搬到半城里的地方已经两个礼拜，又贵又小，能让我吹嘘的是附近走路就能到的一家书店Politics and Prose. 在本地颇有名气，前年我还在那里看过Jon Stewart来签名。上礼拜去转一圈，结果发现书店里竟然每天都有作者来发言和签名！别人可能觉得太nerdy了，可是对我来说，真是太太太腐败了，简直跟小K天天去吃Babbo一样腐败。今天终于去听了一次作者兜售讲座，兜售的是一本叫Real Food的书。讲饮食的书千千万万满坑满谷，这本书有它自己的专长。它鼓励你吃奶蛋肉鱼，别怕高胆固醇高脂肪。它要你忌的是人造食品，hydrogenated oil, corn syrup, 精制白面粉。
作者从小在农场长大，成年后＂听信医学误导＂吃了一年的纯素vegan diet，她说吃得她极其痛苦, 身体虚弱，心情忧郁，体重也上升了。。后来到伦敦工作，搞起了农夫市场，重新开始吃bacon, chicken skin, liver, 等等，讲话里把猪油lard大大地夸了一番。结果吃的一解禁，身体和精神状况哗哗上升，不必减肥身体便恢复旧观。她说她对很多外头的各种研究数据都仔细看过，发现权威说法里有许多漏洞。例如被普遍接受的饱和脂肪增加心脏病机会，不饱和脂肪降低心脏病机会，但实际上不是饱和脂肪的错，而是因为FDA标签把硬化植物油跟饱和脂肪算在一起，全是硬化植物油造成的后果。
她的说法我倒也在别处听说过，最近颇有一股运动，要为动物脂肪饱和脂肪翻案。在证据方面，数据最多比较可信的是哈佛的William Willet教授主张的多吃好油的地中海食谱。而且此人所说的low fat diet对健康无用的研究数据，我也有所耳闻。但是她说的一条我没听说过，需要去调查调查的，是LDL并不可怕，甚至不需要降得太低。这个跟我看到过的数据颇有分歧。还有一点满有趣的，她说人脑需要大量的omega-3脂肪，说明人是先有打渔业，再有种植业的。Omega-3虽然可以在核桃，荨麻籽里找到，但是吃鱼是最集中有效饿来源。
最后她说了半天bacon, steak, coconut oil, 蛋黄等等如何如何健康，我们的祖先吃了几十万年，我上去问：可是，问题是，我们祖先打渔种地，我们成天坐在不见天日的办公室里干活，就算吃得再健康也没用啊。她答道：别人经常问我热量收支的问题－－我以为她要说只要你吃real food就不必担心热量－－的确，就是吃real food也得注意点儿着吃，体力活动是不可缺少的。意料之中，唉，在这个问题上没捷径可抄啊。
外头的数据虽然乱七八糟，不过有一些基本规律是大多数研究都接受的（Atkins除外）：trans fat百害而无一利，最好完全不去碰它，橄榄油和含油量高的鱼，应该多吃。
Politics and Prose
作者说的话里倒未必全信，不过她说的有一点倒让我很有心得：她说现在的美国社会一提到吃就让人条件反射地联系到道德问题品质问题，好象吃奶油猪肉就是品德败坏，吃低脂低糖就是高人一等，搞得大家惶惶不可终日。书我没买，只翻了翻，在前言里看到：就算吃纯素能长生不死，对我来说享受美味更重要。对营养学我倒也没有太多研究，反正不管低脂还是低碳水化合物的diet，我都干不了，但是不可能不受到这种道德评判食物观的影响，吃巧克力吃面包老觉得特理亏似的。
她不是鼓吹Atkins，也不戒淀粉，但是她说她从小吃奶蛋肉，喜欢这个。基本上主要是鼓吹多吃经过时间考验的食物和烹调法，我想吃米吃面，只要粗一点，也是real food里面的。
她不是鼓吹Atkins，也不戒淀粉，但是她说她从小吃奶蛋肉，喜欢这个。基本上主要是鼓吹多吃经过时间考验的食物和烹调法，我想吃米吃面，只要粗一点，也是real food里面的。
What I really liked about her talk was actually this lesson: Don't worry too much about what's good for you. Just enjoy. I think most people without genetic defects know when to stop. Even a chocoholic like me cannot keep gorging on dark Belgium chocolate 3 meals a day for 30 days. Just stop beating yourself up or trying to maintain a sense of control through food. Live a little. Enjoy.
It would be too expensive to shop for groceries at WholeFoods all the time. Some local farmer's markets are reasonably priced. No need to obsess over eating PURE ORGANIC food or over what's good for you and what can kill you. Less processed is good, but this is just food. We're all going to die soon enough.
And once a person gets away from the obsession and urge to control and blame onself, moderation isn't really that hard. The irony I have observed is that the more you want to control your own life, the more miserable you are. Not that I'm cured of the controlitis myself...
And once a person gets away from the obsession and urge to control and blame onself, moderation isn't really that hard. The irony I have observed is that the more you want to control your own life, the more miserable you are. Not that I'm cured of the controlitis myself...
我觉得“激素肥料“毕竟还是二手的artificial，动植物经过自身的合成，还是产生出正常的糖，蛋白，脂肪，纤维素给人吃。可怕的是一手的artificial象薯片，soft drink，有自然界中不存在的营养不平衡和高热量，在让大脑产生饱足感之前就已经摄入了太多。如果是吃纯猪油，在吃进和一大包薯片同等多的猪油以前人已经要吐了，可是薯片吃一大堆才只垫了个底儿，完全不饱。特别是trans-fat，已经有研究证明trans-fat剌激体内的胆固醇合成(cell paper!)。另一个原因，我想，可能是trans-fat不象天然存在的脂肪一样剌激神经系统产生“够了“的信号。当然这是我乱猜的。
美国加拿大的胖子真多。我有的时候走在路上数一下，觉得百分之七十的人都明显超重。
植物蛋白虽然也是蛋白，但是氨基酸组成有bias。特别缺少Lys and Tyr，我记得。还都是人不能合成的。
欧洲的食谱和美国的本来很象，但欧洲不象美加可乐当水，薯片当饭。所以肥人也少得多。爱尔兰的烹调极坏，不太会吃鱼，没有橄榄油，一般人家里就是吃meat and potato，煮得烂糟糟的那种。连爱尔兰也没有那么多肥人。还是生活习惯的问题。
美国加拿大的胖子真多。我有的时候走在路上数一下，觉得百分之七十的人都明显超重。
植物蛋白虽然也是蛋白，但是氨基酸组成有bias。特别缺少Lys and Tyr，我记得。还都是人不能合成的。
欧洲的食谱和美国的本来很象，但欧洲不象美加可乐当水，薯片当饭。所以肥人也少得多。爱尔兰的烹调极坏，不太会吃鱼，没有橄榄油，一般人家里就是吃meat and potato，煮得烂糟糟的那种。连爱尔兰也没有那么多肥人。还是生活习惯的问题。
http://harps.yculblog.com
搬家了搬家了
搬家了搬家了
Totally agree. One thing though about antibiotics and hormones fed to cows -- they are often excreted through milk. So the milk we drink could directly contain these unnatural substances.我觉得“激素肥料“毕竟还是二手的artificial，动植物经过自身的合成，还是产生出正常的糖，蛋白，脂肪，纤维素给人吃。可怕的是一手的artificial象薯片，soft drink，有自然界中不存在的营养不平衡和高热量，在让大脑产生饱足感之前就已经摄入了太多。如果是吃纯猪油，在吃进和一大包薯片同等多的猪油以前人已经要吐了，可是薯片吃一大堆才只垫了个底儿，完全不饱。特别是trans-fat，已经有研究证明trans-fat剌激体内的胆固醇合成(cell paper!)。另一个原因，我想，可能是trans-fat不象天然存在的脂肪一样剌激神经系统产生“够了“的信号。当然这是我乱猜的。
美国加拿大的胖子真多。我有的时候走在路上数一下，觉得百分之七十的人都明显超重。
植物蛋白虽然也是蛋白，但是氨基酸组成有bias。特别缺少Lys and Tyr，我记得。还都是人不能合成的。
Current evidence ALL agree that trans fat is very very bad for you, because the body cannot efficiently digest and metabolize it. It induces the inflammatory and unhealthy storage process. Medically we don't know exactly the mechanism, but as far as I know it creates mini-chaos in our fat-processing system in the body.
Trans fat is margarine, ie, hydrogenated vegetable oil. Even moderation is bad. It's just bad bad bad, at least according to today's evidence.
Like Fire said above, tofu protein is not complete for humans and is missing a couple of essential amino acids (ie, amino acids that we cannot manufacture in the body and have to bring in through food source).
Trans-Fat就是不饱和的植物脂肪人工加氢使变成饱和脂肪。天然的饱和脂肪是顺式的cis，（两个氢原子在一侧，两个长链碳在另一侧）。人工加氢的饱和脂肪酸是反式的trans，氢原子和碳链分别在不同的一边。Margerine“植物牛油“就是trans-fat，以前人们以为植物油比动物油好，工业生产的trans-fat比天然牛油便宜，所以很是风行了一阵子。
http://harps.yculblog.com
搬家了搬家了
搬家了搬家了
Yeah, the so-called benefits of trans fat and margarine were nothing but commercialism propaganda. The real reason for hydrogenated oil is that it is CHEAP. It is cheaper and more stable and as tasty as animal fat. Used in store-bought cookies and chips and everything packaged, it stays in cross-country shipping containers and on the store shelf longer (just imagine how long lard or butter would last) going bad and losing flavor. And McDonalds love it because they can fry and fry and fry in the same vegetable oil, and the fries would still come out crispy. And because of the heavy political lobbying from the food industry and farming (everything corn), government agencies like USDA put out a lot of recommendations in favor of them without sound scientific evidence. Marion Nestle (no relations with the Nestle food company) has written books and many articles about this topic. She is probably one of the most knowledgeable and credible figure who's been speaking for public interest in the past decades.
Marion Nestle, William Willet are two well known people in nutrition who as far as I know is not out to make a buck on the suckers that we all are. So I place more (measured) credibility in things they say.
Marion Nestle, William Willet are two well known people in nutrition who as far as I know is not out to make a buck on the suckers that we all are. So I place more (measured) credibility in things they say.
Oh, and another scary thing I've read somewhere is that the mass produced food, like the pretty glossy large apples and pink/orange farm-raised salmon in the supermarket, apparently have a lot less nutrients than they are supposed to contain. Someone did an analysis on the nutrients (vitamins, minirals, etc.) and found that supermarket apples have only 60% of the nutrients in the wild type. And this isn't necessarily going to be resolved by organic farming, although perhaps organic is better. If the soil is depleted too much or something... I don't know. I'm the last person to talk intelligently about farming, but you get the idea.
不要碰的东西的list: Margerine, chips，cookies，bakery (trans-fat?), icecream (trans-fat?), soft drink，好像还是个可以接受的list, 没有什么是日常生活“必不可少”的。如果嗜甜症大发作，别在超市里买，去好点心店犒劳自己一下吧。万一不幸吃了一包薯片或者喝了一杯可乐，也不是世界末日。
我不太考虑吃的科不科学的问题，米面肉蛋蔬菜，几千年都这么过来了。至于重金属沉积，我不是日本人，很少有机会吃深海鱼类。
偶尔吃一趟，也不是太要紧，重金属中毒还有个safe margin呢。
我不太考虑吃的科不科学的问题，米面肉蛋蔬菜，几千年都这么过来了。至于重金属沉积，我不是日本人，很少有机会吃深海鱼类。
偶尔吃一趟，也不是太要紧，重金属中毒还有个safe margin呢。
totally agree. 这年头最普遍的obsession大概就是饮食和减肥了。Live a little. Enjoy.
JAMA published the most recent clinical trial on Low-Fat Dietary this Feburary. The results indicate that a diet low in fat but high in fruit, vegetables and grains does not significantly reduce the risk of breast cancer, colorectal cancer or cardiovascular disease in postmenopausal women.
My point is don't just focus on diet too much. I still think well-balanced diet is a good thing, but you might be disappointed when you expect too much from it.
I totally agree with JUN and Knowing.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/295/6/629
Low-Fat Dietary Pattern and Risk of Invasive Breast Cancer
The Women's Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Dietary Modification Trial
Context The hypothesis that a low-fat dietary pattern can reduce breast cancer risk has existed for decades but has never been tested in a controlled intervention trial.
Objective To assess the effects of undertaking a low-fat dietary pattern on breast cancer incidence.
Design and Setting A randomized, controlled, primary prevention trial conducted at 40 US clinical centers from 1993 to 2005.
Participants A total of 48 835 postmenopausal women, aged 50 to 79 years, without prior breast cancer, including 18.6% of minority race/ethnicity, were enrolled.
Interventions Women were randomly assigned to the dietary modification intervention group (40% [n = 19 541]) or the comparison group (60% [n = 29 294]). The intervention was designed to promote dietary change with the goals of reducing intake of total fat to 20% of energy and increasing consumption of vegetables and fruit to at least 5 servings daily and grains to at least 6 servings daily. Comparison group participants were not asked to make dietary changes.
Main Outcome Measure Invasive breast cancer incidence.
Results Dietary fat intake was significantly lower in the dietary modification intervention group compared with the comparison group. The difference between groups in change from baseline for percentage of energy from fat varied from 10.7% at year 1 to 8.1% at year 6. Vegetable and fruit consumption was higher in the intervention group by at least 1 serving per day and a smaller, more transient difference was found for grain consumption. The number of women who developed invasive breast cancer (annualized incidence rate) over the 8.1-year average follow-up period was 655 (0.42%) in the intervention group and 1072 (0.45%) in the comparison group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.01 for the comparison between the 2 groups). Secondary analyses suggest a lower hazard ratio among adherent women, provide greater evidence of risk reduction among women having a high-fat diet at baseline, and suggest a dietary effect that varies by hormone receptor characteristics of the tumor.
Conclusions Among postmenopausal women, a low-fat dietary pattern did not result in a statistically significant reduction in invasive breast cancer risk over an 8.1-year average follow-up period. However, the nonsignificant trends observed suggesting reduced risk associated with a low-fat dietary pattern indicate that longer, planned, nonintervention follow-up may yield a more definitive comparison.
My point is don't just focus on diet too much. I still think well-balanced diet is a good thing, but you might be disappointed when you expect too much from it.
I totally agree with JUN and Knowing.
Just stop beating yourself up or trying to maintain a sense of control through food. Live a little. Enjoy.
Enjoy everything in moderation, including moderation. 偶尔放纵一点大吃一顿任何东西都可以。
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/295/6/629
Low-Fat Dietary Pattern and Risk of Invasive Breast Cancer
The Women's Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Dietary Modification Trial
Context The hypothesis that a low-fat dietary pattern can reduce breast cancer risk has existed for decades but has never been tested in a controlled intervention trial.
Objective To assess the effects of undertaking a low-fat dietary pattern on breast cancer incidence.
Design and Setting A randomized, controlled, primary prevention trial conducted at 40 US clinical centers from 1993 to 2005.
Participants A total of 48 835 postmenopausal women, aged 50 to 79 years, without prior breast cancer, including 18.6% of minority race/ethnicity, were enrolled.
Interventions Women were randomly assigned to the dietary modification intervention group (40% [n = 19 541]) or the comparison group (60% [n = 29 294]). The intervention was designed to promote dietary change with the goals of reducing intake of total fat to 20% of energy and increasing consumption of vegetables and fruit to at least 5 servings daily and grains to at least 6 servings daily. Comparison group participants were not asked to make dietary changes.
Main Outcome Measure Invasive breast cancer incidence.
Results Dietary fat intake was significantly lower in the dietary modification intervention group compared with the comparison group. The difference between groups in change from baseline for percentage of energy from fat varied from 10.7% at year 1 to 8.1% at year 6. Vegetable and fruit consumption was higher in the intervention group by at least 1 serving per day and a smaller, more transient difference was found for grain consumption. The number of women who developed invasive breast cancer (annualized incidence rate) over the 8.1-year average follow-up period was 655 (0.42%) in the intervention group and 1072 (0.45%) in the comparison group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.01 for the comparison between the 2 groups). Secondary analyses suggest a lower hazard ratio among adherent women, provide greater evidence of risk reduction among women having a high-fat diet at baseline, and suggest a dietary effect that varies by hormone receptor characteristics of the tumor.
Conclusions Among postmenopausal women, a low-fat dietary pattern did not result in a statistically significant reduction in invasive breast cancer risk over an 8.1-year average follow-up period. However, the nonsignificant trends observed suggesting reduced risk associated with a low-fat dietary pattern indicate that longer, planned, nonintervention follow-up may yield a more definitive comparison.
Neighborhood bakeries that bake their bread daily, fresh is usually OK, and you can ask them if they use real butter or margerine/crisco (bad). Cookies from Trader Joe's all have 0 trans fat. Now FDA is finally requiring food labels to contain the amount of trans fat, a lot of 0 trans fat foods are flying onto the shelf. Nevertheless chips and other packaged stuff have a lot of other additives. Eat in moderation.不要碰的东西的list: Margerine, chips，cookies，bakery (trans-fat?), icecream (trans-fat?), soft drink，
Ice cream is probably low in trans fat, if it's made from real cream.
When you buy stuff, just take a quick look at the label for "trans fat" quantity and in the "ingredients" list. If it contains (partially) hydrogenated vegetable oil or high fructose corn syrup, get another brand.
不过最近吃的多，有点吃伤了... 
我个人对high fructose corn syrup比较关注：
Sweet but Not So Innocent?
High-Fructose Corn Syrup May Act More Like Fat Than Sugar in the Body
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... ge=printer
Sweet but Not So Innocent?
High-Fructose Corn Syrup May Act More Like Fat Than Sugar in the Body
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... ge=printer
We don't mind whether it acts like fat. We do mind whether it acts like "abnormal" fat. 
刚看了联接，明白了。high-fructose corn syrup 是蔗糖的代用品，分解为fructose和glucose，问题好像出在fructose的代谢上。坏消息是：
刚看了联接，明白了。high-fructose corn syrup 是蔗糖的代用品，分解为fructose和glucose，问题好像出在fructose的代谢上。坏消息是：
Today, sweeteners made from corn are the leader, racking up $4.5 billion in annual sales and accounting for 55 percent of the sweetener market.
玉米汁很早就在广东一带流行了，大约三四年前？稠乎乎的，比果汁有嚼头还鲜还香。我出去吃饭，得防着自己喝那个就喝饱了。这是我们家纯北方口味的叔父唯一能说“还行“的饮料。
广东人民在吃上真是走在时代前沿啊。
广东人民在吃上真是走在时代前沿啊。
http://harps.yculblog.com
搬家了搬家了
搬家了搬家了
It's not really that these viruses "favor" blacks or Asians, and they are not always useless against whites. Usually, it is a group of people with the same genetic make-up on a certain patch of chromosome, in other words, from the same blood-line some generations ago, who have a biological characteristic that resists these virus infections. I don't know about the nose-throat cancer virus, but in the case of HIV, these Australian men are resistant because their T lymphocytes (a type of white blood cells that are infected by HIV) lack a receptor on the cell surface, which is usually the "door into the cell" for HIV. Most people have the receptor, but due to mutation(s), these people don't have the receptor or a receptor of a similar shape. So HIV can't get into the cell to do their thing...