From: Dave Sill (dsill@highland.net)
Date: Tue Oct 31 2000 - 08:01:38 MST
Michael S Lorrey <retroman@turbont.net> wrote:
>
> Now, corn, up until 500 years ago was completely unknown to anyone but Native
> Americans and Llamas. Caucasoid, African, Asian and even Australian and
> polynesian people have had no experience with it prior to that. Moreover, up
> until 500 years ago, maize was a pretty pathetic little thing compared to the
> atom bomb of sugars and starches it is now. As I said, it is least likely for
> humans or their domesticated animals to be adapted to digesting efficiently or
> healthfully.
Only sweet corn, which is grown for human consumption, has enough sugar to
be sweet to the taste. Field corn, from which animal feeds, corn syrup, and
almost all other corn products are derived, is very starchy and not very
sweet. Rice, wheat, and barley are also "atom bombs" of starches. What makes
them so great and corn so evil?
> > Why do you say that? As far as I can tell, corn, barley, and rice are
> > strikingly similar, nutrionally. For example, see:
> >
> > http://waltonfeed.com/self/ntr3.html
>
> Where then is the wheat, rice, and barley syrup?
All of those exist, they're just much more expensive to produce than corn
syrup.
> Corn is higher in sugar (I
> notice the page you referenced does not break down the carbohydrates at all),
No, it's not. Corn syrup isn't produced by tapping cornstalks and ears and
boiling the sap. It's produced by chemically converting the starches to
sugars, a process known as refining. For more information, see:
> and is also very low in thiamin, niacin, and calcium compared to the others,
> though it is well endowed with Vitamin A. The sugar is the big thing, most
> cornfed cows are sugar junkies, this I know from experience, since if given the
> opportunity they will prefer cereal surplus even over well fermented silage (the
> apple jacks and other cinnamon cereals do tend to pass the cinnamon through to
> the milk, though).
Cereal is sweetened. You can't blame that on the corn.
> Not for me. I want my meat from lean athletic animals that work for a living
> (and work out all day). Fish swim all day, grouse, woodcock, duck, geese, and
> wild turkey all scratch out their living in the wild, deer get chased around
> pretty thoroughly by dogs, coyotes, cars, and any odd sound that sets them into
> hysterics, while moose are constantly working the swamp wading treadmill, and
> caribou are the long distance kings.
That's fine. You're welcome to eat whatever kind of meat you like. Most
people would probably find it tough and oddly flavored. It's probably
healthier than grain-finished beef. It seems to me, though, that the health
benefits are due primarily to the lower fat content.
> You may have hormone and chemical free cattle, but unless they walk at least a
> few miles a day and live off the land, I'm not interested.
You misunderstand. My beef is not for sale. I understand and agree with your
desire for hormone and chemical free meat, but I'm not as convinced of the
need for them to live off the land and walk N miles per/day. (My cattle walk
quite a bit, but I've never attached bovine pedometers to them to see
exactly how far they go.) I like my beef fairly lean, too, but I like a
tender steak now and then, and I like the way grain-finished beef tastes. If
I was willing to give all that up for the health benefits, I'd give up beef
altogether.
-Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:31:48 MST