Wizard Recipes

Eventually, even the largest, most ambitious and most cited study on nutrition and health like Nurses’ Health Study, Women’s Health Initiative and almost all the other, leave the main features of Western food unaffected: many food products and processed meats, many added sugars and fats, except fruit, vegetables and whole grains. According to the nutritionist paradigm and the limits of reductionist science, most researchers are playing with various nutrients individually analyzed, but the subjects with whom they are working are ordinary Americans which are behaving like any ordinary American:          tries to eat smaller amounts of X nutrient and greater quantities of the Y nutrient according to the latest points of view from the nutrition field. But the global nourishment pattern is regarded as a “but” more or less invariable. Therefore probably it should not surprise us the fact that the results of these researches are so modest, equivocal and confuse.

But what about the obvious truth which nobody wants to talk about and what is the food model called Western diet? In the middle of all the nutritional confusion which is getting bigger and bigger, maybe it would be useful to take one step back and fix our eyes on this model, to review all that we know about the Western nutrition and its effects on health. We know that populations that eat like us, Westerners, register much higher rates of cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and obesity than those whit a traditionally diet. We also know that those who come to the Occident and behave and adopt our behavior food are quickly affected by these diseases and very often these diseases occur in an extremely virulent form, as happens in case of aboriginal and other indigenous peoples.

The story so-called Western diseases and their links with Western diet starts in the first decades of the twentieth century. At that time, some brave doctors, Europeans and Americans, working with various indigenous populations around the world have started to notice the virtual absence of chronic disease among these individuals, diseases that in fact had become current in the West. Albert Schweitzer in Africa and Denis P. Burkitt, Robert McCarrison in India, Samuel Hutton among Eskimos of Labrador, anthropologist Ales Hrdlicka among Native Americans and dentist Weston A Price in the middle of 12 different groups from all around the world (among the Peruvian Indians, aborigines from Australia and highlander from Switzerland) are drawn, all similar reports.

Researchers have developed lists, most published in medical journals, whit diseases which haven’t  been discovered on  indigenous populations that have been treated or studied: very few cases or no cases of heart disease, diabetes, cancer, obesity, hypertension or heart attack: no case of appendicitis , diverticulitis, deformed dental arches or tooth decay, no case of varicose veins, ulcers or hemorrhoids.

Suddenly, the researchers began to look all these conditions in a new light, just as it is shown by the name of “Western diseases” proposed for the affections by the British doctor Denis Burkitt, who worked in Africa during the Second World War. The formula suggested that these different diseases were somehow related and that probably had a common cause.

Innovation is exciting, but when it comes to food, novelty should be approached with caution. If various types of diets or nourishments are the result of an evolutionary process, than this means that a culinary innovation is a kind of mutation: it could be a revolutionary breakthrough, but probably it is not. Abandoning the idea of pitched roofs was a great and interesting step for the modern architecture, but often trough horizontal roofs that replaced the pitched ones water could penetrate.

Soy is an interesting case. Americans consume more than ever many soy products, especially because of the ingenuity of an industry whose purpose is to process and sell the immense amounts of so-called Western diseases- including obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hypertension and some types of cancer related to nourishment- which almost invariably begin to appear shortly after a population abandon their traditional diet and lifestyle. But what we did not know before O’Dea brought the aborigines in the Savanna (Her experiment was followed by a series of similar experiments that generated similar results achieved by Native Americans and indigenous subjects from Hawaii) is that some of the most harmful effects of Western diets are reversible in a very short time-interval. It seems that, at least to a certain extent, we can set back the change of diet and can eliminate some of the evil done. This has major implications for our health.

Kerin O’Dea’s experiment is remarkable in its simplicity and trough the refuse of the researcher to get lured and attracted into the scientific labyrinth of nourishment. She didn’t set her mind (before or after the experiment), to isolate a nutrient from all the food complexity, that could explain the results- no matter if the improved health condition of the group was because of the low-fat diets, lack of refined carbohydrates or reducing the total number calories. O’Dea was interested in ample food models even if this approach is limited (such a study does not tell us which element of the Western diet should be adjusted to temper the worst effects), it has the great accomplishment to avoid the chaos of conflicting theories regarding various individual nutrients and turn our attention again, on some fundamental issues on the relationship between diet and health.

For example: How much are we all aboriginal? If we think that two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese, as one quarter of us suffer from metabolic syndrome, that 54 million of people have started to diabetes and the incidence of type 2 diabetes increases by 5% every year since 1990, Going up from 4% to 7.7% of the adult population (that means more than 20 million Americans), the question sounds not at all ridiculous

Leaving aside the causes of confusion, populations that eat according to the rules of traditional food culture, are generally much healthier than populations that have adopted contemporary Western diet. This is valid for Japanese cuisine and for other Asian cuisines, as well as for traditional food from Mexico, India and the Mediterranean regions, including France Italy and Greece. Probably there are some exceptions to this rule-for example lets think about my ancestors Eastern European Jews nutrition.

But who knows? You may find that chicken fat and duck fat are much healthier than expected now at the present. (Weston Price would not be at all surprised) I tend to believe that all traditional nourishments are healthy, otherwise, nutrition and population in question would have disappeared long ago.

Traditional nourishments have two dimensions- the consumed food and the way it is prepared- and it is possible that both can be equally important for our health. Let us talk first about the content of traditional food, regarding the form in the next section.

In some ways, traditional diets resemble other cultural autochthon creations, such as architecture. During a long process of trial and failure, cultures discover strategies that works- the best way to reconcile human needs with what nature can offer in a certain region.

Thus, as the inclination of a roof reflects the amount of rain or snow in that area, they are greater as a rainfall is more abundant, and the degree of seasoning in some kitchens reflects in another way the local climate. Spicy food helps people to face high temperature; also many spices have properties against germs, so essential in regions with a hot climate, where food can easily alter. According to research, the more the climate is warmer, the spicier are the local dishes.

Of course, traditional food concerns only health or biology, many of the culinary practices are arbitrary and possibly inappropriate, such as refined rice. Kitchens can have purely cultural functions, which is one of the ways by which a society expresses its identity and shows their differences in relation to other societies. (For example kashrus is a set of Jewish dietary laws that fulfill these functions for Jews respectively for Islam)

This would explain why traditional kitchens refuse changes; it is said that in an immigrant household, the last place you’ll find signs of assimilation is the storehouse. But as shown by food psychologist Paul Rozin, “aromatic principles” of a sustainable kitchen- Whether it is lemon and olive oil in Mediterranean, soy sauce and ginger in Asia or even the ketchup in America- allow that culture to assimilate new and useful food easier, which we might think they taste so completely foreign.

Yet, the act of eating is more than other cultural practices, deeply linked to nature-on one hand it is linked to the human biology, and on the other to the natural world. The specific food combinations of a certain kitchen and the food preparation methods are a source of knowledge stored in terms of diet, health and region. Many traditional culinary practices are the product of a biocultural evolution so the modern science is trying to decode its ingenuity.

In Latin America, corn is traditionally consumed in combination with beans; each of the two plants has a deficiency of a specific type of essential amino acid that is plenty contained in the other one; therefore, consumed together, corn and beans make up a balanced and no meat Menu. Also, in countries from Latin America, corn is milled or macerated with limestone to achieve to contain vitamin B, without which people will get sick of pellagra.

Often when a society adopted a new food, but without adopting the afferent culinary culture, as happened when the maize was brought to Europe, Africa and Asia, people got sick. The context in which a particular food is consumed can be as important as the food itself.

Two of the most nutritious plants in the world are weeds- wild spinach and nutrient-rich grass- and some traditional dishes like the Mediterranean ones, are frequently using wild green plants, herb or spices. The surrounding fields and woods are full of plants that contain higher levels of phytochemical substances than their domesticated relatives. Why? Because of the fact that these plants had to defend themselves against pests and diseases. For along time, man has selected and cultivated the sweet plants, many of the compounds that plants produce to defend themselves have a bitter taste. Also, wild green plants are generally richer in omega-3 fat acids than their domestic relatives, who have been selected precisely to resist more after they are collected.

If you have the chance, eat meat from wild animals. Generally the meat from hunted animals contains less saturated fat and more omega 3 fat acids than the meat from domestic animals. The hunted animals that we eat have a varied nutrition, based more on plant than on cereals. (The nutritional profile of cattle raised on pasture is very similar to that of hunted meat)

Generally, wild fish have higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids than farmed fish, which are often fed with grain. If we judge by the experience of the population who consume a lot more fish, like Japanese, it would be possible that eating several times more wild fish every week we could reduce the risk of heart affections, live longer and maybe we could be even happier.

I still hesitate to recommend you wild species because many of them are in danger of extinction; many wild fish almost disappeared because of overfishing. So far, all the recommendations offered comply with your health and the environmental health. Most of them come to support agricultural practices that enhance soil and water health. Unfortunately it is in this case not recommended. There are too few animals and wild fish left (except deer and wild pigs) so that we can reduce them by hunting them. Luckily, some of the most nutritious fish species like salmon, mackerel, sardines and anchovies, are well managed and in some cases, there are even plenty of them. So do not forget this full of fat fishes.

Eat products grown and cultivated on healthy soils.

It would be easier to say “eat organic products“, it is true that certified organic nourishment is usually properly cultivated or grown on healthier soils- soils fed with organic matters. Yet, there are some farmers in America that don’t have attested organic food,  but whose products must not be overlooked. The “organic” mark is important, but it is not the only key for the production of quality food.  In fact supermarkets are full of processed organic food products that are just a little bit better, at least in terms of health, than their conventional equivalents.

Organic cream cookies aren’t a healthy food product. When an organic Coca-Cola will be launch, what will happen for sure, then it will be probably a big strike in ecological terms, but not for our health. Most of the consumers expect automatically that the mark “organic” is a synonym with “healthy“, but the fact that the corn syrup with high fructose from your soft drinks, is organic, is not at all an advantage for the metabolism of insulin.

Yet, the superiority of real food grown on healthy soils seems to be obvious. More and more studies support the hypothesis which was first launched by Sir Albert Howard and J.I. Rodale; soils that are rich in organic matters produce nutritious food. Recent some comparisons made between organic and conventional crops have shown that several plants from organic crops had much higher levels of antioxidants, flavones, vitamins and other nutrients. But of course after been carried for several days by truck, any fresh product loses its nutritional quality, therefore it would be good to search not just for organic food but also local organic food.

If you have enough space, buy a freezer.

If you find a good supplier of meat, produced in a traditional way, on a pasture, buy a big amount of meat- a quarter of veal, or a whole pig. This is a great method to eat healthy without spending a lot of money. Freezers are a much cheaper than you expect because of the fact that you don’t open them as often as refrigerators. Besides, if you have a freezer you will buy larger quantities of season goods, then they are plenty and therefore cheaper. And (unlike conservation) freezing doesn’t significantly diminish the nutritional value of fresh products.

Nourish yourself like an omnivorous

No matter if you eat or not animal products, try to enrich your nourishment with some new food species, not just with new products. The confusing diversity of foods in supermarkets is misleading because many products are made of the same plants- especially from seeds- like soybean or grain. The higher your diet is more varied in terms of consumed products species, the more you will answer several nutritional needs.

This is an argument assumed from nutritionists, but there is a better one which involves a larger vision on health.

The biodiversity of food means greater biodiversity of cultivated lands. If we don’t reduce the mono-crops that are nourishing us in the present, farmers no longer would have to spread so many chemical fertilizers, and soils, plants animals and hence the people would be much healthier. Health is not restricted only to your own body and probably what is good for the soil is good for you as well. This brings us to the following rule: Eat products grown and cultivated on healthy soils

Meat illustrates the idea that the health of food product can not be separated from the health of the food chain. This means that the health of the soil, of the plants, of the animals and of the consumers depend on each other.

This leads us to a special rule for those who consume products of an animal origin: You are not only what you eat, you are also the consumed food of the animal that you eat.

This means that the animal nutrition whereby we eat is influencing the nutrition quality and the consequences that food has over our health, no matter if it is meat, milk or eggs.

This is supposed to be evidence, but unfortunately it is a systematic ignored truth of the industrial food chain, in his endeavor to produce huge quantities of cheap animal proteins. This effort changed the nourishment of the majority animals bred for consumption; they went from green plants to seeds and cereals over, because of the fact that animals grow faster and produce more milk and eggs if they are fed grains rich in calories. Some of these animals are ruminants which are evolved to feed on grass; if they eat too many seeds they get sick, therefore grain fed cattle should receive antibiotics.

Even those animals that tolerate cereals, like chickens or pigs, are much healthier if fed with fresh green plants, therefore their meat and eggs are healthier. Generally if the animals raised for consumption are fed with grass, their meat, milk and eggs contain much healthier natural fats (more fat acids omega 3 and conjugated linoleic acid or ALC, less fat acids omega 6 and less saturated fat) and higher amounts of vitamins and antioxidants.

Sometimes is the difference visible, for example the yellow butter or the orange yolk is because of the beta-carotene content in fresh grass. So it is worth spending more money looking for products from animals raised in a traditional way on pasture. And even if, seen from the outside, an industrial egg looks exactly like the one coming from hens fed on grass; the industrial egg is several times more expensive than the first one and the two are completely different. So the rule to eat more leaves and less seeds are applied not only for humans but also for animals that are part of our tropic chain

But what about the meat? Unlike plants that we can not take out from our nourishment, we are not allowed to eat meat- with the exception of the vitamin B 12- all the meat nourishes can be achieved from other sources. (The little amount of B 12 that is necessary for our body is not hard to achieve, it is in all the products of animal origin and it’s produced by bacteria. Therefore you can get the B 12 vitamin consuming dirty food, altered or fermented products).

But meat, whose procurement people have made enormous efforts and from which people feed many years, is a nutritious nourishment which contains all the essential amino acids and many vitamins and minerals, and I haven’t found any convincing reason to exclude it from my nutrition. (I do not mean by this that we don’t have good ethical or ecological reasons)

Probably it is not such a good idea to eat large amounts of meat, as we do it now (each American consumes an average of 90 kg of meat per year) especially if that meat comes from an extreme industrialized food chain. According to studies, the more consumed meat- especially red meat- the bigger is the risk of heart disease or cancer. But studies on “flexitarieni” show that, in small quantities- less then a portion per day- meat increases the risk of illness. Probably Thomas Jefferson was right when he recommended meat only for flavor like a” spice for vegetables” than as a main meal. I didn’t know which of the component elements of the meat are supposed to concern us (saturated fat? The type of iron? Carcinogenic substances produced by cooking and conserving?)

It is possible that the problem consist in the fact that by eating a big amount of meat, we cut out the vegetables from our plate.

But excessive consumption of industrial meat exposes us to bigger quantities of saturated fat, fat acids omega-6, human growth hormones and carcinogenic substances than recommended.

Meat illustrates the idea that the health of food product can not be separated from the health of the food chain. This means that the health of the soil, of the plants, of the animals and of the consumers depend on each other.

Once animals could also synthesize some antioxidants, including vitamin C. But the rich plants nourishment of our ancestors content so much vitamin C that we lost in time this ability to produce this composite, maybe because of the natural selection which tends to give any unnecessary element up that is metabolically costly. (Plants are a rich source of antioxidants because they need those for the oxygen management, produced during the photosynthesis)

Of course this was a great evolution for plants, because people have become completely dependent on them for procurement of an essential nutrient and therefore, people did those vitamin C producers lots of favors, spreading there genes and extending there habitat. The antioxidants like vitamin C has an important role in the relationship between humans and plants even this is less noticeable. Our biologically plant dependency is ancient and profound, so it’s not at all surprising that plants are beneficially.

There are many studies which are proving that rich nourishment in fruits and vegetables is reducing the risk of death in case of all occidental diseases. In countries where people consume daily a pound ore more of fruits and vegetables, the rate of cancer is twice smaller then in the United States. We also know that vegetarians are less disposed to all the occidental diseases and therefore they live longer (semi-vegetarians the so called “flexitarians”- are as healthy as vegetarians). We do not know very well why this happens. It is almost sure that the plant antioxidants protect us, but this could be valid for omega-3 fat acids (other essential nutrients which our body can not produce) for fibers and for other elements and synergic relations of plants compositions, unknown jet.

As shown on the studies of whole grain it is very possible that vegetal aliments are more than the amount of composing nutrients. But probably the advantages of plant based nourishment aren’t based only on the content: vegetal products (with the exception of seeds) have the energy density lower then the rest of nourishments. Eating especially veggies you will consume probably less calories (which will protect you from many diseases). Seeds are the exception that shows us why it is important to consume more leaves then seeds; even if unrefined seeds like whole grain and fruits with a hard shell can be very nutritious, they contain more calories, because there biological role is to deposit energy.

If you can, eat in most of the cases food, no matter what this food would require, probably everything would be ok. One of the knowledge that we can draw from the amazing traditional food variance of the entire world is that we can feed extremely varied food, as long as it is food. There have been and still are many healthy types of nourishment rich in fat or healthy low fat nourishments, as long as they are based on integral food not processed food. But there are some integral nourishment that are better than others and some ways to produce and combine them in different menus that are worth trying. This is why the following section will propose some politics regarding what you eat over and beyond “food”.

Feed yourselves mostly with plants and especially with leaves

Scientists haven’t reached a consensus regarding the benefits of plants- is it because of the antioxidants? Is it because of the fibers? Is it because of the Omega-3 fat acids? But it is sure that all scientists agreed that plants are probably beneficial for our health and certainly, they don’t harm. In the interviews that I realized with different nutritionists they all agreed over de benefits of a meal based on plants. Even those nutritionists tempered by decades of disagreement and confusion regarding the recommendations for nutrition, answered my question” ok, but how are your certainties now?”

In a variation on the theme” eat more plants” (Marion Nestle was a little reserved: “it’s obvious that plants don’t harm”)

It is not hard to observe that plants are good for us, but from the evolutionary point of view, the explications are the fact that they are our source of Vitamin C and antioxidants.

Our ancestors had the biological capacity to produce vitamin C, an essential nutrient.

Like other antioxidants, Vitamin C (or ascorbic acid) is beneficial for our health from at least two points of view. A part of the routine processes of our body, among others the cellular metabolism and the protective inflammation mechanism, produce “oxygen radicals”- oxygen atoms with one odd electron and so with a high chemical reactivity that can generate a lot of problems. Free radicals are involved in many health problems, including cancer and different ageing problems (the output of free radicals is increasing with the ageing) Antioxidants like Vitamin C absorb and stabilizes free radicals before they can make havoc. But this is not the only good thing of antioxidants. In addition, they stimulate the liver which produces the necessary enzymes for the decomposition of antioxidants, enzymes that, once produced, decompose other substances, including different toxins like it. In this way antioxidants contribute to the dangerous chemical neutralization, including the cancerous ones, so if your diet contains several types of antioxidants, so much more toxins will be neutralized in your body. That’s why it’s important to eat as many sorts of plants possible: all contain different antioxidants, so they will help the body to remove different types of toxins. (As rich in toxin the environment is, as many plants you have to consume)