Why Are PUFA's Delicious?

[Rachel]

Wondering wtf avicel is? I was, too.

Discovered accidentally by Dr. O.A. Battista, avicel is a microcrystalline cellulose powder. Available both as a fine powder and a gel, it can be used to replace dry or fat-based ingredients in food preparation. It adds no taste, calories, smell, or nutrition to the food. Wood is chemically treated to extract naturally occurring cellulose to create avicel. Avicel, the purified cellulose, can then be used in food preparation, makeup, and sunscreen products.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-avicel.htm

Yum.

 

[narouz]

AVICEL – a brand name for microcrystalline cellulose. Avicel
has been used safely and effectively for 35 years in the food
and pharmaceutical industries. Virtually inert, it is not absorbed
into the system, and will not interfere or interact with other
nutrients, vitamins or minerals. Avicel is made of wood which
has been purified and powdered into extremely tiny particles --
between 0.000039 and 0.0001560 of an inch of pure fiber,
with the consistency of a very fine face powder.

Avicel is the filler used by Skip’s Pharmacy in Boca Raton.
For a fun history of Avicel, “Let Us Have Nothing To Eat,”
CLICK HERE.

http://www.lowdosenaltrexone.org/gazorpa/LDNFillers.html


...and the link within the above quote will lead you to...

Dr. Battista was at work trying to develop a particularly strong rayon tire cord. He believed that this could be done by breaking down the cellulose into tiny fragments. In one such trial he placed some cellulose in water in an ordinary electric blender of the type that you may have in your own kitchen. The smallest bits of cellulose were expected to fall to the bottom where they could be separated from the water and then used to form a cord.

A quarter of an hour later the scientist discovered that the blender was completely filled with something that resembled a thick white custard. It did not look like the raw material for a tire cord; it looked like something to eat. The laboratory was equipped with an oven. Dr. Battista spooned the custard out of the blender and made cookies and sauces with it. These were the first examples of the food that can be eaten, but that is not food.

The company soon began to make this product, which was named Avicel, in larger quantities. This was not difficult to do, as the rayon you wear, the cellophane you wrap packages with, and the new nonfood are made of the same raw material - wood. Even the early stages of preparation are the same: The logs are chopped up and treated with chemicals to make wood pulp from which the cellulose is obtained. The only difference is that the cellulose planned for the dinner table is carefully purified.

To make Avicel in bulk, Dr. Battista's method is used, only on a bigger scale. The raw cellulose and water are put into a huge blender. The cellulose is broken down into the tiniest particles you can imagine. They range in size between a miniscule 0.000039 and 0.0001560 of an inch.

If you looked at the finished product you would never guess that it came from a tree. The Avicel is made in two forms. One is called a "gel," which is the technical way of describing the custardlike substance Dr. Battista saw that first day. To be exact, this nonfood looks much more like a fluffy white cold cream than a custard. The other form of Avicel is as a very fine flour with the consistency of face powder.

Before presenting Avicel to weight-watching Americans the scientists had to make sure that eating this cellulose would not harm anyone. After all, humans do not have the same digestive systems as termites or cows. The first tests were made with rabbits, mice and monkeys. These creatures were put on diets of half Avicel and half ordinary food. They emerged from the test in perfect health. They were also, incidentally, slim and trim, lithe and limber. A number of stouthearted men and women then agreed to act as guinea pigs. About one-sixth of their daily food intake was limited to Avicel. No ill effects were reported.

How did they eat the artificial food? They had Avicel cookies made with scarcely any flour, fat or sugar. They spread butter-flavored Avicel on bread. Sweetened and whipped, it masqueraded as whipped cream.

"It would be theoretically possible for a person on a cellulose diet to starve to death, without ever knowing that he was hungry!" exclaims a home economist dramatically.

That would be carrying the dieting principle a bit too far. In most cases Avicel is mixed with foods that are normally very fattening. The principle is simple and logical. You take away some of the real food and replace it with the artificial food. The hearty eater, working his way through a second helping of banana cream pie, is really eating less than half of what is on his plate - in terms of nourishment, that is.

In its powdered state Avicel can be substituted for nearly half of the flour needed to bake a cake or a loaf of bread. As a gel it can replace much of the butterfat in ice cream or the oil in salad dressing. A hot fudge sundae with whipped cream on top can be almost as kind to the waistline as grapefruit. Candy bars, cheese cake, spaghetti, potato pancakes, mayonnaise, hollandaise sauce and cheese dips can be served to the most determined dieter.

Could he tell the difference? If one person is eating food and another is dipping his spoon into nonfood, would anyone know which was which? In an effort to find out, the "blindfold" game was played by the makers of

Avicel. Testers equipped with a sweet tooth were asked to judge a chocolate layer cake. Although it was called a blindfold test, the people were not really blindfolded and fed; it was rather that the cakes were unmarked. None of the testers was able to detect the doctored cake. The artificial food has no flavor or smell of its own, and it does not change these qualities in the real foods to which it is added.

The new nonfood can perform a number of interesting feats, too. What would you think of sprinkling peanut butter out of a shaker onto your bread? There may come a time when scooping the sticky paste out a jar with a knife will appear old fashioned. Avicel can absorb fats and oils, and give butter and peanut butter the consistency of grated cheese. Cellulose can work the same magic on syrups, providing molasses, honey or maple syrup to be sprinkled, not poured, onto your pancakes. That is quite an accomplishment for a product that is made from a stick of wood.

It is hard to believe that people can eat cakes and candies which contain the same ingredient that is found in sawdust, rayon and cellophane. One day a little boy, caught with his hand in the cookie jar, may tell his mother: "But I wasn't going to eat any food." And that would be the truth.

(From The artificial world around us, by Lucy Kavaler)
http://www.uefap.com/reading/exercise/kavaler/kavaler8.htm

They come up with the darnedest things for us to eat!
j., you were complaining about wheat.
How about some yummy wood!

 

[charlie]

Wow, incredible.

 

[Kamran]

I think it would be amazing if restaurants cooked in coconut oil or even olive oil. That would make me feel way less guilty any time I ate out haha.

 

[j.]

oh, well

 

[narouz]

oh, well

Thanks, though, j.
You tried to find me a pizza.

Got Wood?!

 

[gretchen]

I personally don't miss Panda Express. They will never stop cooking with canola & soybean oil etc., so we can all stop holding our breath.

 

[BingDing]

I think it would be amazing if restaurants cooked in coconut oil or even olive oil. That would make me feel way less guilty any time I ate out haha.

Kamran,Elevation Burgers is a national chain that serves grass fed beef and fries cooked in olive oil. They even have a sign in the restaurant saying something like "Avoiding bread? We will wrap your burger in lettuce". I'm lucky to have one near me. But I still want coconut oil!

So that's what microcrystalline cellulose is. I'll be durned.

 

[nwo2012]

It's all very subjective, I find none of the foods in your post delicious, Narouz.
Also if foods were traditionally fried in refined coconut oil you would find them just as delicious.
For example home-made potato chips fried in coconut oil taste way better than those fried in canola oil.
Mrs nwo2012 bakes many biscuits and cakes made only with Peat-friendly ingredients and they rival any PUFA laden versions in taste. The ice-cream recipe with various added flavours tastes as good as any store bought brand. etc etc.

Point is, PUFAs are no more delicious than saturated fats and in fact possibly less so.

 

[narouz]

It's all very subjective, I find none of the foods in your post delicious, Narouz.
Also if foods were traditionally fried in refined coconut oil you would find them just as delicious.
For example home-made potato chips fried in coconut oil taste way better than those fried in canola oil.
Mrs nwo2012 bakes many biscuits and cakes made only with Peat-friendly ingredients and they rival any PUFA laden versions in taste. The ice-cream recipe with various added flavours tastes as good as any store bought brand. etc etc.

Point is, PUFAs are no more delicious than saturated fats and in fact possibly less so.

Hey nwo2012!
Okay, but...

1. I didn't claim that PUFAs were more delicious--just that they can be delicious.

2. Yes, taste and appetite are of course subjective.
But, that doesn't mean we can't make some general observations
about what most people eat.
In the case of this thread,
I've been more interested in what most people with a decent amount of money
living in developed countries
LIKE
to eat.

Wouldn't you agree that we could look at
popular cookbooks and cooking shows
in order to get a strong handle on what people LIKE to eat?
I guess we'd need to restrict those cookbooks and shows
to those dedicated sheerly to appetite and taste
and with no regard to the various and sundry diet books and "health" books--
only about "deliciousness."

And, to broaden the inquiry some, we could ask a couple of questions
about the nature of the foods :
1. Are there a lot of PUFA containing foods?
2. Are there a lot of foods like the ones we typically eat on a Peatian diet?

I'm guessing the answer to the first would be a strong yes
and a strong no to number 2.

So my original question is not meant
to dispute that some Peatian individuals like yourself
have found ways to be at peace with
or even enjoy and prefer non-PUFA Peatian foods.
It is simply meant to address the question:
whydo most people
based upon the cultural artifacts
seem to find PUFA foods delicious?

Conversely, and more generally,
it would be interesting to ask also:
with what frequency do typical Peatian foods
show up on those shows and in those cookbooks.

Were you never an avocado lover?

 

[j.]

narouz, I think a possible explanation why people eat grains is that they were economical, so they started eating them for that reason. after that, it just became part of the culture and it was consumed generation after generation, and some claim it has some addictive properties. if that is so, this makes it hard for people to quit. and people aren't even given reasons to quit.

but PUFAs aren't as omnipresent in the culture. for example, people in the philippines consume mostly coconut oil. the reason people consume vegetable oils in the U.S. seem to be only propaganda.

 

[narouz]

narouz, I think a possible explanation why people eat grains is that they were economical, so they started eating them for that reason. after that, it just became part of the culture and it was consumed generation after generation, and some claim it has some addictive properties. if that is so, this makes it hard for people to quit. and people aren't even given reasons to quit.

but PUFAs aren't as omnipresent in the culture. for example, people in the philippines consume mostly coconut oil. the reason people consume vegetable oils in the U.S. seem to be only propaganda.

Well...we are veering away from the PUFA question,
but you're explanation of why people prefer non-Peatian foods
is that the eating of those foods is:
1. habitual--people eat them, feeling that they enjoy them,
but really they are just eating them out of habit, a habit which had its roots in affordability,
and/or possibly:
2. addictive--people eat them and enjoy them because they produce pleasing drug-effects,
but also adverse health impacts,
and possibly also:
3. propagandized--people eat them because they have been brainwashed by money and media
into believing such foods are delicious and healthful.

Have I interpreted you correctly?

 

[j.]

narouz, I think a possible explanation why people eat grains is that they were economical, so they started eating them for that reason. after that, it just became part of the culture and it was consumed generation after generation, and some claim it has some addictive properties. if that is so, this makes it hard for people to quit. and people aren't even given reasons to quit.

but PUFAs aren't as omnipresent in the culture. for example, people in the philippines consume mostly coconut oil. the reason people consume vegetable oils in the U.S. seem to be only propaganda.

Well...we are veering away from the PUFA question,
but you're explanation of why people prefer non-Peatian foods
is that the eating of those foods is:
1. habitual--people eat them, feeling that they enjoy them,
but really they are just eating them out of habit, a habit which had its roots in affordability,
and/or possibly:
2. addictive--people eat them and enjoy them because they produce pleasing drug-effects,
but also adverse health impacts,
and possibly also:
3. propagandized--people eat them because they have been brainwashed by money and media
into believing such foods are delicious and healthful.

Have I interpreted you correctly?

1 and 2 seem likely reasons to me. i don't believe reason 3 as much.

 

[kiran]

3. propagandized--people eat them because they have been brainwashed by money and media
into believing such foods are delicious and healthful.

1 and 2 seem likely reasons to me. i don't believe reason 3 as much.

I think you can convince people to distrust and ignore their own feelings on the matter. Additionally, when their internal feelings break through, they will consider it as a personal failure.

 

[kiran]

Well...we are veering away from the PUFA question,
but you're explanation of why people prefer non-Peatian foods
is that the eating of those foods is:
1. habitual--people eat them, feeling that they enjoy them,
but really they are just eating them out of habit, a habit which had its roots in affordability,
and/or possibly:
2. addictive--people eat them and enjoy them because they produce pleasing drug-effects,
but also adverse health impacts,
and possibly also:
3. propagandized--people eat them because they have been brainwashed by money and media
into believing such foods are delicious and healthful.

Have I interpreted you correctly?

4. They are unaware of the alternatives. If you've never had mexicoke, HFCS coke is what you drink. If you've haven't consistently eaten stuff cooked in coconut oil/butter you can't express a liking for it. I bet chips cooked in coconut oil would be awesome but ....

 

[j.]

4. They are unaware of the alternatives. If you've never had mexicoke, HFCS coke is what you drink. If you've haven't consistently eaten stuff cooked in coconut oil/butter you can't express a liking for it. I bet chips cooked in coconut oil would be awesome but ....

maybe some would also like the pizza made with potato flour and fried in coconut oil, and without wood.

 

[nwo2012]

It's all very subjective, I find none of the foods in your post delicious, Narouz.
Also if foods were traditionally fried in refined coconut oil you would find them just as delicious.
For example home-made potato chips fried in coconut oil taste way better than those fried in canola oil.
Mrs nwo2012 bakes many biscuits and cakes made only with Peat-friendly ingredients and they rival any PUFA laden versions in taste. The ice-cream recipe with various added flavours tastes as good as any store bought brand. etc etc.

Point is, PUFAs are no more delicious than saturated fats and in fact possibly less so.

Hey nwo2012!
Okay, but...

1. I didn't claim that PUFAs were more delicious--just that they can be delicious.

2. Yes, taste and appetite are of course subjective.
But, that doesn't mean we can't make some general observations
about what most people eat.
In the case of this thread,
I've been more interested in what most people with a decent amount of money
living in developed countries
LIKE
to eat.

Wouldn't you agree that we could look at
popular cookbooks and cooking shows
in order to get a strong handle on what people LIKE to eat?
I guess we'd need to restrict those cookbooks and shows
to those dedicated sheerly to appetite and taste
and with no regard to the various and sundry diet books and "health" books--
only about "deliciousness."

And, to broaden the inquiry some, we could ask a couple of questions
about the nature of the foods :
1. Are there a lot of PUFA containing foods?
2. Are there a lot of foods like the ones we typically eat on a Peatian diet?

I'm guessing the answer to the first would be a strong yes
and a strong no to number 2.

So my original question is not meant
to dispute that some Peatian individuals like yourself
have found ways to be at peace with
or even enjoy and prefer non-PUFA Peatian foods.
It is simply meant to address the question:
whydo most people
based upon the cultural artifacts
seem to find PUFA foods delicious?

Conversely, and more generally,
it would be interesting to ask also:
with what frequency do typical Peatian foods
show up on those shows and in those cookbooks.

Were you never an avocado lover?

Without reading the whole post, there lies my point. Most people are brainless so I trust their sense of taste no more than I trust their instinct to trust a surgeon and oncologist with a diagnosis of cancer. :P

You'll never get my agreement on this one.

Never loved avocado or peanut butter. Did eat avocado because I thought they were healthy though. lol.

 

[kiran]

Were you never an avocado lover?

Never loved avocado or peanut butter. Did eat avocado because I thought they were healthy though. lol.

It's strange but I figured out early on that avocados made me feel just a bit odd and irritated my throat. Tasty but ...
I can probably tolerate peanuts/peanut butter better than avocado.

 

[j.]

Without reading the whole post, there lies my point. Most people are brainless so I trust their sense of taste no more than I trust their instinct to trust a surgeon and oncologist with a diagnosis of cancer. :P

haha. i think the greeks and the founding fathers believed in a "natural aristocracy". this idea i think has the implied belief that some people, due to effort or some other reason, become better than others, they become the elite, and they're often a minority. under this view, one shouldn't look to "the masses", or "the mob", for wisdom.

 

[Ray-Z]

Wouldn't you agree that we could look at
popular cookbooks and cooking shows
in order to get a strong handle on what people LIKE to eat?
I guess we'd need to restrict those cookbooks and shows
to those dedicated sheerly to appetite and taste
and with no regard to the various and sundry diet books and "health" books--
only about "deliciousness."

If you like, I'll grant that cookbooks and cooking shows tell us something about the most common preferences within a certain population (which are bound to be profitable targets for advertising). But the most common tastes in a population aren't necessarily representative if tastes are widely dispersed. In other words, if a population consists of many groups, the largest group may be small.

For example, say we poll Americans on their favorite place to vacation. The most common response may be some place like NYC or Las Vegas or a Caribbean island, but there will be so much variability that the most common answer won't likely get more than 10-20% of the responses, and likely much less. The answer "NYC" may be the most common answer (the statistical mode), but it tells you very little about the preferences of the population as a whole, most of whom chose other responses.

So I don't think we can conclude on the basis of cookbooks or cooking shows that, say, a majority of residents of country X love PUFA, as opposed to fats in general. I have yet to rule out the competing explanation that many people simply like fat, regardless of how many perfidious double bonds it contains. But perhaps your next post will persuade me.