With so much being written recently about what to eat, and what not to eat, I sometimes have a hard time trying to keep it all straight. Is wheat ok? Dairy? Red meat? Kangaroo? Ok, maybe that one doesn’t come up too often in my neck of the woods, but it gets frustrating sometimes that the medical community doesn’t speak with one voice, and we are all left up to our own devices to figure out what is really true, and what is only pretending to be true.
I’ve heard about the Paleo diet, GAPS diet, raw food diets, and of course vegetarian and vegan, plus tons of others that I don’t even remember the names of. And it seems to me that many of these diets or lifestyles are just as concerned with curing specific symptoms and conditions as with the taste or morality of any particular dietary choice.
I’m not trying to cure any specific physical ills, for myself or my family. And I’m not an absolute moralist when eating. I have no guilt when eating the meat of responsibly raised animal, though I can no longer bring myself to purchase factory meat from overcrowded, over-medicated and diseased farm factories.
So if I’m not trying to cure any particular ills, nor eating to follow any particular guru or published health plan, what are my guiding principals? What’s the plan, why even worry about what I’m feeding my family?
My biggest concern is looking forward, both to my future as well as my children’s. The leading causes of death today in America are cancer and heart disease. And that’s just the number of people who actually die from those two diseases, how about the millions of people who develop cancer or heart disease, but are kept alive by modern medical attention, and then die of some other cause? Cancer and heart disease, those appear to be the two biggest health concerns of modern life.
There are two other subjects that jump out at me and seem obvious when looking at this chart. First, this chart doesn’t seem to include the catastrophic health consequences of diabetes, and complications surrounding the enormous boom our society has seen in the incidence of that horrible disease. Diabetes is listed as the 7th highest cause of death, but I think as more and more research is published that we will see that the complications and end result of diabetes will show up in other categories on charts like this one. That is, if you suffer from diabetes, you are also more likely to die from heart disease, so which category does that fall under?
And second, the three leading causes of death in 1900 were all infectious diseases, which have been reduced to such a large extent that they no longer seem a real possibility for most people. I find it very difficult to look at this type of data and not come away with the conclusion that antibiotics and immunizations have been a tremendous boon to the health of our society. I will certainly not say that there have never been complications for a small minority of patients, or that I know for sure that our current schedule of administrating immunizations is the perfect model, but overall, the numbers speak for themselves. By and large, people in our society simply aren’t very likely to die of pneumonia, tuberculosis or other infectious diseases, and that’s a good thing.
I realize that what follows is a bit of a simplification, but it seems to me that two of the biggest changes our society has seen in the past 100 years or so, aside from antibiotics and immunizations, are the detection and classification of heart disease, and the rapid growth in use of highly processed industrial food products, like canola oil, Crisco, margarine, tv dinners and drive through restaurants. I can’t do much, and don’t intend to try, to change the way heart disease and cancer are diagnosed and treated in this, and other industrialized countries.
But what I can control, and intend to do so, is what I eat and what I prepare for my family to eat. If you believe, as I do, that the industrialized food products of the last few generations are at the root of our current batch of health problems, then the obvious solution is to remove as many objectionable items as possible from your daily selection.
So how do I know which products to skip and which ones to include in my diet? I just use my 150 year rule, but I could probably use the 100 year rule, or 200 year rule, they are basically the same thing. If I can imagine the food in question being eaten 100 or 150 years ago, then it’s probably ok for my family to eat. That doesn’t mean that I think it is necessarily healthy for me, such as homemade ice cream and cookies, but it means that I am a lot more comfortable with those foods than the modern processed and industrialized versions of the same food.
If the food item in question didn’t exist in the early 1900’s or late 1800’s, then I automatically question that food choice. Was it considered food 150 years ago?
Let’s try a few examples…
- Crisco – gross, just read this article – no way
- Beef or Pork – pretty sure pastured animals were around 150 years ago – absolutely
- Margarine – why you should never eat margarine – nope
- Fast Food – drive up restaurants in 1890? – don’t see it happening
- Eggs and dairy – seems like they would have been around – yes please, but only the full fat real deal for me, no low fat dairy and no eggs from chickens held captive in horrific conditions
- Diet Coke – with artificial sweeteners? – not a great idea
- Fruits and vegetables – of course
- Grapeseed, corn, soy, vegetable, canola oils – read up on these nasty oils – not in my house
- Flour – it’s been around for quite awhile, but I prefer the varieties that are older, not the modern wheat developed in the 1950’s and 60’s, this is a trickier subject so be careful.
- Sugar – same as flour, been around for hundreds of years, but it was harder to get and more expensive, so it wasn’t used as much in our past, so in moderation and preferably un-refined, then I’ll let it slide, but moderation is the key here, not too much!