To Eat or Not to Eat... Or What to Eat or Not Eat... Or Something...

“If beef is your idea of ‘real food for real people’ you’d better live real close to a real good hospital.”

--Neal Barnard, M.D.

Meat has always been a problematic question for modern humans, even for those who have chosen not to think about the problems associated with the consumption of meat.  Leaving aside the ethical questions for a moment, and just focusing on health, there are a handful of advantages posed by meat consumption (particularly seafood, but also including red meat), juxtaposed with an ever mounting pile of disadvantages (particularly as related to red meat).  We aren’t doctors, but we do think it’s a subject worth revisiting from time to time, particularly because most people on both sides of the consumption aisle are (to put it mildly) not used to discussing the matter politely.

Lest you think we’re going to dogmatically say “don’t eat it,” we’d like to start with some interesting data points from a 1999 metastudy of data from 5 different countries, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition: 

Dietary Style	Mortality Ratio
Pescetarian (fish eater)	0.82
Vegetarian (lacto-ovo)	0.84
Occasional Meat Eater	0.84
Regular Meat Eater	1.0
Vegan	(0.7 to 1.44 owing to limited data points)

Obviously, as is true of any population study, these findings do not mean that there are absolute truths applicable to each and every individual regarding healthy eating habits… but the trend lines are clear.  As a general rule, one would expect a person whose diet consists of no animal flesh other than fish or the occasional egg or dairy product to greatly outlive the person who has red meat at every meal.

It is interesting to note, of course, that the statistical differential between this optimal group and the occasional meat eaters is not particularly significant; there is a far greater difference between the frequent meat eaters and the occasional meat eaters (defined as someone who eats no more than two servings of red meat per week) than there is between the occasional meat eaters and the vegetarians and pescetarians.

Vegans, naturally, are in a category all to themselves, owing to the fact that their nutritional intake is perhaps more variable within their category than is true for any of the other categories – a careful vegan is better off than anyone.  A not-so-careful vegan?  May as well be playing in traffic.  We’ll get to why in a future post, more than likely, but the odds are that most vegans reading this blog probably know more about how to eat a healthy vegan diet than we do, anyway.  We’re more concerned with elucidating for the omnivore crowd for purely utilitarian reasons, so please, don’t feel excluded.  And for any vegans who don’t know about nutrients typically not available in plant sources, for heaven’s sake, go find yourself a vegan mentor who does.

Now then, back to meat…

We suspect that a great deal of the differential between the occasional meat eaters and the regular meat eaters has less to do with the dietary value of beef and more to do with the effects of a whole host of corollary factors – quantity consumed at any given meal, preparation methods, what else is eaten, etc.  For example, an occasional consumer of beef is more likely to consume fatty fishes (that is, fishes high in omega-3 fatty acids) than is a regular beef eater; as it turns out, omega-3 fatty acids are essential for a host of bodily functions that have a strong correlation to long-term health.  So… it’s not just that occasional beef eaters eat beef; it’s that they also eat other things in greater proportion than do frequent beef eaters.

Likewise, the occasional beef-eater (especially those who are doing their best to minimize the ecological impact they have vis-à-vis cattle raising method – hello grass-fed free-range, good-bye corn-fed, factory farmed) is much more likely than the regular beef-eater to be getting a healthy dose of dark green vegetables and healthy starches (long grain rice, quinoa, etc.) and is much less likely to be gobbling fried foods and processed flour and sugar – it’s not just what they are eating, it’s also what they are not eating.

Then, too, the occasional beef-eater is more likely to be a gourmand, someone who takes the tastes they consume seriously, and is therefore not likely to be eating lower quality cuts of meat, nor are they likely to be eating processed meats.

And, as it turns out, there are strong correlations between heavy consumption of processed meats (hot dogs, bologna, pepperoni, spam, etc.) and several different cancers, as well as cardiovascular disease.  Those same correlations are not found to be red-meat specific.  In other words, there is something about the way in which the meat is processed which makes it inherently unhealthy.  Much the same can be said for processed flour, processed sugar… seems like maybe processing is a bad idea, no?

Lest you think this means there is a green-light for beef consumption, though, just so long as you’re paying extra for the grass-fed good stuff, there are other considerations that require attention. 

Heterocyclic amines (HCAs) are chemical compounds containing at least one heterocyclic ring (atoms of at least two different elements) and at least one amine (nitrogen containing) group – long story short, it’s just a category of organic compounds.  A lot of them are not only beneficial, they are downright essential.  Niacin would be a good example. 

However, there are several HCAs which are classified as carcinogenic (cancer causing), and they are created by the charring of flesh.  Like you might find in, say, the famous “bark” (that tasty outside crust) on a particularly well cooked brisket.

Let that sink in for a minute… the thing that demarcates beef as “really good” for certainly most Texans, and we’re guessing most people in other parts of the world… is carcinogenic.  Not “might be”, but “is”.

Now, can you cook red meat without charring it?  Yes, you can.  Does it still satisfy your meat cravings?  We can’t answer that for you.  And depending on the method one chooses, there may still be other health risks involved – meat cooked on a grill or over a flame which is not hot enough to char (and therefore not hot enough to create carcinogenic HCAs) may also not be hot enough to destroy flesh-borne pathogens (bacteria and viruses).  Microwaves can kill those pathogens without charring the meat, but they also have the nasty side effect of changing the chemical composition of meat (and of anything else they are used to heat) in unpredictable and hard-to-quantify ways, especially when cooked in, on, or near plastics.  Microwaves do break down a variety of prions, though, which may be beneficial, in light of…

Prion disease.  One form of which is known as Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE).  Also known as “Mad Cow Disease”.  There are actually variations of this particularly nasty affliction for every kind of consumable mammalian flesh, including human flesh, if you’re into cannibalism.  And while some sources of beef are free-and-clear of the potential for BSE (that would be local, free range grass-fed beef), the vast majority of red meat sources for grocers, restaurants, etc. are not. 

Safeguards in place are laughable, given that the only protection measures in place are to prevent the use of bone meal made with already infected animals.  These measures are sensible, of course, in that allowing contaminated animals to be used to make feed for non-contaminated animals would, naturally, spread the condition around.  The problem is, this approach ignores how the condition started in the first place.

Spongiform encephalopathy, whether of the bovine or other variety, is a condition wherein prions (protein fragments which are self-replicatable, but do not comprise a complete RNA or DNA sequence) run amok in the host animal; they invariably attack the central nervous system, and are only noticeable by their effects.  Autopsies done on diseased animals (including affected humans) will find brains eaten away like millions of little swiss-cheese bubbles.

And while on extremely rare occasions these prions are a more-or-less spontaneous creation in a genetically prone individual… on more occasions than not, these prions are created during the process of ingesting, digesting, and metabolizing flesh from a creature with similar DNA to the affected animal’s own DNA.  Hence the references to cannibalism.

Most beef (and pork… and chicken… and farm-raised fish) in the United States (and increasingly in the rest of the world) is “factory farmed” – that is, raised in cramped conditions and fed a slurry made from a mixture of corn, bone meal, and animal wastes (recycled poop, yum!); which means most meat sources are, in fact, cannibal meat sources.  Animals who have eaten their own kind, or a kind awfully similar to their own.

Given these conditions, it’s not a question of if some new strain of encephalopathy will emerge; it’s a question of when will it make itself known. 

Now, there are a few factors limiting the likelihood of onset, and they should be almost as troubling as the event they are forestalling.  A good example is the famed “pink slime” of McDonald’s fame.  Various industrial processes, such as the “cold pasteurizing” (euphemism for irradiation) of meat, or the use of ammonia-baths, etc. are good for removing bacteria, viruses, and even (in the case of irradiation) prions… though if those procedures don’t make you nervous, you are either very brave, or very drunk.

All of which, we are sure, has by now convinced you that it might be easier just to forego that big platter of ribs you were planning on smoking this weekend, right?

No?

Well, at least let us convince you to spend a few extra dollars to make sure that if you are going to continue to be a meat eater, you get your beef from a healthy source.  Archer-Daniels-Midland will do just fine on their own without you throwing away years of your life just to line their pockets.

And make sure that you eat plenty of veggies along with your main dish of choice, no matter in which longevity category you’ve decided to plant yourself.  As we noted when first breaking down the meaning of the statistics, it is quite likely what unhealthy folk aren’t eating that is putting them in the wrong categories; dark green veggies and fatty fishes top that list, so hop to!  We like you; we’d like to have you around reading our blog for a long, long time.

Happy farming!

Little Italy in the Sticks

Research at Indiana University in Bloomington, reported in the American Heart Association journal Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, confirms what many foodies have believed for years – a Mediterranean-style diet is not only tastier, it is also healthier.

A diet characterized by low saturated fats and high consumption of fish, fruit, vegetables, legumes, nuts, olive oil, whole-grain cereals, and moderate alcohol consumption reduces the risk of developing heart disease.

An intensive study of identical and fraternal male twins, the key findings showed that the Mediterranean diet is strongly correlated to a higher heart rate variability (HRV), which is a key measure of the health of autonomic system control of heart function.

As luck would have it, many of the foods eaten throughout the Mediterranean region are relatively easy to grow in the Brazos Valley.  We don’t have anchovies or sardines locally, but we do have ready access to most of the same fruits and vegetables, beans, nuts, and olive oil as our counterparts from Gibraltar and points East.

We have even painted our little homestead in a Morrocan style, so as to heighten the similarities.  While culturally, Bryan/College Station often seems like the sociological equivalent of mayonnaise, there are plenty of reasons to think of it agriculturally as “Little Sicily”.  We at Myrtle’s place would like to play up some of these similarities in hopes that this meme is infectious.

For starters, if you can’t grow Mediterranean herbs in Brazos County, you are hopeless as a gardener.  We have six different kinds of basil, some of which is gone to seed and growing willy-nilly wherever it chooses.  Our rosemary is equally prolific, and provides year-round greenery everywhere it is planted.  Oregano, thyme, lavender, mint, coriander and chamomile round out the essential Old World herbs in our garden; everything necessary for the spices of Spain and Portugal, Morrocco and Algeria, Italy and Greece, Turkey and the Levant, they all grow here, though some require a little more care than others.  We would bore you with our English herbs, but they are, frankly, as boring as English food.

Fruit trees are a little trickier, but we still have plenty of variety to choose from.  Pomegranates will grow anywhere you could grow yaupon; since yaupon grows like a weed in almost all of South/East Texas, that means pomegranates can also grow like a weed around here.  Several species of plum tree do quite well here, and we have noticed some successful peach plantings around town, although we typically think of peaches as a Hill Country fruit.  Pears are not quite so successful, and apples, although they will grow here, are nowhere near as tasty as one would like.

Dwarf citrus specimens do extremely well here, too, although you really have to plant the dwarf variety and keep them in pots, because even though we don’t get below freezing on a regular basis, we do occasionally get well below freezing, making it absolutely essential to get citrus trees indoors.

Grapes perhaps demonstrate the greatest similarity between our climate and that of the mediterranean.  There are several species of wild grape in the Americas, and all of them are native Texas plants.  In addition, several domesticated varieties of wine grape do well here.  In fact, the Messina Hof winery produces some of the best wines, particularly dessert wines, that we have ever tasted.  It is no accident that the Texas Reds festival held in downtown Bryan every year is a fast-growing event.  Global warming is putting California wines on the endangered species list; this is certainly a shame, but it appears that California’s loss will be the Brazos Valley’s gain, because the area’s climate is hospitable to vintners already, and is likely to only become more so over the next several decades.

Most Mediterranean vintners would cringe at the suggestion, but we will be making wine with other berries, as well.  We have written before about our bounteous blackberries; this year, we will be adding raspberries to the mix.  Throw in honey from our own bees, and we will be producing organic wines soon with very, very few ingredients not produced on our own property.  It will be less Bordeaux and more paisan, of course, but we don’t really mind; it’s the peasants in the Mediterranean who cook the most interesting food, so we will be more than happy to drink the same wine, too.

As for vegetables, if it grows in Sicily, it will grow here.  The smaller varieties of tomato do best – Roma, cherry, grape.  You can grow bigger tomatoes if you so choose, but for spring plantings, the quality will not be quite what you desire, and the quantity will be exceedingly limited.  In the fall garden it is possible to get away with a little more ambition, because the limiting factor for tomatoes is the heat – they do not set fruit well when temperatures are over 90°.

Eggplant, squash, spinach, peppers, zucchini, cucumbers, these are the “low hanging fruit” of vegetable crops for Brazos Valley gardeners.  We also do melons quite well.  Again, if you can picture it being eaten by a large family on a beautiful rustic table set up on a terra cotta paved veranda overlooking an azure sea, and being washed down by a sweet red wine with anisette or lavender overtones, accompanied by fresh-baked bread and maybe a little goat cheese, then you can grow it in southeast Texas.

Olives, too, grow here.  At Myrtle’s place we were rather excited this year to get our olive trees in the ground; that puts us a good four years out from actual production, but that’s closer than we were this time last year.  Patience is a virtue, particularly when the payoff is so incredibly delicious.  For those who can’t wait that long, there are several olive groves in Texas which have started olive oil production, and the critical reviews thus far are stellar.  We suspect that this will soon become a staple crop for the state, limited only by the imaginations of potential growers.  Our own grove will probably top out somewhere around 12-15 trees, so we will not be considered “major” producers by any stretch, but that is more than enough to press our own oil and still have enough fruit left over for table servings.

The bad news in all of this Mediterranean-mania is that pigging out on foods drenched in alfredo sauces and smothered with shredded romano and chased by tiramisu, cheesecake, and pannetone continues to be unhealthy, regardless of any study praising other Mediterranean foods.

But if you’re going to have to exercise moderation, shouldn’t you couple that exercise with a touch of decadent taste?  Eating healthy, let us be frank, sucks.  Eating tasty, on the other hand, absolutely rocks, in spite of the fact that in the case of Mediterranean foods, it is also healthy.

Myrtle is willing to ignore the manipulative qualities of such word games if it means she gets fresh eggplant parmegian and a nice salad with a raspberry-pomegranate vinagrette followed by a plum parfait.

Agricoltura felice!

Distill or not Distill, That is the Question

And thou camest forth with thy rivers, and troubledst the waters with thy feet, and fouledst their rivers.   --Ezekiel 32:2

We wouldn't have brought it up, of course, if the answer was "Not distill".  But we have a history of taking a strong opinion on subjects where science has been woefully silent.  Best compost practices are our favorite example.

Distilled water is another.  There are all sorts of pseudo-scientific claims about "potential death" from drinking distilled water, much of it (like the linked article) based on fanciful thought experiments which, even if they were true, would be easily mitigated by simple precautions.  Take the "acidity" claim, for example.  Distilled water supposedly acidifies with contact with the air.  Okay, if that's true... then maybe I should keep my distilled water in a glass container?  Hmmm?  Anybody think of that?

The real problem, of course, is that nobody has studied it.

We have a lot of anecdotal evidence of medical professionals saying there are "trace elements in tap water that you need in order to be healthy."  Really?  Which ones?  Why aren't they in my food or air?  What's so special about tap water?

On the other hand, the very "acidity" claim linked above is based on one of the most fundamental characteristics of distilled water that make it so beneficial -- stuff breaks down easier in distilled water.  Do you have any idea how much extraneous crap gets into your body?  From "trace elements" in tap water, to heavy metals poisoning, even when regulations exist, it doesn't help.

So what are we supposed to do?  Sit passively and just accept?

No.  That's not the Myrtle way.

We don't have any studies to back us; as indicated, nobody is taking the question seriously enough to do good science on it.  All we have is anecdotal evidence:

• For 10 years, we were unable to get pregnant.  Six months after starting to distill our own water at home, and one month after giving up, we conceived our son.
• Both of us have been very overweight in spite of eating well and exercising.  A year and a half after starting to distill our own water at home, and making very few other changes, we have both lost considerable amounts of body fat.
• For 20 years, we have been fighting allergies; some of that time medicated, some of that time, not.  A year and a half after starting to distill our own water at home, we don't seem to have as many allergy related problems (though, to be far, pulling up the carpet the minute we moved into our new home certainly helped as well).
• The salt crystals formed at the bottom of each container we distill are significant; frequently, for 2 1/2 gallons, we get two tablespoonfuls of "trace elements".  How much is chlorine?  How much is "other"?  We don't know; we just know it makes a good replacement for Ajax.
  

How much of that is quantifiably related to drinking water?  Your guess is as good as ours.  Commercially distilling water and storing it in glass (not plastic!) is prohibitively costly, so no company is going to do it.  There is simply no profit motive in studying the proper preparation and storage of drinking water, so expecting our profit-oriented system of university research to come up with good data on this (and many other) essential health question is just whistling dixie.

You want real health-care reform?  Start thinking about these kinds of questions, and taking matters into your own hands.

Happy farming!