RE: Foods, recipes, & kitchen equipment: Mythology of dark green leaves [s]

[Guest guest]

rawfood On Behalf Of Gypsi at www.aromaticwings.com

Sunday, April 17, 2005 9:05 AM

Re: [Raw Food] What I ate today. (E adds: Mythology of dark green

leaves)

may I ask a question about the kale??

I have seen two types of kale so far in my quest for eating better. One

being very very dark green with small leaves about 10-12 inches in length

total.at maturity... And the second is what I have now which is a longer

larger stemed leaf, slightly grayer in color... lighter green. Now it is my

understanding that we want the darkest greens right?? so the first type

would be better for you vitamin wise..am I correct in this thinking.? Also

when one says " handfule of kale leaves " how many stems is this?? when I make

a juice or smoothie I am using four to five depending on size sometimes

depending on if I need more greens ... but what is a " normal handfull " ?

_____

1. Yes, you may ask. :)

 

2. You write (and many others believe): " it is my understanding that we want

the darkest greens right?? "

 

No. My impression is that somewhere in the land of fractional thinking,

where the focus is on single nutrients rather than on creating health,

someone once compared " dark green " leaves with " tender greens " and concluded

that the dark green leaves contain more of something-or-other. (Different

sources emphasize different findings.) Then, following the principle that

" more is better, " those people spread the word with great zeal. Since this

happened, many people have learned and recited these " findings. "

 

We need soft, water-soluble, digestible fiber. We do not need nor tolerate

well any significant quantity of harsh, insoluble, indigestible fiber.

Tender greens lean heavily toward soluble fiber, we digest tender greens

quickly and easily. Most of the " dark greens " (and of course nuts and seeds)

are much higher in insoluble fiber. Think about it...how many of you would

actually sit down and eat a bowl full of kale or chard WITHOUT first

treating it in some way, marinating it in oil/acid/salt, blending it up,

etc? We treat the kale because, in its natural state, it is indeed difficult

for humans to digest.

 

This thinking mirrors that of people who suggest, for example, that we need

to steam broccoli in order to " make it more digestible. " But why would we

not simply pause, think for a moment, and ask, " If it's difficult for us to

digest, why are we trying to treat it as if it were food for us? "

 

Things in Nature happen easily, Nature does not stand around making recipes

and formulae and developing processing machinery. I'm not suggesting that we

never use any of our inventions, of course we will. But I AM suggesting

that, along the way, we pause now and then to consider the real motivation

behind the different WAYS we use them. If our motivation arises for

convenience, enjoyment, or the like, then wonderful. But if our " reason " is

to make something " more digestible, " then perhaps not so wonderful.

 

Best to all,

Elchanan

 

 

 

 

--

---------------------[ Ciphire Signature ]----------------------

vlinfo signed email body (2468 characters)

on 17 April 2005 at 16:34:45 UTC

rawfood

-------------------------------

: Ciphire has secured this email against identity theft.

: Free download at www.ciphire.com. The garbled lines

: below are the sender's verifiable digital signature.

-------------------------------

00fAAAAAEAAAAlkGJCpAkAAIMCAAIAAgACACBZ36NZd8ice9rJ4ZlYrt6BrEjH8O

zzmKDQLsTNDUWDmAEAhgSkE5NuzzvORJkeFIi/NVXB9GCG1XVfaMj+yPGZ0X1v3h

Vaw+C0BjUP00jFnek36QQiOa+PBN9HustHdu6v7w==

------------------[ End Ciphire Signed Message ]----------------