinctos
>probably _limit_ their health by eating too much fruit.
Perzackly my thought, indeed it is. Particularly Mars types (of which there
are a plethora on this list) who are somewhat averse to green on a plateful
of steak and potato's unless it's key lime pie.
>Possibly, comb honey might be a better source of satiation for a sweet
>craving. One doesn't really expect that they will get "full" on honey and
>the stop is clearer than with many fruits.
I did find honeycomb locally, but simply stopped eating after half a small
jar, it was go-go-go, all the way as far as I could tell! I felt the need of
more worthwhile calories--but it does stave off the yearnings until the next
fill-up time.
>Personally, I do best when I wait until noon to eat fruit. If I eat fruit
>at 9 am I, like you, seem to be a bottomless pit for the rest of the day.
>It is almost as if too much fruit makes one hungrier (unbalanced) and
>curing the hunger with more fruit just exasperates things.
No, I don't go back to fruit, I meant that when I run out of one I must
needs change to another for that meal, not instinctive. Mid morning I enjoy
raw pine nuts which are highest in protein or somesuch instead. It's all
getting easier, as long as I listen to my body. To me hunger is a signal for
those not overweight with an overgrown food basket. I am not one of those, I
am slim, with healthy notice given if underfed!!
>I would venture that it is the cooked grains that are more of a time bomb
>in most diets. And it appears that fruits may be important in detoxing
>grains.
That's news, more on this, please So, perhaps, if one is cutting out grains
they may have a hard time
>limiting their fruit.
OK. What are detox symptoms of grain, and what are silent damages? I know
the paleaontology, the evolution--some adaptation has occured in 10,000
years, surely--if there is no overt symptom, what is the sort of quiet
damage you are so scared of, as long as the grain is organic, of course? The
phytoestrogens? Or something else? The same for dairy, also, if I may ask?
Inabilty to suckle another species is ~eating fish--we can't swim fast
enough to catch them, you see, from a prehistoric point of view. Same
reasoning, it seems to me.
> I think that 100% raw
>is less important than choosing the non-raw portion of your diet with
>loving care, so to speak.
Youse is smart, mon!
>Ceviche may be an important possibility as well..... Continue to experiment
with
>intelligent non-instincto meals--that's how you will find what works for
>you, no?
Yes.
>So there, Pat, I failed to document a single thing and gave you a hundred
>maybes, but perhaps you don't need answers as much as you may need to give
>yourself permission to cut yourself some slack in a way.
And that philosophy of teaching, Kirt, is why you must never hear "Goodbye,
Mr Chips"!!!
Pat
|
