On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 18:33:35 +0000, Lazarus Cooke
wrote:

Frogleg wrote:

My belief (unsubstantiated by research) is that we have a fondness for
calorie-dense foods -- fat & sweet -- because plain ol' calories
supported life. A carrot is beneficial in terms of fiber and vitamin
A, but it doesn't contribute much to keeping the internal fires
burning. The Irish potato famine was devastating in part because many
people were existing on a diet of potatoes and damned little else.
They weren't particularly healthy, but potatoes supplied calories and
most vitamins, and could support life for some time with occasional
supplements of meat, fat, bread, and other veg.

Sorry, frogleg, I'm not picking a fight (promise) and shall be glad to
have a beer with you some day but this is totally wrong - in fact the
opposite of the truth. One of the most interesting points made in
Leslie Clarkson's book "Feast and Famine: a history of food and
nutrition in Ireland 1500-1920" is that the pre-famine Irish diet of
almost nothing but potatoes, (supplemented very occasionally by
herrings, cabbage, or bacon) was an extremely healthy one, with a very
good supply of very high-quality protein. The strapping good looks and
health of Irish peasants were frequently commented on. The one thing it
was a bit low on was fat (though obviously the herrings and bacon
supplied this).

Will have to look into this. I can't believe that a nearly all-potato
diet was healthy. I have read and researched that potatoes contian
some protein and most essential vitamins, except A. As I have posted
frequently, humans can survive on spectacularly inadequate diets. Your
teeth fall out; your hair thins; your eyesight dims; your bones break
easily; but you continue to live. Having not observed the "strapping
good looks and health" of Irish peasants of the 1840s, but only
sketches of emaciated people in rags, I am unable to comment
authoritatively. My time- and place-distant knowledge is that an diet
composed exclusively of potatoes and the odd slab of bacon would *not*
result in a healthy bloom.

In fact the Irish were much worse off nutritionally after the famine
was over, when they shifted the diet away from the almost exclusive
potato diet. I was myself very surprised by this, I must admit, but
I've talked to the author about it and he is totally convincing.

Did 'the author' explain a worse diet than nothing but potatoes
supplemented by occasional bacon or cabbage? What diet could be
*worse* that all-potato? All dirt? All tree bark?

So how many balanced, nutrition-complete diets have there been in
history?

I think most peasant societies develop an extremely healthy diet, and
unhealthy diets are a feature a few very rich countries. It can't be a
coincidence that the US has perhaps both the worst food tastewise and
nutritionally, until you get to some pretty poor places. Interestingly,
othere very rich countries such as Japan and Italy have a very
well-balanced diet.

I agree that traditional cuisines of various sorts are probably the
most reliable. While not a vegetarian, I respect and enjoy the veg
offerengs of many cuisines. Some USAsians seem meat-obsessed. Why
grilled chicken added to Caesar salad or fetuccini Alfredo?

It seems to me that many 'peasant' and vegetarian cuisines have
devoped as about as well-balanced as one could want. It seems to be
when cheap and/or calorie-dense foods are emphasized, that things get
out of balance.