[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [pct-l] Trail food
- Subject: Re: [pct-l] Trail food
- From: Brick Robbins <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 23:41:57 -0800
At 08:35 PM 3/15/00 , Brett Tucker wrote:
>The answer, of course, is that the durum semolina has been "enriched" or fortified with synthetic vitamins, which is the companies' way of attempting to put back what they took out during processing. The reason for this is economics, of course,
The main reason in NOT economics, it is what the public WANTS to buy. Most folks PREFER white bread. It may not be as good for them, but enriching it helps make up for the lack.
>but the real tragedy is that the FDA labeling makes no distinction between synthetic and naturally occurring vitamins.
As far as the vitamins on the label go: A, B, C, whatever, there are no differences between the natural and the synthetic vitamins, except for the certainly that the synthetic vitamins are really there, where the natural occurring ones depend largely on the soil quality, the ripeness of the grain when it was picked, and its age.
The main differences between whole and white, are the fiber content (by the way, sawdust is a good source of fiber) and other phyto-nutrients and vitamin isomers that have not bee well studied. I personally have little doubt that whole foods are healthier in the long run, but more because of what the process foods lack than from anything basically bad about them (with the exception of trans-fatty acids which are found in almost all packaged baked goods: look for hydrogenated oils).
>To the layman, these nutritionally bankrupt products appear entirely wholesome. Study upon study has proven otherwise, on lab rats and such, but the public knows nothing of the matter, because the food labels tell only "part of the truth."
I disagree that fortified products are nutritionally bankrupt for the reasons stated. For the most part the public doesn't give a rat's behind about health, or they wouldn't smoke and eat fatty foods, and they would wear their seat belts. In the big scheme of things, whole vs white bread doesn't make much of a difference in the health of someone eating the Standard American Diet (SAD).
> But what about "100% Whole Wheat" bread, as we find labeled on breads to and fro?
>Turns out that no bread on the market contains 100% Whole Wheat, at least in the way one would naturally discern that term.
By definition, "Bread" contains more than wheat. 100% Whole Wheat refers to the flour used to make the bread. Bread has more than just flour in it. If you think otherwise, then you have never made it, and that in itself is a shame.
>Apparently sawdust is a favorite among the diet bread makers, since it has zero calories, and it helps to bulk the product up.
Once again sawdust is pure insoluble fiber and is good for folks trying to improve their diet. As Ewel Gibbons said "Pine trees are edible."
> The ingredient, "spices," can contain any number of chemicals, including MSG, and the company does not have to indicate such even if the MSG content were as high as 40%...
MSG is a spice. So is Sodium Chloride, better known as "salt." This type of outrage against "Chemicals" is what makes http://www.dhmo.org/ so interesting. Have a look at it, and you will see the same line of reasoning used in this message I am replying to. Just as this message says the FDA is conspiring with the food industry http://www.dhmo.org/coverup.html implies that the EPA is conspiring to cover up the problems with DHMO.
> If Twinkies, or hamburgers, provide adequate nutrition for that particular hiker, then all may be well. But if they do not, then the mind and body will say so. And if the hiker is paying attention, then he should be able to correct the problem on his own, without scientific support.
Actually the main problems with a trail diet is the sheer lack of adequate calories. Nothing more and nothing less. We don't like to carry all the food we really need, because it weighs too much.This practice is NOT good for sustaining energy in long term activity. You CANT make it up in town.
Ultra runners stress their bodies in much the same way that thru-hiker do, and many actually cover similar distances (100+ miles a week) while training as a thru hiker does while hiking. Have a look at the food section of http://www.fred.net/ultrunr/ . Advice from folks who have experience. Good stuff.
For anyone who has read the Jardine books, it should be apparent that I am poking fun at Blisterfree (just a little bit) because his statements are right out of those books and delivered with much the same verve that Ray himself uses when preaching on this subject.
Hike your own hike, and eat whatever food you like, just eat lots of it.
Also feel free to disagree with me all you want.
* From the PCT-L | Need help? http://www.backcountry.net/faq.html *