[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
For example, Nate Green recently wrote in his blog something similar to (not in the mood to look up), “I don’t think grains were meant to be eaten by man” or something like that. What does this mean?![/quote]
That’s not what he said. He said:
“While he [Brian St. Pierre] goes on to recommend sprouted-grain breads (like Ezekiel bread), I normally don’t eat any bread. I don’t necessarily think that humans were meant to eat it. If you look at from an evolutionary perspective, we’ve only been engaged in agriculture for the past 10,000 years. That’s a blip on the scale. Before that, humans didn’t eat much cereal grains, relying instead on things they could hunt, pick, or dig up.”
http://thenategreenexperience.com/blog/4+Foods+I’ll+(Almost)+Never+Eat+Again/
It seems to be more of a comment regarding bread in particular (and/or processed grains and carbs in general). Knowing that he’s primarily speaking to people who have physique-based goals, you can should be able to put “meant to” into context without the meltdown you seem on the verge of.
And really, context is the whole thing with a phrase like that. You’re not meant to eat Hershey bars on the V-Diet. You’re not meant to eat tomatoes on the Green Faces Diet I just wrote about. You’re not meant to eat chili cheese fries if you have hypertension. You still can eat any of those, of course, but it would be contrary to your overall nutrition and/or health goals.
On a side note, Brick, buddy, this seems like another issue where you’re getting worked up over something really doesn’t need to be causing you this much frustration. If you were actually wondering what Nate meant by the term, he’s easy enough to contact. If you were looking for a chance to rant out loud about a vague topic without thinking it through and figuring it out like I know 100% you’re able to do, then that’s something different. But really, do we need to debate the definition of the term “meant to”?
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
[quote]SkyNett wrote:
if it can be utilized by your body to produce ATP, and it isn’t harmful to you, you were meant to eat it.[/quote]
In a simplistic world I can agree with that.[/quote]
x2. Though some could take issue with the range given the term “harmful.” Deadly poisonous like drinking Drain-O is more harmful than mild gastric upset from drinking whole milk. Just saying, if people are looking to nit-pick ::cough, Brick, cough, cough:: that would be the one potential hang-up.[/quote]
Great post Chris.
Perhaps I appear more frustrated than my writing indicates. And by no means am I trying to go after Nate Green, because after all, I like the guy - like his articles and he seems to be just a likeable sort of dude - unlike another author who I USED TO like until he became someone that APPEARS (I don’t know him; he might ACTUALLY be a good guy still) through his writings to have degenerated into a puffed up, over judgmental narcissist who has no problem badmouthing my profession when in fact he knows little about it and has ZERO experience in it. (This, along with insinuating that fat and homely people shouldn’t experience the joy of having sex or a relationship. How nice.)
I should have went back and checked what Nate specifically, and I don’t have a PROBLEM with what he said. But it’s VERY vague?
Only 10,000 years of agriculture, a blip on the radar. Yeah, and? How does this explain why bread isn’t meant for consumption? What are the adverse effects of consuming bread? What’s going to happen?
He didn’t write this in regards to physique or performance–perhaps he shouldn’t considering many people with stellar performance and physiques DO eat bread–but rather wrote it in regards to our evolution.
Of course you’re “not meant” to eat prohibited foods on diets for specific goals. I’m fine with the terminology in that sense. But to say something “isn’t meant for consumption by human beings” - that calls for some clarification.
Why do I get somewhwat worked up over this? Well, naturally so. If I’m trying to educate the residents or clients or perhaps the public as a whole as a dietitian-nutritionist, wouldn’t I be naturally somewhat or very annouyed with vague statements on food? [/quote]
I think these are valid points. Something that came to my mind also, when you mentioned the consumption of certain “bad” foods by top body builders, is the fact that inner health and outer health don’t always correlate.
A stunning physique doesn’t always indicate supreme health on the inside. For example, chronic inflammation, which is a trigger for a wide variety of illnesses, doesn’t always manifest itself on the outside. Certain foods do cause such reactions in certain people, and can have profound effects for the positive when removed from ones diet. Just a thought.
I would be very interested in any articles though that delve into this topic on a biological level, discussing foods and their interactions with our digestive systems, as I believe that such papers would be the most prudent in answering the original question.
