BEST VEGY From: dsgood@visi.com (Dan Goodman) Newsgroups: misc.survivalism Subject: Re: best nutritional vegitables. Date: 30 Dec 1996 00:27:33 GMT In article <5a6t72$p9r$35@news.campus.mci.net , shannon wagoner I don't think there is any such set of vegetables. You cover your nutritional bets much better by eating a wider variety. If you are raising the vegs yourself, note that a diverse garden is a more reliable food source, because if one or two varieties get wiped out you still have the rest. Don't overlook garden pests (rabbits, deer, etc.) as potential food source in an emergency. When they come to check out the goodies... well, you get the drift. From: mgilbert@pclink.com (Bob Gilbert) Just a personal opinion or two. Human meat is very similar to pork, so is monkey meat. There is a reason for the old term of referring to human's as "Long Pork". Human's, biologically, are omnivore's, period. I have no complaint if someone choses to be a vegatarian as a matter of personal philosophy, religious belief, or simple dietary preference. But keep the arguments in favor of vegatarianism based on something resembling actual science and fact. For a couple of the characters to stated that if it became a choice between eating meat and starvation, that they would chose starvation. Well, I guess the world must have it's starry eyed dreamers with little or no since of reality. But let me tell you that in 1974 I was a member of a team sent into an area of Africa where starvation was rampant. My task was to protect some Americans during an evacuation. I saw REAL starving people. I saw people attempting to eat grass, tree bark, etc. The ones who could find insects, rodents, or any other living creature that they could catch, ate them. I saw one old man eating old turds. A Red Cross worker told me that it wasn't a bad idea as the turds were from a human and did have nutritional value. So people, if you haven't actually starved, don't tell me what you won't eat as I probably won't believe you. Yes, a proper vegatarian diet can be healthy. So is any proper diet. One problem to consider if you live in a cold climate. The old Eskimo diet used to require 3500 to 5000 calories a day just to provide the energy necessary to survive. (They didn't have the advantage at the time of central heating systems) In a survival situation, the number of calories required to continue to live goes up. Think long term energy output such as fetching water in buckets, tilling the soil by hand, etc. If you are a vegatarian, plan on a sufficient quantity of high energy vegatables. (Lots of beans and potatoes!) Bob From: Chuck Marsh Dave Paxton wrote: If my memory serves me correctly, the only combination that vegetarians see as "total" is beans and rice. Something about the combination of the protean chains The idea was popularized by Frances Moore Lappe, in the seventies book _Diet For A Small Planet_--that various "protien complements" from mixing vegetables offer "complete" meat-substituting protiens. There are some other combinations besides rice and beans, for example, corn and beans (succotash) and wheat and peanuts... Personally I think the politics were driving the science here; there is no way to get the density of protien meat products offer, and to get a comparable amount to, say, a steak dinner, one would need to be really full of beans. I met the author when she was flogging her book, and thought her recipes dreadful. From: mark@lis.ab.ca (Al Durtschi) You _can_ live almost exclusively on potatoes -- provided they haven't been stored long enough for their vitamin C content to go below the British required daily dose. ... Can they really provide sufficient amounts of *balanced* protein? Three or four months ago a vegie stated to me that protein wasn't nearly as hard to get as once thought and that one can get their protein from eating Anything if you don't include fruits and fats. He said, "If you take any food, (except from the above) and get enough of it to get the calories you want, the protein will be there." He also said that "This old idea that you have to mix plant proteins to get a complete protein is 1970's stuff and is way out of date." Well, I decided to put him to the test, in doing some nutritional studies, and he was right. For the results, see http://www.lis.ab.ca/walton/omega/protein.html Al Durtschi Web sites that sell edible dry goods: http://www.lis.ab.ca/walton/ http://www.universalweb.com/food/index.htm http://www.wwmagic.com/haphov/ http://www.mojoski.com/canteen/ http://web2.airmail.net/foodstr2/ http://www.zyz.com/survivalcenter/foodstor.html http://downtown-web.com/psi/ http://magnet.mwci.net/mall/mtnvwfds/ http://www.mapleleafinc.com/ http://www.securefuture.com/ Know of any more? Please let me know. From: Leigh R Hidell Today, most nutritionists agree that Americans eat too much protein. A mature but not elderly or diseased adult needs surprisingly little. Even the beans & rice combo can be too much if you are supposed to be on an extremely low protein diet -- better to protect your liver in advance so it doesn't come up. In a survival situation, the problem isn't lack of protein. It's lack of calories -- FAT. And it is VERY difficult to effectively stockpile fat because it goes rancid over time. Beans, rice, grains do offer some calories but try this diet for awhile (I have), & even if you are of normal weight (I am), you will lose weight. And you will get hungry more often. Stockpiling can carry you over for awhile, but you will also need hunting/fishing skills to get the necessary fat in your diet in a survival situation. IMHO, anyway. Very few veggies have enough fat. Altho in some areas you can have avocados & that's a big help... --Leigh From: XXX@XXX.XXX (Mr. E. Mann) Seeds and nuts are loaded with fat. Purslane, a common weed contains omege-3 fatty acids, the same beneficial fat as is found in fish. From: Leigh R Hidell Thanks for the tip on purslane. I also thought of sunflower seeds, which are pretty easy to grow. Although I have only grown them as a hobby, for birds. Not all seeds have much fat -- millet doesn't -- but sunflower is a good one. You can also make oil & flour from it. --Leigh From: "Rev. Akia" If my memory serves me correctly, the only combination that vegetarians see as "total" is beans and rice. Something about the combination of the protean chains Hi, you've got the right idea but just a bit to narrow... Think of it as beans and a grain.... Any kind of bean (soy (aka tofu, tempeh, soymilk, etc), pinto, lima, pea, kidney, navy, garbonzo, ...) and any kind of grain...(wheat (aka bread), so is rice, or bulger, or corn (aka cornbread, tortillas, etc)... Some combinations and ratios are better than others of course... My favorite grains are brown rice and corn, and I like most beans. But it's strictly because I don't bake well...if I could bake bread as well as I can get at the local bakery I would use more wheat at home...as is "bread" is for special occassions... From: paigeturnr@aol.com Actually, any grain and any legume can be combined to form a "complete protein" -- i.e., beans and corn, beans and brown rice, peanut butter on whole wheat bread, etc. However, the "complete protein" concept is somewhat of a fallacy; you do not have to combine the elements in the same meal, just more or less in the same day. People worry too much about protein anyway. TOO MUCH protein in one's diet is a much more common problem in America than too little. Says John Robbins in his book "Diet For A New America" (the one that finally gave me the knowledge I needed to convert to vegetarianism 8 years ago), if you are getting enough calories from a reasonably varied diet, you are getting enough protein. I read somewhere that humans are actually "fruitarians", designed to live exclusively on fruits; this book said that you can live indefinitely on a diet of only fruit -- there is enough protein if you get enough *calories* from it, plus all the vitamins, fiber, fat (in the seeds), and *pure water* you will ever need. I believe tomato is classified as a fruit, but corn is not (it's a grain). Makes sense to me! I'd certainly consider melons or tomatoes if I were to limit myself to only two or three staple foods (although I personally detest melons...), and I'd try to have a few fruit trees (apple, peach, pear) and some grape vines. Nicole I believe it was mentioned in John Robbins' book that Ms. Lappe later revised her "protein complements" theory, saying something like vegetable and fruit proteins were sufficient on their own, but better combined... sorry I don't have the book in front of me, or I'd know just exactly what the hell I was talking about... (Hey, I found something: "Frances Moore Lappe's updated research on a healthy, varied vegetarian diet: Protein combining is completely unnecessary." ...from Robbins' pamphlet "Realities", excerpted from his book _Diet For A New America_) Personally I think the politics were driving the science here; there is no way to get the density of protien meat products offer, and to get a comparable amount to, say, a steak dinner, one would need to be really full of beans. Please see my earlier post re: protein hysteria. Personally I think the meat, dairy, and egg industries have brainwashed us all from birth into thinking that we need these huge vast concentrations of protein on a daily basis... when in fact, a bulkier and lower-protein diet is more suitable for the human body. This has been proven over and over in the medical literature (NEWS FLASH!! Diets higher in vegetables and fruits result in lower rates of cancer and heart disease!!). Are you aware that excess protein is what causes osteoporosis? When excess protein is eliminated from the body, it binds up with calcium and takes it with it, stealing it from bone if necessary.... Also kidney failure is caused by excess protein intake. Some stats: The average measurable bone loss of female meat-eaters at age 65: 35% The average measurable bone loss of female vegetarians at age 65: 18% Also: Recommended percentage of daily calories to be derived from protein according to: WHO -- 4.5%; USDA Food & Nutrition Board -- 6%; National Research Council -- 8%. Wheat is 17% calories as protein, broccoli is 45%, rice is 8%. I've been a vegetarian for 8 years now, and couldn't be happier with it! I'm fat enough you wouldn't think it unless I told you, I've learned to cook quite well, I get into food with real flavor, my digestive system works quite well, and I probably won't die prematurely at 73 of one of the "big three" -- cancer, heart disease, or stroke, nor do I plan to be a hunchbacked old woman with fragile hips. And I usually don't jump on the vegetarian soapbox, so I apologize if I'm preaching! But my plan is to die at age 112 (it was 120 until I started smoking...), and this is one way I intend to do that. What could be more germane to survival than that? Nicole "Very few veggies have enough fat." (to provide calories in a survival situation) Umm, except corn (where corn oil comes from), most beans (soybeans are pretty high in fat), and NUTS, which are QUITE high in fat content. Seeds also contain an appreciable amount of fat, and sunflowers are pretty easy to grow and/or find growing wild. Avocados are high in fat, but are also one of the few vegetables that contain *cholesterol* -- I don't think I'd want to rely on them for my fat intake... Nicole talking about food again... From: Ivan@mindspring.com (Crazy) To : Nicole, Being a vegetarian is very bad for survival. Situations may arise where your life will be dependent on eating meat. Even if you bring yourself to eat it, you'd probably get very sick and die. I was a vegetarian for three years at one point and it took me few weeks to start eating meat. My suggestion for you is to give vegeterianism up and start intaking some meat. It doesn't have to be much - twice a week will do - and it could be mostly chicken or tender fresh beef (all healthy, good stuff) but your body needs to be used to it, so that when the shit hits the fan and your life is dependent on eating meat, you'll stay alive. Love, -= Ivan =- From: Chuck Marsh Actually I most enjoy the classic Chinese recipes; if meat is used at all, it is in a proportion of 1/3 or 1/4 meat:veg. Recently, though, I had a food craving--I tend to take such things as indicative of the body's needs--and did myself a rare T-bone with all the trimmings. I don't mean to gross you out or anything, but it really hit the spot. I cannot help thinking that animals contain many compounds useful to life; it has an obvious appeal on the face of it. In a backcountry survival situation, you can get more calories out of a porcupine than a parsnip. I know of no strict vegetarian hunter-gatherer cultures, you need sustained and intense agriculture for that. An advantage of plants in a foraging situation is they don't run away or, usually, try to bite. Primitive eat them while they are between sucessful hunts. From: paigeturnr@aol.com Ivan, I thank you for your concern. But my concern is really one of long-term survival at this point. I plan to store enough vegetable matter to get me through if I can't buy or grow any more food for a while... If it comes down to eating meat or starving, I may very well opt for the latter, as I would as soon eat human flesh as any other. I'm having trouble visualizing a situation in which my personal choice would either be to kill, butcher, cook and eat an animal or to starve to death. I assume you're talking about a long-term environmental disaster here, in which I would be unable to grow food on my 11 acres of soil for a season or two... in which case, I suppose the animals would be starving as well. If they weren't, I'd be eating what they were eating. If the land happened to be radioactively contaminated or something, I sure as hell wouldn't want to eat the meat of animals grazing on the contaminated land! Remember, meat is a *concentrated* form of whatever the animal ate. I'll take my radiation poisoning in lower doses, please. If there's no grass or leaves left to eat, there won't be any cattle or chickens or horses or dogs or whatever left to eat either. I could probably be persuaded to eat fish if I HAD to to survive, but in a scenario such as that I doubt the fish would be very healthy or abundant either. There have been human vegetarians as long as there have been humans. I happen to believe that we were designed to eat vegetable matter and fruit, as opposed to being predatory or carrion-eating animals. And I believe that vegetarianism is the *best* way to survive, both long-term and in short-term crisis situations. The key for the short-term situations is a) preparation -- i.e. gardening and food storage, having fruit and nut trees, etc., b) knowing what is edible and what is not in the wild, or c) both a and b. I'm probably missing something obvious in the intent of your post. Please tell me in what situation it would be advantageous to be able to eat meat. Prison comes to mind, but I don't intend to wind up there! Also, bear in mind that a person can go a very long time without eating food (depending on body fat percentage and level of activity), as long as clean water is available. And if water is not available, a diet of fruit will provide that. (And fruit, unlike money, DOES grow on trees!) Respectfully, Nicole From: paigeturnr@aol.com "Higher quality of life"?? I happen to LOVE being a vegetarian. I would not have it any other way! It only took me about 6 months to completely get over "burger lust", and I did phase meat out slowly in the beginning. I've discovered the joy of actually tasting flavor in my food, as opposed to just salt and fat. I enjoy cooking things more creative, flavorful, healthy and cheap than just tossing some burgers on the grill or skillet and eating them between 2 slices of white bread. I feel no guilt about what I eat (perhaps you don't either -- that's your problem). I do not fear illness from a meat-based diet. I have something interesting to talk about with open-minded people. My digestive system works really well -- I very rarely suffer from diarrhea or constipation, I don't have hemorrhoids or ulcers, indigestion is rare, my farts don't particularly stink (they're not *supposed* to, you know...). I do NOT feel deprived in the least! The ONLY problem I have with being a vegetarian is the lack of variety available to me in fast food. Oh, and being ribbed by well-meaning but ignorant meat eaters (although this has mostly been all in fun). And I have found that almost all restaurants & fast-food joints have at least one or two veg. selections (all hail Taco Bell!!), and although they look at you funny, most will modify a menu item to exclude meat. (Try ordering a grilled cheese sandwich "with everything" sometime, for laughs! Sometimes I have to convince them that it IS possible, and then explain how it's done...) No, my quality of life is just fine. Far better than my first 17 years of being an omnivore. I'd hate to think what my life would be like if the Four Food Groups were still McDonald's, KFC, Long John Silver's, and Pizza Hut!! Not that there's no middle ground, of course, but if I hadn't sought out a better dietstyle, that's what my life would be like (that's how I grew up, sadly). Eh, to each his or her own, I suppose. It's ALL about improving your quality of life!! (and yeah, I traded in a few years for the "joy" of smoking. Cough, cough. Oh, joy.) Nicole From: Leigh R Hidell paigeturnr@aol.com wrote: season or two... in which case, I suppose the animals would be starving as well. If they weren't, I'd be eating what they were eating. If the land happened to be radioactively contaminated or something, I sure as hell wouldn't want to eat the meat of animals grazing on the contaminated land! Remember, meat is a *concentrated* form of whatever the animal ate. I'll take my radiation poisoning in lower doses, please. In event of radioactive or chemical contamination, Nicole is 100% correct. Animal fat unfortunately concentrates this stuff. --Leigh