I am going to depart a little bit on this introduction and put out what may be unusual question for some of you Given the fact that on line communication has now given the average individual access to a new universe of health information, and that locals can communicate freely in regard to that new access, does this lead us to conclude that a communities approach to those new capacities could be game changing For instance if it turned out to be that we could identify shortcomings in the existing institutional structures or tendencies within a given local health system, could we work in a sense outside of those structures?
Below is an older introduction to the subject that people can cheek out if they find this insufficient. Health information can be confusing and intimidating. If you feel you already have a pretty good grasp on what you need to know in terms of evaluating health issues and simply are looking for resources then this particular introduction is probably not for you. The initial focus of this introduction is to address how we evaluate health information,. In general this topic is covered under the evidence sub-menu under the health bullet menu
Health
Health, and its relation to food, perhaps more than any other subject we touch upon here, has the potential to have significant impact on the social and economic well being of our communities. Health care costs, wellness, economic productivity, social welfare programs, and perhaps even in regard to criminal justice implications, are important issues for our communities which all stem from our relation to food and health As stated earlier we are trying to do a bit of tight rope walk in our explanation by trying to show the possibilities of taking new roads for food choices at the individual level and when such changes are adopted by larger groups of individuals what impacts can occur at larger levels. Beyond this challenge we also need to try to limit the range of the discussion, or to at least initially focus our discussion on food and health to specific food stuffs to the degree possible, instead of advocacy for particular diets, or health choices Four main avenues , or points of connection, between food and health issues at the individual level and how those issues are connected to larger societal issues and institutions.
So when we started this section we wanted to try to make it kind of simple at first and focus on the basics of food and health. We still want to do that, but it is really impossible to approach this issue without acknowledging all the context and biases which seem to limit our ability to be objective or even scientific. The overarching point is that we cannot just present neutral information regarding food and health without also looking at how we decide what stands as good evidence. After all it is pretty much impossible to try to make small generalizations about diet and its relationship to health without entering these larger contexts such as a medical industry, the nature of disease, being a passive patient in your, etc. Nonetheless while we are choosing to highlight this wider context here in this initial section, we still hope that at least in your minds you can see some form of simplicity in the idea that food itself, and especially when it is grown in a local cooperative context, provides individuals with a powerful opportunities to effect their health with what might be considered a simple adjustment in their eating habits. Such a potentially powerful simplicity should help inspire us to delve into these larger questions with a confidence that somewhere within the web of complexity that at least a certain amount of simple answers exist
Hopefully it is clear that science and objectivity are going to be understood differently by different people, and that many contours exist within what is considered rational. Such distinctions come from a wide variety of opinions and differing understandings on a wide variety of subjects. For example, someone working in the lumber industry may see the environmental issues tied to lumber extraction in a different light than those who do not. The point being that this whole idea of a mindset, or attitude in approaching these subjects, is often going to effect, or override, what someone else my see as a neutral objective viewpoint on a subject, . How people view economics, politics, criminal justice, and really the entire panoply of has bearing on how we look at subjects such as the relationship between food and health. In the general outline of the website, the individual specter section tries to address this 'mindset' question. Therefore we suggest folks look at that section simultaneously to focusing on specific subjects such as the food and health relationship we are working on here
What is the existing infrastructure that supports the discussion of food and health in our community?. Are local governmental officials and organizations educated and willing to discuss a wide range of information regarding food and health? For example , dietitians tend to staff most governmental positions. Some will argue that nutritionists are educated in a significantly different manner than dietitians and that we should consider having both educational modalities having significant representation within our community dialogues. The point here however is not necessarily about who is right in terms of philosophical differences about food and health, but rather to simply recognize that there is a structure, in a sense, in terms of how these subjects reverberate within our communities, and it may be an option for some communities to look quite closely on the details of the structure and how it functions, as well as what can be done to adjust or rethink said structures Generally community heath department are not educators of the public, they do not solicit public input in general except for a few specialized circumstances City councils and other local government bodies allow for public comment, and in theory value this input to some degree, but not health departments
What might be the societal mindsets which keep people from trying diets that, on some level , they realize are more healthy them? Or the possible societal conditioning which may bias an individuals objectivity to look at existing evidence? All these issues are involved in this broader context So while it is a kind of stated motto to try to place the fundamental , and hopefully to some degree simpler issues, at the entry level of our discussion However it is sometimes necessary to at least open the door to wider contexts if we want to follow these issues to higher levels of information and debate.
It is suggested here that a community that shares stories about their experiences and beliefs related to food and health, topics had advantages over one that does not. However, it is also true that an individual who is focused and engaged on his or her health, in what we might call this isolated manner, is likely to be adding to overall health of the community. And therefore it is a positive contribution in this sense regardless of whether they engage with the larger community on the subject
Sorry to start with a difficult and divisive point, but it is also extremely significant that this same division tends to divide itself again at the local and macro levels. In other words the alternative practitioners tend to have their offices and homes, in the communities they live in, While conventional medical doctors are just as likely to is practiced So these differences are indeed significant, but there is no need to take sides here. In fact we want to promote cooperative strategies with alternatives and conventional, which has been sometimes coined as complimentary medicine
The second issue regards to what degree we want to expand beyond the discussion beyond food alone as local modality for improving health directly at the local level. But even before going there we should likely reiterate bit of the idea that we are trying to describe a subject which works as a kind of center for a wider set of subjects who also have centers. So as corny as it sounds we are going to kind of try to look at these concepts from perhaps a central spinning wheel which interact with other spinning little systems in a kind of giant clockwork of relationship with food, health, and all the subtle connections spinning nearby. If this description does not suit you then perhaps something like nested eggs of information or the Russian doll equivalent may help give you a sense of how we are trying to explain the way the information is presented. But to return to the idea of having the central question being the center of the conversation of what do we know the consequences of food choices in relation to our health and well being. Now this is such a central question for so many important aspects of our behavior it may serve as a center point for many issues. But if we are to start somewhere then /I suggest we start at least at two places. The first is knowing the foodstuff in some sense of a raw physical item, electro- chemical, energetic, or mechanical nature. So things like how much Vitamin C can be identified in a particular food stuff is an example of this. The other side of the coin is what meaning can we gather about our food choices based on some understandings of the consequences based on science in general , though there needs to be some initial wiggle worm for that term for now. Also we need to add the confounding factor of people want to do what they want to do, and that such behavior may not be consistent with some objective standard of healthy behavior. The central point or little nested eggshell if you like is about trying to establish what is objectively healthy or what process food based approaches can we use as a community to maximize health. One thing we of course need to recognize is this idea that we can examine food in a mechanistic way that requires a time component. For one to know about the fruit you ate this second in its physical form, we usually require you to have historical information on the item or a way of electro-chemically examining it with a test of some sort Now whether people want to engage in such behavior is of course closely related to the central points, so the question of motivation is treated as a separate topic to some degree
The second core element is of course the organism which ingests the food. Many factors cloud any absolute distinction between the substance /organism duality. One conundrum is that organisms start with someone ingesting food like a pregnant mother. nonetheless we hope that most of us these are fairly clear and useful distinctions For many of us examining these issues of food and health there is a temptation to want to see science as an input output algorithm We have at least two cases to consider; those regarding the general processing tendencies of the organism in relation to a particular food, and the diversity of bio chemistry, and perhaps personality types among the human population. In other words, you could call this notion as regarding our DNA plus our environmental history and its footprint as a kind of sum total of our overall biological character. Though others will also include a spiritual component. who often assert a very strong affinity for food based on a spiritual connection. so the point again is to see the organism as the corresponding element to that of that food particles themselves
Beyond these two main fundamental elements we now need to decide what the science of nutrition is based on How do we decide what foods cause what reactions in what types of bodies? What kinds of experts do we trust? What questions do we ask about the experts we trust? We continue to look closely at what most people would consider hard science, things like effective testing of supplements and other substances for their purity, and gold standard double blind clinical controlled trials. But we also enter an area where spirituality has a certain sense of health attached to it, though it may be difficult to measure by classic standards
As we begin to move out from our central theme we suggest highlighting other local yet non food based health options. Locally based modalities such as tai chi, exercise programs, chiropractic and other bodywork modalities, all lend themselves to be practiced locally in away that non-local institutional and industrial sources of health treatments cannot. This separation between locally based technologies, and those of high tech medical modalities, is, like most of our distinctions, not absolute . In fact we do provide another section here related to more conventional health care providers plans And while we are not excluding a conversation about conventional , non locally derived technological treatments, we are suggesting they are to be placed in a different frames here.The classic distinction is that the alternative and holistic practitioners will usually claim they help and restore the body's natural system to heal itself, whereas medication and conventional treatments generally offer I kind of takeover or at least imposing of a new pathway or mechanical adjustment of the body It is important to recognize some of the familiar context or connections. One is that of expanding the conversation around these other local therapies. More conversations leads to a better record for other to utilize the information but may also open up new windows or creative ideas on how to improve some of these locally based modalities. We cannot assume that starting conversations on these subjects will just magically start of course, which leads us to a couple of other aspects on approaching this added dimension of non food related locally available health improvement modalities
There are really two aspects here, but they are so closely related we will try to weave them together. The basic idea is the range of discussion we have as a community in regard to these local non food modalities, LNFM's, if you will. the range of information which is pertinent to each of these somewhat distinct subjects and modalities should be seen as running hand in hand with the actual practice of them. And within this range of information there are two fairly distinct ways of seeing the issues involved. One is the kind of technical efficacy question of the healing modality. In the case of acupuncture, it would be the chines medical philosophy, meridians, etc. But it would also include studies that have shown its efficacy for certain conditions etc. The other aspect of this range of information question is more involved in terms how we as a community are oriented towards the service in question. How visible is the practitioner, how much the services cost, what assurances about background and training, are other in the community being taught how to practice the therapy, is their interdisciplinary interaction with other therapists. The latter point is very broad, but there is kind of an interesting intersection of these two notions. That being, to what degree can a practitioner be involved in local discussion about the efficacy questions, or other types of questions, regarding his or her therapy. This is of course a delicate issue with a lot of restrictions about what can be said about health claims and even to what degree medical professionals want to give away medical information in the form of public discussion, for free. On the other hand such alternative practitioners could benefit from an increase in public awareness of the issues that are raised.
Now that we have raised the specter of the public discussion as a corresponding to our actual treatment options which are available within our community , we want to expand this idea a bit further. As we have suggested the breadth or range of our public discussion can correspond fairly directly with certain aspects and types of medical practices which are available within our communities. however we need to look at the areas that are outside of treatment modalities. These topics will include non food and water related toxin exposure as well as considerations which stem from lifestyle components. These issues include toxins or allergens which you are exposed to in your house work environment or elsewhere. But it also can included your mental attitude and stress level related to life in general, and therefore can become a rather all encompassing feature. The latter leads unto psychological and social issues that we consider a somewhat separate category than the more so called physical modalities that we are related to health in this section. But there is of course an obvious connection to the physical and psychological, so at least this section can serve as an introduction and a portal outwards to a conversation about the larger psychological and sociological issues
An expanded discussion of health issues beyond the scope of food and herbs such as supplementation, IV chealtion therapy, or issues such as the national health care debate are also deferred to other areas The reasons for these distinctions are two fold. One we want to keep the initial focus on food to the largest degree possible. And two we are trying to focus on what we can produce in a fundamental sense at the local level as a starting point before moving up to a discussion of how an increased local capacity interacts with the meta economy. So with that in mind there are likely three levels in our discussion of health. The first is the discussion of food and its effect on our health. The second would be what other health related modalities can be accomplished with resources which can be acquired at the strictly local level, such as, tai chi, yoga, and other activities which do not require a technological input from the larger economy. A third level is that of the food consumer in terms of being able to make well informed health based decisions on the foods we purchase from restaurants and grocers. And while there is a lot of crossover with the previous sections discussion of the food consumer this section will discuss the issue a little more explicitly in terms of health. One caveat is that some of the insightful types may be saying 'Hey not all foods and herbs can be produce locally.' This is true but food and localism are two themes that run side by side together here , and we allowed food as a distinct category to have precedence over localism in this case. Admittedly the effort is somewhat symbolic in that we attempt to divide up the information in a way where the community can focus on what is to some degree under its most direct control. And to be clear, no one is saying you cannot have a discussion on these larger issues immediately if you go to that section of the site. Instead we are saying the format of the site in general is laid out in a manner that suggests that the majority of our efforts initially go towards issues of food, and what can be one with it at the local level
One of the difficulties of discussing food and health is that immediately we come against the controversy of what passes as scientific evidence. Double blinded placebo based clinical trials have been considered the gold standard for several decades now, and we certainly do not wish to challenge that basic premise in general. Such a standard however, is vulnerable to skewered constructions and protocols of the trials are often severely problematic and not consistent to the protocols and dosage amounts suggested by alternative practitioners. Further the the interpretation apparatus seems to be frequently coming to very odd conclusions, and to what degree the final conclusion may be controlled by a select group of people when in fact we generally need some broad discussion the impact of health studies since they are complicated Experts chosen to review the meaningful data and conclusion of the results subject to manipulation by adjusting the makeup of the control groups or quality and quantity of the substance being examined, or by the authors conclusion about what the data implies. So while these issues can become quite complex and frustrating for many of us, I do think they need to be taken on by at some level of this discussion by local who make some effoort to get through a process to . For the rest of you, I hope you will trust that many of us are at least dedicated towards the use of science in all of us and not hopelessly naive in our beliefs that food can have significant impact on our overall health, and quite likely can be a remedy for a great many disease conditions
Another problem with double blinded placebo controlled studies is that they are not able to account for sub groups or individual variation. In other words, there is no allowance, or ability, for the studies to determine if sub groups are effected differently by the substance being studied. For example lets say an identifiable sub group exists that responds extremely favorably for echinacea in fighting colds, but that they only make up 10 percent of the control group and that the other 90 percent is not helped, or even perhaps made worse, by echinacea. In that circumstance, the overall conclusion of the study is likely to be that echinacea is not effective for fighting colds and the fact that 10 percent of the population is significantly helped will be lost to this limited interpretation. There are two aspects of this that have significance. One is whether different techniques can be used for gathering the data to capture the significance. And then second whether we can develop some kind of biological markers to identify certain types of sub groups. For instance some authors and experts have postulated that different blood types may need different types of diets, or that certain populations react poorly to starches. Many of these sub groups are well known, but the tendency for clinical studies to treat all individuals as the same seems to be an ongoing problem
Similarly, the double blinded placebo controlled standard by definition attempts to focus on a single definable consistent substance in isolation with a subject who also is held in a tightly controlled environment. While there is good reason for this strategy in terms of controlling external factors and isolating specific results, it has its drawbacks as well. One of which is that isolating a specif ingredient can lend itself to the patenting process and the copyrighting of a specific compound for financial gain. But also this technique can fail to capture how naturally occurring compounds can wonk together synergisitically in assisting health or how isolated compounds can work in relationship to varying levels of other compounds in relation to health. Herbalism in general is based on compounds that occur together in plants, as opposed to trying to remove them into their individual constituents
This brings us to another area of scientific controversy, the anecdotal report. Anecdotal reports are of course roughly the testimonial and associated claims of an individual, or a group of individuals, in regard to some cause and effect relationship, and outside of clinical observation. There are two main dangers with the anecdotal report. One, the person referencing the information may be misusing the source. For example someone may say 'I have heard of hundreds of people who were helped by jellybeans." And there is of course no way to validate such claims. The second is in regard to the direct experience of the individual making the claim. This time the example might be someone having intense headaches, started eating jellybeans, and had their headaches disappear, and then concluded that jellybeans were the cause for the effect of their headaches disappearing. So while there are significant pitfalls to anecdotal reporting we will suggest that they should not be thrown out completely. One of the main reasons for that position is our belief in the power of a community to gather its own useful information given the proper context and tools. Therefore a community would need to train and empower its members to be reasonably qualified arbiters of the cause and effect relationships of their food choices in relationship to their health to the highest degree possible. And individuals would need to become aware of how to try to factor out other possible relationships in health changes outside of changes in food. A partial example of this is using an elimination diet to establish a baseline objective standard for symptoms and then to slowly introduce one food at a time and then notice any changes. Also a community of anecdotal reports, depending on the size would also overcome the small sample size problem that anecdotal reports often face. We are not saying that such a community information gathering system would by any means be completely scientific, but it should not be completely dismissed by any means either. And given the complexity of the debates regarding the health impacts of food choices, bringing some of that debate back within local parameters and discussion seems beneficial
Next we tackle an area that has no name attached to it as far as we are aware. It is roughly the conundrum or fallacy of applying the specific case to the general trend. An easy example occurs when you have good evidence that a certain substance or toxin is known to cause disease or illness in humans. And that you then further understand that a certain population has been exposed to the toxin in question and the expected rates of illness should be occurring within the exposed population The controversy occurs however when you try to prove that this expected trend to be true in one particular individual within the exposed population The problem is that it cannot be claimed as a scientific certainty that this particular cause and effect occurred in any particular case if there are no scientific tests to do so. Therefore part, and perhaps most importantly, the question is whether there are in fact scientific methods which can prove the causation from the toxin exposure and symptoms in any given individual, or whether the evidence can only predict trends in populations In other words, in the the case of individuals, there would have to be some type of evidence which would show evidence of a high level of exposure to the toxin in question, but would also have other biological markers that prove the toxin caused symptoms or death The point here is subtle, but important. In the context of food lets go with the idea that some additive or substance in food is known to cause specific health problems. Then we also know that a certain population was exposed to the substance and that the exposed population would have incidences of symptoms consistent with expectations of exposure. However the manufacturers lawyers, or PR people, of the product with the toxin in question, may point out the fact that you cannot, or may not, be able to prove that any one particular individual among this population to have definitively contracted symptoms form the exposure in question. While this may have truth from a legal perspective and in an absolute sense, that rationale should not lead us to believing the basic facts of the cause and effect relationship between toxin and symptoms are not trustworthy in regard to the general population. In other words the fact that science cannot prove these relationships in individual cases should not be used to cast doubt on the validity of the studies which prove the relationship, or trends, Yet it would seem that this is exactly what is suggested or implied by manufacturers when they say there can be no proof that any individual within these exposed population can be shown to have contracted their symptoms from our product. Now this idea is admittedly complex and is not likely to come up in our local growing of our own foods. But when we look at the pesticide and herbicide issues, GMO issues, and hormone and antibiotic issues in raising farm animals issues, it will be significant.
The final point is hopefully a little less complex. The point here is that the FDA will not allow any food producers to cite any studies on the benefits of the food that they produce even in clinically valid studies. The basic reason is that the FDA claims that the citing of any studies from a food with health benefits, is akin to making a drug claim. And since the foods in question have not gone through the rather expensive process of gaining FDA approval as a recognized effective drug, then they are not in a legal position to cite any research in regard to the food that they produce. This does not mean however that no one is ever allowed to cite the research for medically beneficial effects of food, just not the companies or individuals that produce it. However it has not to at least mention that the FDA believing that a food must prove itself to be a drug in order to make health claims seems to be indicative of mentality that sees technology as having a preeminent stature over naturally occurring substances in regard to our health, and we feel that attitude at least needs some questioning
So with some background on what the techniques of science and rationality are in helping us decide what foods are healthy and which are not we know move ahead to actually addressing these question to various foods and diets. The most famous debate, or comparison is of course the vegetarian/vegan diet versus one that includes meats. we do not propose to answer this in a feel swoop. Vegetarians and vegans in general live longer and have substantially lower rates of of some of the major diseases such as heart attack cancer and diabetes. Is it possible that vegetarians and vegans have other attributes common to their sub-group, such as exercising more or being more conscientious about avoiding toxins in the environment and other factors which may effect their health which skews the results? Yes. So we will try to outline and present some of the facts on this controversy as best we can. but of course the controversies do not stop there. There are several variations on pct and types of fats, carbs, and proteins for a multitude of diets And if that were not enough we have raw fooders, and the whole and fermented dairy food food folks. Yes this could be a website unto itself, and the possibilities of overwhelming folks with too much information is a real issue. So we will try a gradient and mutli- leveled approach in accordance with individuals interest and understandings if possible
The discussion of what are the healthiest types of diets hopefully serve as a kind of general introduction to go further into the study of nutrition or how food choices effect health. Earlier we mentioned the idea of creating an indices of all plant based foods and then providing information on those foods in various contexts. So for instance such an index it would include a category of how to grow a specific plant food or how long to store it safely in the frig, etc. In terms of plant based foods and health,the subject becomes more complicated. While the various plants will have their general health properties be summarized within such an index, Non plant based foods will also be discussed and perhaps indexed but plant based foods have a particularly large range of varieties and special treatment requirements, so we wanted to mention the index concept specifically in the context of plants I it will also be necessary to present some additional information for us to get the larger picture of how various foods effect our health.n other words we will provide some outlines of nutrition in general, as well as, more in depth considerations on nutrition's relationship to identifiable health disorders. This is of course a large project with a lot of controversy involved, and to some degree it will be necessary to discuss some of the experts and institutions involved. We do not claim to be experts and obviously this will not be medical advice. It will also be necessary to identify various disease states or predispositions. Cardio-vascular disease, cancer, diabetes will certainly be discussed in relation to food choices. But so will issues such as the glycemic index, lipid metabolism, and alkalizing will also be topics under consideration. In relation to these issues some discussion of the medical tests involved in diagnosing or evaluating your health status in relation to these issues will be necessary. And finally some other random issues such as artificial sweeteners and MSG will be discussed.
Another aspect of this discussion of the health of food is to focus on the quality of the food we receive from either locally produced foods or non-local commercial foods. This question is closely linked to the previous section since this "pollutant factor" we are introducing here, may have significant implications on whether we choose to become vegetarians or whatever. There is again no absolute distinctions between the two sections For the most part the focus is on the subjects of GMO's and herbicide and pesticide residues in produce and a wider series of questions in meats and fish. The questions with meat and fish become a little more complicated since the scale and complexity of animal organisms can be more complicated in many ways. For example anti-biotics may be feed to beef and pork without direct transmission to the food product we consume, but we may nonetheless have concerns about the systemic effects of such anti-biotics on the overall health of the animal and therefore impacting us as consumers of the product Again to be clear we are not addressing the political and economic contexts of these questions here, nor are we addressing the environmental impact questions beyond the context of how these substances and production conditions impact the healthiness of the food we consume. A final point regarding these issues is that we not only need to study and discuss whether foods are effected significantly by pesticides, antibiotics, etc, but also how effective the labeling and certification technique are in regard to providing certainty on what has been done to these food products in relation to these issues
In relation to this idea of educating people on diet information, it is also a good idea to try to get a good picture to what the present conditions are in our community in relation to people's diets . This is of course not simply a question of what people are eating, but also a question of whether people are able to eat as much as they need, or how well educated they are on their food choices. Part of evaluating the landscape is the question of hunger. It is is a difficult one for us in some ways since often the problem is posed in the context of getting more federal or state aid to help with the hunger issues, and that we are attempting to sty focused on local responses to food system issues. We of course have no difficulty in folks going to the larger issues section of the site for those questions of larger scale, and we see no problem in working on the national government issues at the same time as we grow food locally. But at least for some of us, we want to emphasize what we can do with our own two hands at the local level. And this work may indeed offer solutions to problems of hunger as well, but the solutions will be different than direct government aid and charity from far off institutions.
So in returning to the idea of trying to establish a picture of the food landscape in our community, we suggest a multifaceted approach. Obviously cooperating with the local health department and those working on food insecurity are important first steps for us. Further we hope to implement some additional feedback systems to create an even broader picture of the food/health landscape in our community through various new communication networks. How exactly that will play out is difficult to summarize, but certainly part of the answer would come from creating new relationships with existing institutions, such as retirement communities, churches, non profits etc. Additionally it would come from any increased networking capacity we are able to create directly with any outreach programs or advertising for the information offered at this website, or allies working outside of established institutions. Part of what we are suggesting here is a kind of abstract visualization process in terms of our local food system, the institutions who are involved, and perhaps imagining ones that go beyond the scope of the present participants. Whether such imaginings and questions will ruffle the feathers of existing institutions, or whether they will actively engage in any possible new horizons, remains an open question
Once we have a good picture of the local food landscape and the general health of our local population, then devising strategies to improve things hopefully becomes a clearer task. Part of our strategy is to simply provide information and resources, and then let individuals find what works for them. Yet a lot of folks already know that they have an unhealthy diet and are nonetheless unwilling or unable to change it, so just providing them information is unlikely to change anything for those folks For the moment lets consider the segment of the population who may be willing to try a new diet, but has not been able to do so for a variety of reasons. In these situations we are going to suggest a few ideas where the community can offer these folks some options, or environments, that they are not able to reach on their own. For instance we propose that a community look into the possibility of granting a certain number of individuals having healthy meals cooked for them for a period of at least a couple of weeks, so that they can at least experience the benefits of healthy eating which they were not able to accomplish for themselves. While there are a variety of ways and contexts of accomplishing something like this, we do suggest that the potential benefits of this for a community makes it worthy of consideration. The important point here is the potential for change. It is of course speculation to believe people are ready for significant change in their diets if they are exposed to the right conditions or have others help them on their way. But how many of us are really have an opportunity to do so outside of the confines of our habits and pressures of our daily lives? So while we understand it may strike many as pie in the sky, so to speak, we nonetheless believe that the potential in this area may be greater in unlocking a local food movement than any other area we address. It may indeed encompass a wide variety of strategies with a lot of groups to make this happen.
In the same vain some of our neighboring counties have developed some programs, such as the Ceres program in Sonoma County, which grows local food and then has it cooked by volunteers to serve the terminally or seriously ill in the county. This endeavor becomes a particularly powerful potential tool when and if, one tends to believe in the healing power, or at least palliative potential, of a diet heavily based on locally grown healthy produce. While I do not think Ceres generally advertises itself as a potential cure for disease for anyone, and such organizations would need to be wary of such claims, nonetheless the potential should not be ignored either. Regardless of whether such a program can approach the word cure, it seems that there is little doubt of the help and improvement of the quality of life of those touched by the Ceres program.
The last two sections have tended to focus on the idea of a group of people, or sector of a community, volunteering in some way to produce food environments for those who need help in some manner. We have purposefully put this front and center since we tend to want to highlight the idea of initiators ,or early adopters of various sorts, as a critical element in getting communities moving in some of the positive directions we are suggesting here. That being said we want to add some additional layers on how one might view these ideas. As mentioned elsewhere, the idea that volunteers, or early adapters, will only be compensated by the satisfaction or joy of helping others is not necessarily the only possibility. If folks become more visible in the community, it may increase the chances of some potential employer or customers as seeing them in a more favorable light for future economic gain on their part. Also it may be the case that programs that are initially based on volunteers may evolve into payed positions of some sort if the endeavor is seen as a success and an economic alignment occurs which makes the services profitable. And finally we need to mention that these potential programs have been in general been posed as active producers of a good or service and the customers or receivers of the product or service as passive recipients. Again we do believe in the symbolic emphasis of at least considering this perspective of simply aiding the needy. But at the same time we need to also consider such efforts as trying to empower the passive consumer, or needy if you will, to become capable of providing these services for themselves. In this scenario the volunteer producer, who may not seem to be receiving much in terms of compensation, may in fact be seen as investing in empowering the consumer of the service to become a more productive member of the community, and therefore eventually being compensated by the virtue of a generally more productive community
Digestion itself is an issue we will address and perhaps has more aspects than many folks would consider. Factors include; how often, or how large a meal you eat, having good proportions of protein and fiber in each meal, combining foods that digest well together, the consumption of bitters to aid digestion, the consumption of other herbs to aid digestion how much liquid you drink during or near mealtimes, how well you chew your food, and then finally your mental state while you eat. This last point leads into a larger discussion of of what might be called the social setting for eating. In particular how the meal is seen in the family context. Questions in this regard might include the degree of appreciation for the meal such as having been involved in its preparation and the act of sharing it with others. Some have suggested that family mealtime be a time of light conversation, and that heavier conversation be postponed until after the meal. These issues are of course up to families to decide but there does seem to be research that supports how relaxed and involved people are when they eat has a lot to do with the quality of their digestion. The point here is not to propose any prescription in this area, but to at least getting individuals and families to consider the importance of this time.
As we mentioned earlier subjects like canning, fermenting, juicing etc have their own special health considerations. In some cases these processes may inhibit or change the nutritional value in a negative manner, or in the case of fermentation or juicing, it may have some positive or enhancing nutritional effects.
The final topic is that of herbs and herbalism. While technically herbs may not be considered food, we fell that line is just too thin to be applied in this case. Also it is worth noting that herbs can be digested internally and have many non ingested usages including balms and aroma based usages of various sorts. Much of the information regarding herbs will be placed in other areas. Growing and harvesting herbs is discussed in the growing food section. Preparing herbs is discussed in the cooking and preparation section. Local herbal practitioners and educational options to become herbal practitioners is placed in the local networking. Purchasing herbs from conventional stores would be discussed in the food consumer section in cooking Therefore in this section we hope to concentrate on the health implications of herbs alone. This is not any easy task since there are many traditions. that include Native American,Chinese and modern North American practices. Herbalists in general use tinctures and teas as the main internal mechanism for treatment with herbs. We have some background in this, and believe this area to be a good initial point of understanding and hope to provide DIY workshops to provide a more complete understanding. Additionally we will try to provide the typical resources such as podcasts, books, regional workshops, magazines and e-zines, and some lists of authors and experts. And finally we will again lay out
Hopefully this will be better developed soon but it an attempt to outline the general subject
In Physiology we have a menu for the List of Conditions where under the general menu under the Health Bullet we have a menu for Specific Conditions. They are indeed basically the same phenomenon just described in different ways List of Conditions is more general with thins like nerve disorders, muscle disorders etc whereas Specific Conditions refers more to yes Specific Conditions contextually speaking however we need to discuss how the framing of disease as an entity is different than from a particular body out of balance which may share only certain similarities with others who have the so called same condition. This is not to say that categorizing disorders as disease may be useful in many or even most ways
Local capacities under the ?Health Bullet menu should be perhaps the header for the Local Practitioner and Local Health Environment categories
Demographics can be connected into narrative since trends tend to run hand and hand with narratives or meta level interpretations. It also has a clear local component to it so is associated with the local capacities categories
Below is an older introduction to the subject that people can cheek out if they find this insufficient. Health information can be confusing and intimidating. If you feel you already have a pretty good grasp on what you need to know in terms of evaluating health issues and simply are looking for resources then this particular introduction is probably not for you. The initial focus of this introduction is to address how we evaluate health information,. In general this topic is covered under the evidence sub-menu under the health bullet menu
Health
Health, and its relation to food, perhaps more than any other subject we touch upon here, has the potential to have significant impact on the social and economic well being of our communities. Health care costs, wellness, economic productivity, social welfare programs, and perhaps even in regard to criminal justice implications, are important issues for our communities which all stem from our relation to food and health As stated earlier we are trying to do a bit of tight rope walk in our explanation by trying to show the possibilities of taking new roads for food choices at the individual level and when such changes are adopted by larger groups of individuals what impacts can occur at larger levels. Beyond this challenge we also need to try to limit the range of the discussion, or to at least initially focus our discussion on food and health to specific food stuffs to the degree possible, instead of advocacy for particular diets, or health choices Four main avenues , or points of connection, between food and health issues at the individual level and how those issues are connected to larger societal issues and institutions.
So when we started this section we wanted to try to make it kind of simple at first and focus on the basics of food and health. We still want to do that, but it is really impossible to approach this issue without acknowledging all the context and biases which seem to limit our ability to be objective or even scientific. The overarching point is that we cannot just present neutral information regarding food and health without also looking at how we decide what stands as good evidence. After all it is pretty much impossible to try to make small generalizations about diet and its relationship to health without entering these larger contexts such as a medical industry, the nature of disease, being a passive patient in your, etc. Nonetheless while we are choosing to highlight this wider context here in this initial section, we still hope that at least in your minds you can see some form of simplicity in the idea that food itself, and especially when it is grown in a local cooperative context, provides individuals with a powerful opportunities to effect their health with what might be considered a simple adjustment in their eating habits. Such a potentially powerful simplicity should help inspire us to delve into these larger questions with a confidence that somewhere within the web of complexity that at least a certain amount of simple answers exist
Hopefully it is clear that science and objectivity are going to be understood differently by different people, and that many contours exist within what is considered rational. Such distinctions come from a wide variety of opinions and differing understandings on a wide variety of subjects. For example, someone working in the lumber industry may see the environmental issues tied to lumber extraction in a different light than those who do not. The point being that this whole idea of a mindset, or attitude in approaching these subjects, is often going to effect, or override, what someone else my see as a neutral objective viewpoint on a subject, . How people view economics, politics, criminal justice, and really the entire panoply of has bearing on how we look at subjects such as the relationship between food and health. In the general outline of the website, the individual specter section tries to address this 'mindset' question. Therefore we suggest folks look at that section simultaneously to focusing on specific subjects such as the food and health relationship we are working on here
What is the existing infrastructure that supports the discussion of food and health in our community?. Are local governmental officials and organizations educated and willing to discuss a wide range of information regarding food and health? For example , dietitians tend to staff most governmental positions. Some will argue that nutritionists are educated in a significantly different manner than dietitians and that we should consider having both educational modalities having significant representation within our community dialogues. The point here however is not necessarily about who is right in terms of philosophical differences about food and health, but rather to simply recognize that there is a structure, in a sense, in terms of how these subjects reverberate within our communities, and it may be an option for some communities to look quite closely on the details of the structure and how it functions, as well as what can be done to adjust or rethink said structures Generally community heath department are not educators of the public, they do not solicit public input in general except for a few specialized circumstances City councils and other local government bodies allow for public comment, and in theory value this input to some degree, but not health departments
What might be the societal mindsets which keep people from trying diets that, on some level , they realize are more healthy them? Or the possible societal conditioning which may bias an individuals objectivity to look at existing evidence? All these issues are involved in this broader context So while it is a kind of stated motto to try to place the fundamental , and hopefully to some degree simpler issues, at the entry level of our discussion However it is sometimes necessary to at least open the door to wider contexts if we want to follow these issues to higher levels of information and debate.
It is suggested here that a community that shares stories about their experiences and beliefs related to food and health, topics had advantages over one that does not. However, it is also true that an individual who is focused and engaged on his or her health, in what we might call this isolated manner, is likely to be adding to overall health of the community. And therefore it is a positive contribution in this sense regardless of whether they engage with the larger community on the subject
Sorry to start with a difficult and divisive point, but it is also extremely significant that this same division tends to divide itself again at the local and macro levels. In other words the alternative practitioners tend to have their offices and homes, in the communities they live in, While conventional medical doctors are just as likely to is practiced So these differences are indeed significant, but there is no need to take sides here. In fact we want to promote cooperative strategies with alternatives and conventional, which has been sometimes coined as complimentary medicine
The second issue regards to what degree we want to expand beyond the discussion beyond food alone as local modality for improving health directly at the local level. But even before going there we should likely reiterate bit of the idea that we are trying to describe a subject which works as a kind of center for a wider set of subjects who also have centers. So as corny as it sounds we are going to kind of try to look at these concepts from perhaps a central spinning wheel which interact with other spinning little systems in a kind of giant clockwork of relationship with food, health, and all the subtle connections spinning nearby. If this description does not suit you then perhaps something like nested eggs of information or the Russian doll equivalent may help give you a sense of how we are trying to explain the way the information is presented. But to return to the idea of having the central question being the center of the conversation of what do we know the consequences of food choices in relation to our health and well being. Now this is such a central question for so many important aspects of our behavior it may serve as a center point for many issues. But if we are to start somewhere then /I suggest we start at least at two places. The first is knowing the foodstuff in some sense of a raw physical item, electro- chemical, energetic, or mechanical nature. So things like how much Vitamin C can be identified in a particular food stuff is an example of this. The other side of the coin is what meaning can we gather about our food choices based on some understandings of the consequences based on science in general , though there needs to be some initial wiggle worm for that term for now. Also we need to add the confounding factor of people want to do what they want to do, and that such behavior may not be consistent with some objective standard of healthy behavior. The central point or little nested eggshell if you like is about trying to establish what is objectively healthy or what process food based approaches can we use as a community to maximize health. One thing we of course need to recognize is this idea that we can examine food in a mechanistic way that requires a time component. For one to know about the fruit you ate this second in its physical form, we usually require you to have historical information on the item or a way of electro-chemically examining it with a test of some sort Now whether people want to engage in such behavior is of course closely related to the central points, so the question of motivation is treated as a separate topic to some degree
The second core element is of course the organism which ingests the food. Many factors cloud any absolute distinction between the substance /organism duality. One conundrum is that organisms start with someone ingesting food like a pregnant mother. nonetheless we hope that most of us these are fairly clear and useful distinctions For many of us examining these issues of food and health there is a temptation to want to see science as an input output algorithm We have at least two cases to consider; those regarding the general processing tendencies of the organism in relation to a particular food, and the diversity of bio chemistry, and perhaps personality types among the human population. In other words, you could call this notion as regarding our DNA plus our environmental history and its footprint as a kind of sum total of our overall biological character. Though others will also include a spiritual component. who often assert a very strong affinity for food based on a spiritual connection. so the point again is to see the organism as the corresponding element to that of that food particles themselves
Beyond these two main fundamental elements we now need to decide what the science of nutrition is based on How do we decide what foods cause what reactions in what types of bodies? What kinds of experts do we trust? What questions do we ask about the experts we trust? We continue to look closely at what most people would consider hard science, things like effective testing of supplements and other substances for their purity, and gold standard double blind clinical controlled trials. But we also enter an area where spirituality has a certain sense of health attached to it, though it may be difficult to measure by classic standards
As we begin to move out from our central theme we suggest highlighting other local yet non food based health options. Locally based modalities such as tai chi, exercise programs, chiropractic and other bodywork modalities, all lend themselves to be practiced locally in away that non-local institutional and industrial sources of health treatments cannot. This separation between locally based technologies, and those of high tech medical modalities, is, like most of our distinctions, not absolute . In fact we do provide another section here related to more conventional health care providers plans And while we are not excluding a conversation about conventional , non locally derived technological treatments, we are suggesting they are to be placed in a different frames here.The classic distinction is that the alternative and holistic practitioners will usually claim they help and restore the body's natural system to heal itself, whereas medication and conventional treatments generally offer I kind of takeover or at least imposing of a new pathway or mechanical adjustment of the body It is important to recognize some of the familiar context or connections. One is that of expanding the conversation around these other local therapies. More conversations leads to a better record for other to utilize the information but may also open up new windows or creative ideas on how to improve some of these locally based modalities. We cannot assume that starting conversations on these subjects will just magically start of course, which leads us to a couple of other aspects on approaching this added dimension of non food related locally available health improvement modalities
There are really two aspects here, but they are so closely related we will try to weave them together. The basic idea is the range of discussion we have as a community in regard to these local non food modalities, LNFM's, if you will. the range of information which is pertinent to each of these somewhat distinct subjects and modalities should be seen as running hand in hand with the actual practice of them. And within this range of information there are two fairly distinct ways of seeing the issues involved. One is the kind of technical efficacy question of the healing modality. In the case of acupuncture, it would be the chines medical philosophy, meridians, etc. But it would also include studies that have shown its efficacy for certain conditions etc. The other aspect of this range of information question is more involved in terms how we as a community are oriented towards the service in question. How visible is the practitioner, how much the services cost, what assurances about background and training, are other in the community being taught how to practice the therapy, is their interdisciplinary interaction with other therapists. The latter point is very broad, but there is kind of an interesting intersection of these two notions. That being, to what degree can a practitioner be involved in local discussion about the efficacy questions, or other types of questions, regarding his or her therapy. This is of course a delicate issue with a lot of restrictions about what can be said about health claims and even to what degree medical professionals want to give away medical information in the form of public discussion, for free. On the other hand such alternative practitioners could benefit from an increase in public awareness of the issues that are raised.
Now that we have raised the specter of the public discussion as a corresponding to our actual treatment options which are available within our community , we want to expand this idea a bit further. As we have suggested the breadth or range of our public discussion can correspond fairly directly with certain aspects and types of medical practices which are available within our communities. however we need to look at the areas that are outside of treatment modalities. These topics will include non food and water related toxin exposure as well as considerations which stem from lifestyle components. These issues include toxins or allergens which you are exposed to in your house work environment or elsewhere. But it also can included your mental attitude and stress level related to life in general, and therefore can become a rather all encompassing feature. The latter leads unto psychological and social issues that we consider a somewhat separate category than the more so called physical modalities that we are related to health in this section. But there is of course an obvious connection to the physical and psychological, so at least this section can serve as an introduction and a portal outwards to a conversation about the larger psychological and sociological issues
An expanded discussion of health issues beyond the scope of food and herbs such as supplementation, IV chealtion therapy, or issues such as the national health care debate are also deferred to other areas The reasons for these distinctions are two fold. One we want to keep the initial focus on food to the largest degree possible. And two we are trying to focus on what we can produce in a fundamental sense at the local level as a starting point before moving up to a discussion of how an increased local capacity interacts with the meta economy. So with that in mind there are likely three levels in our discussion of health. The first is the discussion of food and its effect on our health. The second would be what other health related modalities can be accomplished with resources which can be acquired at the strictly local level, such as, tai chi, yoga, and other activities which do not require a technological input from the larger economy. A third level is that of the food consumer in terms of being able to make well informed health based decisions on the foods we purchase from restaurants and grocers. And while there is a lot of crossover with the previous sections discussion of the food consumer this section will discuss the issue a little more explicitly in terms of health. One caveat is that some of the insightful types may be saying 'Hey not all foods and herbs can be produce locally.' This is true but food and localism are two themes that run side by side together here , and we allowed food as a distinct category to have precedence over localism in this case. Admittedly the effort is somewhat symbolic in that we attempt to divide up the information in a way where the community can focus on what is to some degree under its most direct control. And to be clear, no one is saying you cannot have a discussion on these larger issues immediately if you go to that section of the site. Instead we are saying the format of the site in general is laid out in a manner that suggests that the majority of our efforts initially go towards issues of food, and what can be one with it at the local level
One of the difficulties of discussing food and health is that immediately we come against the controversy of what passes as scientific evidence. Double blinded placebo based clinical trials have been considered the gold standard for several decades now, and we certainly do not wish to challenge that basic premise in general. Such a standard however, is vulnerable to skewered constructions and protocols of the trials are often severely problematic and not consistent to the protocols and dosage amounts suggested by alternative practitioners. Further the the interpretation apparatus seems to be frequently coming to very odd conclusions, and to what degree the final conclusion may be controlled by a select group of people when in fact we generally need some broad discussion the impact of health studies since they are complicated Experts chosen to review the meaningful data and conclusion of the results subject to manipulation by adjusting the makeup of the control groups or quality and quantity of the substance being examined, or by the authors conclusion about what the data implies. So while these issues can become quite complex and frustrating for many of us, I do think they need to be taken on by at some level of this discussion by local who make some effoort to get through a process to . For the rest of you, I hope you will trust that many of us are at least dedicated towards the use of science in all of us and not hopelessly naive in our beliefs that food can have significant impact on our overall health, and quite likely can be a remedy for a great many disease conditions
Another problem with double blinded placebo controlled studies is that they are not able to account for sub groups or individual variation. In other words, there is no allowance, or ability, for the studies to determine if sub groups are effected differently by the substance being studied. For example lets say an identifiable sub group exists that responds extremely favorably for echinacea in fighting colds, but that they only make up 10 percent of the control group and that the other 90 percent is not helped, or even perhaps made worse, by echinacea. In that circumstance, the overall conclusion of the study is likely to be that echinacea is not effective for fighting colds and the fact that 10 percent of the population is significantly helped will be lost to this limited interpretation. There are two aspects of this that have significance. One is whether different techniques can be used for gathering the data to capture the significance. And then second whether we can develop some kind of biological markers to identify certain types of sub groups. For instance some authors and experts have postulated that different blood types may need different types of diets, or that certain populations react poorly to starches. Many of these sub groups are well known, but the tendency for clinical studies to treat all individuals as the same seems to be an ongoing problem
Similarly, the double blinded placebo controlled standard by definition attempts to focus on a single definable consistent substance in isolation with a subject who also is held in a tightly controlled environment. While there is good reason for this strategy in terms of controlling external factors and isolating specific results, it has its drawbacks as well. One of which is that isolating a specif ingredient can lend itself to the patenting process and the copyrighting of a specific compound for financial gain. But also this technique can fail to capture how naturally occurring compounds can wonk together synergisitically in assisting health or how isolated compounds can work in relationship to varying levels of other compounds in relation to health. Herbalism in general is based on compounds that occur together in plants, as opposed to trying to remove them into their individual constituents
This brings us to another area of scientific controversy, the anecdotal report. Anecdotal reports are of course roughly the testimonial and associated claims of an individual, or a group of individuals, in regard to some cause and effect relationship, and outside of clinical observation. There are two main dangers with the anecdotal report. One, the person referencing the information may be misusing the source. For example someone may say 'I have heard of hundreds of people who were helped by jellybeans." And there is of course no way to validate such claims. The second is in regard to the direct experience of the individual making the claim. This time the example might be someone having intense headaches, started eating jellybeans, and had their headaches disappear, and then concluded that jellybeans were the cause for the effect of their headaches disappearing. So while there are significant pitfalls to anecdotal reporting we will suggest that they should not be thrown out completely. One of the main reasons for that position is our belief in the power of a community to gather its own useful information given the proper context and tools. Therefore a community would need to train and empower its members to be reasonably qualified arbiters of the cause and effect relationships of their food choices in relationship to their health to the highest degree possible. And individuals would need to become aware of how to try to factor out other possible relationships in health changes outside of changes in food. A partial example of this is using an elimination diet to establish a baseline objective standard for symptoms and then to slowly introduce one food at a time and then notice any changes. Also a community of anecdotal reports, depending on the size would also overcome the small sample size problem that anecdotal reports often face. We are not saying that such a community information gathering system would by any means be completely scientific, but it should not be completely dismissed by any means either. And given the complexity of the debates regarding the health impacts of food choices, bringing some of that debate back within local parameters and discussion seems beneficial
Next we tackle an area that has no name attached to it as far as we are aware. It is roughly the conundrum or fallacy of applying the specific case to the general trend. An easy example occurs when you have good evidence that a certain substance or toxin is known to cause disease or illness in humans. And that you then further understand that a certain population has been exposed to the toxin in question and the expected rates of illness should be occurring within the exposed population The controversy occurs however when you try to prove that this expected trend to be true in one particular individual within the exposed population The problem is that it cannot be claimed as a scientific certainty that this particular cause and effect occurred in any particular case if there are no scientific tests to do so. Therefore part, and perhaps most importantly, the question is whether there are in fact scientific methods which can prove the causation from the toxin exposure and symptoms in any given individual, or whether the evidence can only predict trends in populations In other words, in the the case of individuals, there would have to be some type of evidence which would show evidence of a high level of exposure to the toxin in question, but would also have other biological markers that prove the toxin caused symptoms or death The point here is subtle, but important. In the context of food lets go with the idea that some additive or substance in food is known to cause specific health problems. Then we also know that a certain population was exposed to the substance and that the exposed population would have incidences of symptoms consistent with expectations of exposure. However the manufacturers lawyers, or PR people, of the product with the toxin in question, may point out the fact that you cannot, or may not, be able to prove that any one particular individual among this population to have definitively contracted symptoms form the exposure in question. While this may have truth from a legal perspective and in an absolute sense, that rationale should not lead us to believing the basic facts of the cause and effect relationship between toxin and symptoms are not trustworthy in regard to the general population. In other words the fact that science cannot prove these relationships in individual cases should not be used to cast doubt on the validity of the studies which prove the relationship, or trends, Yet it would seem that this is exactly what is suggested or implied by manufacturers when they say there can be no proof that any individual within these exposed population can be shown to have contracted their symptoms from our product. Now this idea is admittedly complex and is not likely to come up in our local growing of our own foods. But when we look at the pesticide and herbicide issues, GMO issues, and hormone and antibiotic issues in raising farm animals issues, it will be significant.
The final point is hopefully a little less complex. The point here is that the FDA will not allow any food producers to cite any studies on the benefits of the food that they produce even in clinically valid studies. The basic reason is that the FDA claims that the citing of any studies from a food with health benefits, is akin to making a drug claim. And since the foods in question have not gone through the rather expensive process of gaining FDA approval as a recognized effective drug, then they are not in a legal position to cite any research in regard to the food that they produce. This does not mean however that no one is ever allowed to cite the research for medically beneficial effects of food, just not the companies or individuals that produce it. However it has not to at least mention that the FDA believing that a food must prove itself to be a drug in order to make health claims seems to be indicative of mentality that sees technology as having a preeminent stature over naturally occurring substances in regard to our health, and we feel that attitude at least needs some questioning
So with some background on what the techniques of science and rationality are in helping us decide what foods are healthy and which are not we know move ahead to actually addressing these question to various foods and diets. The most famous debate, or comparison is of course the vegetarian/vegan diet versus one that includes meats. we do not propose to answer this in a feel swoop. Vegetarians and vegans in general live longer and have substantially lower rates of of some of the major diseases such as heart attack cancer and diabetes. Is it possible that vegetarians and vegans have other attributes common to their sub-group, such as exercising more or being more conscientious about avoiding toxins in the environment and other factors which may effect their health which skews the results? Yes. So we will try to outline and present some of the facts on this controversy as best we can. but of course the controversies do not stop there. There are several variations on pct and types of fats, carbs, and proteins for a multitude of diets And if that were not enough we have raw fooders, and the whole and fermented dairy food food folks. Yes this could be a website unto itself, and the possibilities of overwhelming folks with too much information is a real issue. So we will try a gradient and mutli- leveled approach in accordance with individuals interest and understandings if possible
The discussion of what are the healthiest types of diets hopefully serve as a kind of general introduction to go further into the study of nutrition or how food choices effect health. Earlier we mentioned the idea of creating an indices of all plant based foods and then providing information on those foods in various contexts. So for instance such an index it would include a category of how to grow a specific plant food or how long to store it safely in the frig, etc. In terms of plant based foods and health,the subject becomes more complicated. While the various plants will have their general health properties be summarized within such an index, Non plant based foods will also be discussed and perhaps indexed but plant based foods have a particularly large range of varieties and special treatment requirements, so we wanted to mention the index concept specifically in the context of plants I it will also be necessary to present some additional information for us to get the larger picture of how various foods effect our health.n other words we will provide some outlines of nutrition in general, as well as, more in depth considerations on nutrition's relationship to identifiable health disorders. This is of course a large project with a lot of controversy involved, and to some degree it will be necessary to discuss some of the experts and institutions involved. We do not claim to be experts and obviously this will not be medical advice. It will also be necessary to identify various disease states or predispositions. Cardio-vascular disease, cancer, diabetes will certainly be discussed in relation to food choices. But so will issues such as the glycemic index, lipid metabolism, and alkalizing will also be topics under consideration. In relation to these issues some discussion of the medical tests involved in diagnosing or evaluating your health status in relation to these issues will be necessary. And finally some other random issues such as artificial sweeteners and MSG will be discussed.
Another aspect of this discussion of the health of food is to focus on the quality of the food we receive from either locally produced foods or non-local commercial foods. This question is closely linked to the previous section since this "pollutant factor" we are introducing here, may have significant implications on whether we choose to become vegetarians or whatever. There is again no absolute distinctions between the two sections For the most part the focus is on the subjects of GMO's and herbicide and pesticide residues in produce and a wider series of questions in meats and fish. The questions with meat and fish become a little more complicated since the scale and complexity of animal organisms can be more complicated in many ways. For example anti-biotics may be feed to beef and pork without direct transmission to the food product we consume, but we may nonetheless have concerns about the systemic effects of such anti-biotics on the overall health of the animal and therefore impacting us as consumers of the product Again to be clear we are not addressing the political and economic contexts of these questions here, nor are we addressing the environmental impact questions beyond the context of how these substances and production conditions impact the healthiness of the food we consume. A final point regarding these issues is that we not only need to study and discuss whether foods are effected significantly by pesticides, antibiotics, etc, but also how effective the labeling and certification technique are in regard to providing certainty on what has been done to these food products in relation to these issues
In relation to this idea of educating people on diet information, it is also a good idea to try to get a good picture to what the present conditions are in our community in relation to people's diets . This is of course not simply a question of what people are eating, but also a question of whether people are able to eat as much as they need, or how well educated they are on their food choices. Part of evaluating the landscape is the question of hunger. It is is a difficult one for us in some ways since often the problem is posed in the context of getting more federal or state aid to help with the hunger issues, and that we are attempting to sty focused on local responses to food system issues. We of course have no difficulty in folks going to the larger issues section of the site for those questions of larger scale, and we see no problem in working on the national government issues at the same time as we grow food locally. But at least for some of us, we want to emphasize what we can do with our own two hands at the local level. And this work may indeed offer solutions to problems of hunger as well, but the solutions will be different than direct government aid and charity from far off institutions.
So in returning to the idea of trying to establish a picture of the food landscape in our community, we suggest a multifaceted approach. Obviously cooperating with the local health department and those working on food insecurity are important first steps for us. Further we hope to implement some additional feedback systems to create an even broader picture of the food/health landscape in our community through various new communication networks. How exactly that will play out is difficult to summarize, but certainly part of the answer would come from creating new relationships with existing institutions, such as retirement communities, churches, non profits etc. Additionally it would come from any increased networking capacity we are able to create directly with any outreach programs or advertising for the information offered at this website, or allies working outside of established institutions. Part of what we are suggesting here is a kind of abstract visualization process in terms of our local food system, the institutions who are involved, and perhaps imagining ones that go beyond the scope of the present participants. Whether such imaginings and questions will ruffle the feathers of existing institutions, or whether they will actively engage in any possible new horizons, remains an open question
Once we have a good picture of the local food landscape and the general health of our local population, then devising strategies to improve things hopefully becomes a clearer task. Part of our strategy is to simply provide information and resources, and then let individuals find what works for them. Yet a lot of folks already know that they have an unhealthy diet and are nonetheless unwilling or unable to change it, so just providing them information is unlikely to change anything for those folks For the moment lets consider the segment of the population who may be willing to try a new diet, but has not been able to do so for a variety of reasons. In these situations we are going to suggest a few ideas where the community can offer these folks some options, or environments, that they are not able to reach on their own. For instance we propose that a community look into the possibility of granting a certain number of individuals having healthy meals cooked for them for a period of at least a couple of weeks, so that they can at least experience the benefits of healthy eating which they were not able to accomplish for themselves. While there are a variety of ways and contexts of accomplishing something like this, we do suggest that the potential benefits of this for a community makes it worthy of consideration. The important point here is the potential for change. It is of course speculation to believe people are ready for significant change in their diets if they are exposed to the right conditions or have others help them on their way. But how many of us are really have an opportunity to do so outside of the confines of our habits and pressures of our daily lives? So while we understand it may strike many as pie in the sky, so to speak, we nonetheless believe that the potential in this area may be greater in unlocking a local food movement than any other area we address. It may indeed encompass a wide variety of strategies with a lot of groups to make this happen.
In the same vain some of our neighboring counties have developed some programs, such as the Ceres program in Sonoma County, which grows local food and then has it cooked by volunteers to serve the terminally or seriously ill in the county. This endeavor becomes a particularly powerful potential tool when and if, one tends to believe in the healing power, or at least palliative potential, of a diet heavily based on locally grown healthy produce. While I do not think Ceres generally advertises itself as a potential cure for disease for anyone, and such organizations would need to be wary of such claims, nonetheless the potential should not be ignored either. Regardless of whether such a program can approach the word cure, it seems that there is little doubt of the help and improvement of the quality of life of those touched by the Ceres program.
The last two sections have tended to focus on the idea of a group of people, or sector of a community, volunteering in some way to produce food environments for those who need help in some manner. We have purposefully put this front and center since we tend to want to highlight the idea of initiators ,or early adopters of various sorts, as a critical element in getting communities moving in some of the positive directions we are suggesting here. That being said we want to add some additional layers on how one might view these ideas. As mentioned elsewhere, the idea that volunteers, or early adapters, will only be compensated by the satisfaction or joy of helping others is not necessarily the only possibility. If folks become more visible in the community, it may increase the chances of some potential employer or customers as seeing them in a more favorable light for future economic gain on their part. Also it may be the case that programs that are initially based on volunteers may evolve into payed positions of some sort if the endeavor is seen as a success and an economic alignment occurs which makes the services profitable. And finally we need to mention that these potential programs have been in general been posed as active producers of a good or service and the customers or receivers of the product or service as passive recipients. Again we do believe in the symbolic emphasis of at least considering this perspective of simply aiding the needy. But at the same time we need to also consider such efforts as trying to empower the passive consumer, or needy if you will, to become capable of providing these services for themselves. In this scenario the volunteer producer, who may not seem to be receiving much in terms of compensation, may in fact be seen as investing in empowering the consumer of the service to become a more productive member of the community, and therefore eventually being compensated by the virtue of a generally more productive community
Digestion itself is an issue we will address and perhaps has more aspects than many folks would consider. Factors include; how often, or how large a meal you eat, having good proportions of protein and fiber in each meal, combining foods that digest well together, the consumption of bitters to aid digestion, the consumption of other herbs to aid digestion how much liquid you drink during or near mealtimes, how well you chew your food, and then finally your mental state while you eat. This last point leads into a larger discussion of of what might be called the social setting for eating. In particular how the meal is seen in the family context. Questions in this regard might include the degree of appreciation for the meal such as having been involved in its preparation and the act of sharing it with others. Some have suggested that family mealtime be a time of light conversation, and that heavier conversation be postponed until after the meal. These issues are of course up to families to decide but there does seem to be research that supports how relaxed and involved people are when they eat has a lot to do with the quality of their digestion. The point here is not to propose any prescription in this area, but to at least getting individuals and families to consider the importance of this time.
As we mentioned earlier subjects like canning, fermenting, juicing etc have their own special health considerations. In some cases these processes may inhibit or change the nutritional value in a negative manner, or in the case of fermentation or juicing, it may have some positive or enhancing nutritional effects.
The final topic is that of herbs and herbalism. While technically herbs may not be considered food, we fell that line is just too thin to be applied in this case. Also it is worth noting that herbs can be digested internally and have many non ingested usages including balms and aroma based usages of various sorts. Much of the information regarding herbs will be placed in other areas. Growing and harvesting herbs is discussed in the growing food section. Preparing herbs is discussed in the cooking and preparation section. Local herbal practitioners and educational options to become herbal practitioners is placed in the local networking. Purchasing herbs from conventional stores would be discussed in the food consumer section in cooking Therefore in this section we hope to concentrate on the health implications of herbs alone. This is not any easy task since there are many traditions. that include Native American,Chinese and modern North American practices. Herbalists in general use tinctures and teas as the main internal mechanism for treatment with herbs. We have some background in this, and believe this area to be a good initial point of understanding and hope to provide DIY workshops to provide a more complete understanding. Additionally we will try to provide the typical resources such as podcasts, books, regional workshops, magazines and e-zines, and some lists of authors and experts. And finally we will again lay out
Hopefully this will be better developed soon but it an attempt to outline the general subject
In Physiology we have a menu for the List of Conditions where under the general menu under the Health Bullet we have a menu for Specific Conditions. They are indeed basically the same phenomenon just described in different ways List of Conditions is more general with thins like nerve disorders, muscle disorders etc whereas Specific Conditions refers more to yes Specific Conditions contextually speaking however we need to discuss how the framing of disease as an entity is different than from a particular body out of balance which may share only certain similarities with others who have the so called same condition. This is not to say that categorizing disorders as disease may be useful in many or even most ways
Local capacities under the ?Health Bullet menu should be perhaps the header for the Local Practitioner and Local Health Environment categories
Demographics can be connected into narrative since trends tend to run hand and hand with narratives or meta level interpretations. It also has a clear local component to it so is associated with the local capacities categories
Click here to edit.