People Chow

frogbyte · Post by **frogbyte** » Thu May 27, 2010 11:11 am

You don't need a pre-bagged product though, it's super cheap and it's called beans/rice. If we eliminated the food stamp program and let private charities handle it, things would gravitate more in that direction of efficiency certainly.

frigginwizard · Post by **frigginwizard** » Thu May 27, 2010 12:07 pm

frogbyte wrote:You don't need a pre-bagged product though, it's super cheap and it's called beans/rice.

Living completely off beans and rice would in no way be the perfect food.

frogbyte · Post by **frogbyte** » Thu May 27, 2010 1:40 pm

I agree, but he was complaining originally about cost, and it's healthier than what most people eat. The average church homeless shelter type of food is better than the average American diet as far as I know.

Really top-notch nutritious food is always going to be much more expensive than bare calories to get by food.

hoosegow · Post by **hoosegow** » Thu May 27, 2010 9:00 pm

Yes, cost is an issue and part of the arguement. Perhaps I should rephrase the question.

Given:
We currently have the technology and know-how to make a cheap nutritious food.
This food, while maybe not perfect, would be a hell of a lot healthier than what most people are getting.

Is there anything wrong with giving people a strict diet consisting of the same thing for every meal - basically feeding people like most people feed their pets? Consider it manna from the government if you like.

Whether or not you like Purina, trust big companies or the government is not germane to the discussion. Simply put, is feeding people like most people feed their pets wrong? If so, why?

jml · Post by **jml** » Thu May 27, 2010 9:54 pm

No, it is not wrong, because people can choose whether or not to accept the food (if it's charity) or buy it.

frogbyte · Post by **frogbyte** » Fri May 28, 2010 10:52 am

I eat pretty much the same thing every day anyway. The modern variety of daily food choices certainly did not exist for the majority of mankind's existence.

Wouter · Post by **Wouter** » Fri May 28, 2010 12:14 pm

One thing: if people get the same food day in day out, or worse; every meal, there is chance to develop food allergies or intolerances.

frogbyte · Post by **frogbyte** » Fri May 28, 2010 2:47 pm

That's only an issue with the toxins in non-paleo foods though eh? You could probably get by on a massive farming scale with green peas. As far as low-toxin (though not really paleo) foods with broad nutrition go I suspect that'd be the economic winner.

Post by **stuward** » Fri May 28, 2010 5:12 pm

If you eat too much of anything you will get an imbalance. You need a variety to balance things out. Of course if you're making a nutrition biscuit, you just take all the different foods that collectively make a balanced diet and put them through a blender, press it into a biscuit and add water.

hoosegow · Post by **hoosegow** » Fri May 28, 2010 6:23 pm

Perfect analogy stuward. A nutrition biscuit or Scooby Snack.

frigginwizard · Post by **frigginwizard** » Tue Jun 01, 2010 9:49 am

stuward wrote:If you eat too much of anything you will get an imbalance. You need a variety to balance things out. Of course if you're making a nutrition biscuit, you just take all the different foods that collectively make a balanced diet and put them through a blender, press it into a biscuit and add water.

I would eat that.

frogbyte · Post by **frogbyte** » Tue Jun 01, 2010 11:01 am

I'm not sure I buy into the idea that a single food necessarily means an imbalance and sub-par nutrition. There were lots of cultures through history that ate essentially a single thing - usually fish.

Post by **stuward** » Tue Jun 01, 2010 11:51 am

I think it's possible to get by with a predominantly one food diet, and fish or meat probably works best, but most had some other food mixed in, like sea vegetables or berries.

frogbyte · Post by **frogbyte** » Tue Jun 01, 2010 12:14 pm

Hmm I wonder if it'd be economically viable to grow tanks of krill - I don't see nutrition data on krill, but I'll bet it's pretty good. Also fly maggots might be a good deal.

Post by **stuward** » Tue Jun 01, 2010 12:32 pm

frogbyte wrote:Hmm I wonder if it'd be economically viable to grow tanks of krill - I don't see nutrition data on krill, but I'll bet it's pretty good. Also fly maggots might be a good deal.

Insects may be an important source of nutrients some day. You can get by quite nicely on locusts. I saw that in "Hildago" so it must be true.