How Safe is CM Street Vendor Food, MSG, 'Refined' Sugar, Formaldehyde?

[femi fan]

It means that you can find cranks that claim almost anything. There are the odd scientists who say that HIV does not cause AIDS, but the vast preponderance of evidence is against them.

Yes, cranks can claim anything. And yes too, science is dynamic yet too many times i see the western approach to facts being underscored by giving science the rule. Unfortunately when it comes to food and medicine we're talking about the two biggest selling products in the profitable world. Too much scientific research is done with big pharmacuetical funding. So we have cranks, but we also have biased 'evidence'. Additionally there are many situations when a human feels ill, but the doctor cannot find anything physically wrong according to their list of illnesses and diseases, and then they declare the human to be dreaming things up. Science and scientific 'evidence' overtrumps the feelings of a human. If people get ill from msg, but there's no 'evidence' to say that msg is toxic, then that person doesn't know what they're talking about because science is the final arbiter.

Until only about one generation ago science told us that we were pretty much controlled by the genes we were born with. This ran counter to intuition and other approaches to life and understanind, yet now we have epigenetics which recognises the powerful role of the environment we live in. Eat toxic food like msg and aspartame and hfcs, and you are exposing your genes to big problems.

Depending upon the science of today to provide evidence is not the most intelligent thing to do.

[femi fan]

Incidentally, hiv does not 'cause' aids. Aids is not even a disease, although western medical thinking says it is. Ironically the full name of aids recognises this. It is the result of a broken immune system, and when people die of 'aids' in fact they are dying of whatever illness their body no longer had any defences against.

To think we can eat stuff like msg and it have no negative effect on our bodies is easy enough if we don't feel any effect. But it's the acccumulation that goes on silently in the background.

The rise in numbers of people getting cancers, diabetes, aids and so on has risen in tandem with the rise in use of chemicals to grow our food, and chemicals to preserve or add taste to our food.

Simple cause and effect is often ignored in western thinking. It will upset the gravy train for the massive corporations.

[femi fan]

Refined sugar is not any more harmful than raw sugar. That is an absurd myth. Raw sugar just contains molasses which gives it a brown color.

That is a very dangerous statement that needs to be challenged. People should make their own inquiries about the dangers of refined sugar, and never ever take statements like this at face value.

[Ulysses G.]

Yes, cranks can claim anything.

Indeed. That is why most health food stores are filled with many products that do little other than cost lots of money.

[Ulysses G.]

The rise in numbers of people getting cancers, diabetes, aids and so on has risen in tandem with the rise in use of chemicals to grow our food, and chemicals to preserve or add taste to our food.

They have risen in tandem with us living much longer lifespans than at any time in human history. Now we have to figure out how to prevent diseases that have always been common amongst the elderly.

[FolkGuitar]

I have a feeling that all the worry and stress that so many people are experiencing over foods

cause far more harm to the body than anything that the foods themselves would do.

Obviously if you drink too much soda, you're going to be ingesting waaaay more sugar than is good for you. One can of soda won't hurt you.

Obviously if you drink too much beer, you're going to be ingesting waaaay more alcohol than is good for you. One bottle of beer won't hurt you.

Obviously if you eat too much fried foods, you're going to be ingesting waaaay more fats than are good for you. A plate of french fries once a week, or street vendor deep-fried what-ever once a week won't hurt you.

The key words here are 'too much.'

When it comes to sugar... the ONLY sugar that the body's cells can use is glucose (sometimes called dextrose although they are not 'exactly' the same.) That's also the ONLY substance the cells can use for producing energy. EVERY OTHER SUGAR GETS BROKEN DOWN TO GLUCOSE. It makes no difference if you are eating fructose, lactose, sucrose, maltose, cane sugar, beet sugar, refined sugar, raw sugar... EVERY SUGAR GETS BROKEN DOWN TO GLUCOSE before the body's cells can use it. It takes longer for that breakdown with some than with others, but that's about the only difference. Too much raw sugar is just as bad for you as too much refined sugar. Too much is still too much.

But health food stores can charge a whole lot more for doing less to sugar. Raw sugar costs much more to buy but far less to produce yielding much higher profit. At your expense, because there is little discernible difference between raw and refined sugar other than the number of steps the body has to use to metabolize it so the cells can use it. Fructose and maltose don't create the fast blood sugar spiking that sucrose and dextrose/glucose cause, but that's about the only real difference between them. The end result of human metabolism will ALWAYS be Glucose. That's normal human physiology. The cells simply can't use anything else...

Edited March 2, 2014 by FolkGuitar

[Sparkles]

My dear old Grandad told me when I was a young boy ,eat ,drink and live your life in moderation. He passed away at 97, in his sleep, and did not spend one single day in a hospital. Was still smoking the occasional cigarette and enjoying an ale until the day he died.I am not advocating drinking or smoking but l am advocating moderation.

There is so much mis information out there and you will go crazy trying to evaluate it apart from the obvious things you should not put your body in excess.

[elektrified]

Haven't read the entire thread and don't have time. This comes up every few months. Whether you believe it or not, many of the vegetables in Northern Thailand are sprayed with large amounts of dangerous chemicals. If you sit down and have a chat with a local Doctor they will tell you that there are hundreds of children hospitalized each year in Northern Thailand due to what they believe to be poisoning from chemicals found in our food here. There is a researcher/doctor in Chiang Rai who has been doing research on I think about 200 patients for about 3 years and finding liver damage, kidney damage, thyroid problems, etc.

The best thing you can do is to eat your vegetables at home and soak them in sodium bicarbonate for 20 minutes before cooking or preparing salad. We have been doing this for 3 years now. Some restaurants in C.M. are now displaying a sign saying that they wash their vegetables in sodium carbonate. I have yet to have seen one in English so maybe familiarize yourself with what the sign looks like in Thai.

As for MSG, it may not be poisonous but some people (myself included) experience very uncomfortable effects from it. We never eat street food and always ask for NO MSG at the few restaurants we go to these days.

[femi fan]

The rise in numbers of people getting cancers, diabetes, aids and so on has risen in tandem with the rise in use of chemicals to grow our food, and chemicals to preserve or add taste to our food.

They have risen in tandem with us living much longer lifespans than at any time in human history. Now we have to figure out how to prevent diseases that have always been common amongst the elderly.

But are we living much longer lifespans? How do you know this?

And, more and more younger people get cancer and diabetes these days, and i guess other nasty illnesses too. The big question is why? Putting it down to the chemical environment we live in, most of which is the result of growing food and producing food and preserving food, is a most logical idea.

And, how to prevent diseases? That's not really what the western approach is about, is it… otherwise we'd not get our food grown using toxic chemicals, and dodgy stuff like msg, hfcs, white sugar, coke, and a host of other poisonous additions to our diet in our foods. And if we wanted to really prevent diseases we'd hardly be pushing cigarettes onto billions of people.

No, illness and disease is very very big business. The trick was always to keep folk alive long enough to keep selling them pills. They worked this one out i think.

Edited March 2, 2014 by femi fan

[femi fan]

The best thing you can do is to eat your vegetables at home and soak them in sodium bicarbonate for 20 minutes before cooking or preparing salad. We have been doing this for 3 years now. Some restaurants in C.M. are now displaying a sign saying that they wash their vegetables in sodium carbonate. I have yet to have seen one in English so maybe familiarize yourself with what the sign looks like in Thai.

We do that, but i do wonder how effective it is. Yes, it may get rid of surface chemicals, but what i've never been able to find out properly is to what extent the toxic crap they spray on the earth and the foods growing in the soil gets into the actual cellular structure of the plants. If that happens, then of course washing the surface will not really do much good.

The only hope i have on that score is that as the plants and fruits grow, their seeds and roots and so on reject the toxins and chemicals that riddle the soil and water they grow in.

There is one other thing we can do, and it's the only real answer. We have to do whatever we can to not buy vegetables and fruits grown with toxins. Can't vote corporations out of office, but can starve them of profit.

[FolkGuitar]

But are we living much longer lifespans? How do you know this?

With the actuarial tables available to anyone who cares to look, you really don't know that people today live almost twice as long as they did 300 years ago, and half again as long as they did less than 100 years ago? We KNOW the lifespan of people in the middle of the 1800's. It's not conjecture. It's not guessing. We KNOW.

And we KNOW the estimated longevity for both men and women today. Hell, we can break it down by ethnicity, location, occupation, even eating habits if we need to. There is NO QUESTION that people live longer today than ever before.

And, more and more younger people get cancer and diabetes these days, and i guess other nasty illnesses too.

That's correct.

The big question is why? Putting it down to the chemical environment we live in, most of which is the result of growing food and producing food and preserving food, is a most logical idea.

... and certainly ONE of the factors involved. At least the chemical environment part. People have been preserving foods for hundreds of years. The reality is that we preserve less foods (percentage-wise) chemically today than ever before, so we really can't blame that one. In fact, crops grown with natural fertilizer actually absorb MORE nitrates and nitrites from the natural fertilizer than they do from chemical fertilizer, but they don't advertise that fact very loudly... Or did you assume that natural fertilizer didn't contain nitrates and nitrites. Actually, the last number of the three listed on chemical fertilizer, Potassium, is Potassium Oxide. In natural, organic animal manure it's Potassium Nitrate... Just calling something 'Organic' doesn't always mean it's healthier...

But it's true that more and more young people are getting sick these days. Of course, weighing 50lbs more than they should doesn't help, and it doesn't matter very much if they gained that eating cookies and cake or eating potatoes. Probably working 60-70 hours per week trying to make enough money to pay outrageous rents, pay off car loans, buy Louis Vuitton bags, etc., or the stress that builds up know that your boss may just fire you, your employer may go out of business and you're too old to compete on the job market probably doesn't help keep one very healthy either. Then too, staying up late at the bar drinking, trying to find a mate that won't demand too much of the free time that you really don't have anyway, or worrying that he/she is going to run off with your best friend because you can't make the house payment probably adds to that stress load. We could add being so completely out of physical condition they can't walk 1000 meters or climb 4 flights of stairs without thinking they're going to die. We really can't blame everything on MSG or refined sugar. At some point we have to accept personal responsibility.

Edited March 2, 2014 by FolkGuitar

[nicksal37]

Yes there are many bad substances in our food but you cannot realistically avoid them all.I have an intolerance to MSG.It makes me so very thirsty and gives me insomnia,even if I take sleeping pills. Why do so many restaurants but this chemical in their food? Yes to make it taste better.I think the they are very incompetent in their cooking.The OP asked a fair question,where can you get good without MSG.I know a few local street food/sort of restaurants that when asked not to put MSG in the food,they don't.The food is delicious and freshly cooked.As far as MSG is concerned I thing all you have to do is asked them not to put that nasty chemical in. Avoid the larger restaurants where so much of the food is pre-cooked.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

^ Yes. No need to be hating on the small street stall vendors that you can actually tell what to put in and what not to put in.

Other than that, you call MSG a chemical but it's no more a chemical than regular table salt is, or water, or anything else for that matter. It occurs naturally in lots and lots of food items. I use it myself in cooking as it's (naturally) in soy sauce, and artificially in seasonings like Ros Dee. And I use it in moderation, and don't add salt.

If we want to get worked up about something it may actually be a bigger deal that so many restaurants (and street vendors alike) make their food far too salty. Reducing salt is as big a deal as reducing MSG, natural MSG or otherwise.

And then sugar.. a lot of Thai food benefits from a teaspoon or so of sugar in it. That's another thing people get worked up about. That teaspoon of sugar in a curry or stir fry. But that there is lots and lots more sugar in cakes, candy, soft drinks, fruit shakes and so on bothers nobody.

We can be a weird bunch at times.

Edited March 2, 2014 by WinnieTheKhwai

[femi fan]

FolkGuitar...

The figures for lifespan tell us the average man and woman are living longer. But since nobody in the world is actually 'average' it could well be that the figures are misleading. Stats can always be misleading for obvious reasons: how they are collected and worked out. Were the figures even worked out 500 or 5000 years ago? The figures also don't say how it is the 'average person' is living longer, and whether they are in a state of health where they actually want to be living longer.

You accept the various reasons why people are getting sicker younger, but you seem loathe to include food in those reasons. Strange.

"We really can't blame everything on MSG or refined sugar. At some point we have to accept personal responsibility."

Well, quite. But who is blaming everything on msg and who is rejecting personal responsibility? You are replying to me, and i'm certaintly not saying any of that. So please don't attribute it to me. My argument is that msg and things like white sugar are poisons to the body. Not a gram here or there, but consistent use of them which is how nearly everybody approaches such 'foods'.

[femi fan]

Obviously if you drink too much soda, you're going to be ingesting waaaay more sugar than is good for you. One can of soda won't hurt you.

Obviously if you drink too much beer, you're going to be ingesting waaaay more alcohol than is good for you. One bottle of beer won't hurt you.

Obviously if you eat too much fried foods, you're going to be ingesting waaaay more fats than are good for you. A plate of french fries once a week, or street vendor deep-fried what-ever once a week won't hurt you.

The key words here are 'too much.'

When it comes to sugar... the ONLY sugar that the body's cells can use is glucose (sometimes called dextrose although they are not 'exactly' the same.) That's also the ONLY substance the cells can use for producing energy. EVERY OTHER SUGAR GETS BROKEN DOWN TO GLUCOSE. It makes no difference if you are eating fructose, lactose, sucrose, maltose, cane sugar, beet sugar, refined sugar, raw sugar... EVERY SUGAR GETS BROKEN DOWN TO GLUCOSE before the body's cells can use it. It takes longer for that breakdown with some than with others, but that's about the only difference. Too much raw sugar is just as bad for you as too much refined sugar. Too much is still too much.

But health food stores can charge a whole lot more for doing less to sugar. Raw sugar costs much more to buy but far less to produce yielding much higher profit. At your expense, because there is little discernible difference between raw and refined sugar other than the number of steps the body has to use to metabolize it so the cells can use it. Fructose and maltose don't create the fast blood sugar spiking that sucrose and dextrose/glucose cause, but that's about the only real difference between them. The end result of human metabolism will ALWAYS be Glucose. That's normal human physiology. The cells simply can't use anything else...

Hardly anybody has just one beer or one can of soda. That is disingenious.

Have you heard of ketosis? Where the body produces its energy from breaking down foods other than sugars and carbs?

You talk about how the body breaks down sugars into glucose, as if the actual breaking down bit has no factor on one's health. The harder the body has to work to digest foods has a serious impact on its health, although you seem to discount this. That's a big mistake in your thinking.

Too much of anything is likely to be bad for you, even the good stuff. But are you telling the forum that too much white sugar is no worse for you than too much raw sugar? Are you simply saying there are no bad or good foods, just that if you eat too much of something it's bad, and if you eat not too much of something then it's good??

Refined sugar is an anti-nutrient, and a poison to the body. Clearly a bit of poison here and there and the body can deal with it. But regular consumption wears the body down behind the scenes. Then one day, the person wakes up and the price is to be paid with diagnosis of cancer or diabetes or some other horrible threat to one's mental wellbeing. A bit part of that price to be paid is due to ignorance, which is due to our poor education system. People go through school for years and are never taught about the inner workings of the human body. That's why you come out with your rubbish about white sugar and glucose and so on.

[femi fan]

Other than that, you call MSG a chemical but it's no more a chemical than regular table salt is, or water, or anything else for that matter. It occurs naturally in lots and lots of food items. I use it myself in cooking as it's (naturally) in soy sauce, and artificially in seasonings like Ros Dee. And I use it in moderation, and don't add salt.

Humans change the effect a food or part of a food has on the body by isolating it from the food it occured in naturally. That's the problem. Cyanide occurs naturally and is in fact good for the body in minute amounts as is found in, for example, apple pips. High fructose corn syrup is made from corn, although we can't even call that natural most of the time since it's gm corn. But hfcs is a big poison to the body, yet it comes from supposedly natural foods.

Your line of reasoning does not stand up.

There's little on this planet to get people more fired up than food! Just see the usual contents of this forum, full of food threads, and usually foods that the tongue loves but the poor old body does not love at all.

[FolkGuitar]

You accept the various reasons why people are getting sicker younger, but you seem loathe to include food in those reasons. Strange....... Hardly anybody has just one beer or one can of soda. That is disingenious.

I don't include food in the reasons because it is NOT the food itself, but the misuse of the foods that cause the problems. Misuse milk and it's a problem. Misuse water and it's a problem. Misuse sugar and it's a problem. Not the milk, water, or sugar... Those are fine. It's the way we use... or over-use in many cases, that causes the problems. Especially with beer or soda!

Have you heard of ketosis? Where the body produces its energy from breaking down foods other than sugars and carbs?

Ketosis results from the metabolism of fats. Normal body metabolic reaction, and as long as one has enough fluids to flush the ketones from the system, there is no problem with it.

You talk about how the body breaks down sugars into glucose, as if the actual breaking down bit has no factor on one's health. The harder the body has to work to digest foods has a serious impact on its health, although you seem to discount this. That's a big mistake in your thinking.

I believe you are contradicting yourself in this paragraph... Refined sugar takes LESS body function to break down than raw sugar. Sucrose, (refined sugar) is a far more 'simple' sugar, a disaccharide that requires fewer steps for the body to turn it into the monosaccharide glucose. Glucose has the molecular formula of C6H12O6. Sucrose has the molecular formula of C12H22O11. The enzyme 'sucrase' breaks sucrose down into glucose. ONE STEP. Each sugar, as it goes further and further back away from the only one that the body can use, has a higher formula and requires more and more work for the body to digest it More steps. Raw sugar has the highest numbers in its molecular formula. More and more steps, production of more and different enzymes to break it down into glucose for the body to use. Raw sugar requires the MOST work for the body to metabolize. That's simple biology. But you 'may' be correct to assume that the harder the body has to work to digest foods has a serious impact on its health. What we can't assume is that this harder work is negative. It could very well be a positive.

Although health food stores make many claims, few are backed up by science. I'm not talking about Big Business science either. I'm referring to organizations such as The World Health Organization and the Center for Disease Control. They tend to be more objective than someone who just wants to publish a book, or "Bob & Mary's Organic Rutabaga HealthFoods."

People go through school for years and are never taught about the inner workings of the human body.

Yes... It would appear so.

Edited March 3, 2014 by FolkGuitar

[AngelsLariat]

FolkGuitar...

The figures for lifespan tell us the average man and woman are living longer. But since nobody in the world is actually 'average' it could well be that the figures are misleading. Stats can always be misleading for obvious reasons: how they are collected and worked out. Were the figures even worked out 500 or 5000 years ago? The figures also don't say how it is the 'average person' is living longer, and whether they are in a state of health where they actually want to be living longer.

You accept the various reasons why people are getting sicker younger, but you seem loathe to include food in those reasons. Strange.

"We really can't blame everything on MSG or refined sugar. At some point we have to accept personal responsibility."

Well, quite. But who is blaming everything on msg and who is rejecting personal responsibility? You are replying to me, and i'm certaintly not saying any of that. So please don't attribute it to me. My argument is that msg and things like white sugar are poisons to the body. Not a gram here or there, but consistent use of them which is how nearly everybody approaches such 'foods'.

You're taking the wrong approach if your intention is to minimize the relevance of the life expectancy figures or to claim that they are not accurate. To make your argument, you need to claim that that average life expectancy is misleading not because "no one is average" (which is doubletalk) but that they are skewed by infant mortality rates.

Edited March 3, 2014 by AngelsLariat

[femi fan]

Folk Guitar

Can you tell me your understanding on the relationship between eating refined sugar, the resultant blood sugar spikes and insulin release, and therefore overall work the body has to go through to normalise itself again? And how this compares to complex sugars - eg raw sugar or brown rice or whole wheat - which don't provoke such extreme and instant reactions by the body? My understanding is that it's not just the digestion, the breakdown, of foods, but the release of hormones within the body to deal with what it has to digest, be it food or mental impressions.

So when i said the body had more work to do, i meant including such processes as are required to normalise th body after it's had to deal with whatever food is taken in.

[femi fan]

FolkGuitar...

The figures for lifespan tell us the average man and woman are living longer. But since nobody in the world is actually 'average' it could well be that the figures are misleading. Stats can always be misleading for obvious reasons: how they are collected and worked out. Were the figures even worked out 500 or 5000 years ago? The figures also don't say how it is the 'average person' is living longer, and whether they are in a state of health where they actually want to be living longer.

You accept the various reasons why people are getting sicker younger, but you seem loathe to include food in those reasons. Strange.

"We really can't blame everything on MSG or refined sugar. At some point we have to accept personal responsibility."

Well, quite. But who is blaming everything on msg and who is rejecting personal responsibility? You are replying to me, and i'm certaintly not saying any of that. So please don't attribute it to me. My argument is that msg and things like white sugar are poisons to the body. Not a gram here or there, but consistent use of them which is how nearly everybody approaches such 'foods'.

You're taking the wrong approach if your intention is to minimize the relevance of the life expectancy figures or to claim that they are not accurate. To make your argument, you need to claim not that that average life expectancy is misleading not because "no one is average" (which is doubletalk) but that they are skewed by infant mortality rates.

Well, i don't need to now, you've just done it for me! I wanted to make the general point, i wasn't ready to give specific reasons.

My intention was simply to say that longer lifespans as suggested by stats don't tell the whole story.

[AngelsLariat]

My intention was simply to say that longer lifespans as suggested by stats don't tell the whole story.

It's just one metric, but it's not irrelevant.

[FolkGuitar]

Folk Guitar

Can you tell me your understanding on the relationship between eating refined sugar, the resultant blood sugar spikes and insulin release, and therefore overall work the body has to go through to normalise itself again? And how this compares to complex sugars - eg raw sugar or brown rice or whole wheat - which don't provoke such extreme and instant reactions by the body? My understanding is that it's not just the digestion, the breakdown, of foods, but the release of hormones within the body to deal with what it has to digest, be it food or mental impressions.

So when i said the body had more work to do, i meant including such processes as are required to normalise th body after it's had to deal with whatever food is taken in.

Yes, you're correct to say that refined sugar DOES cause sugar spikes and insulin release, and for people with metabolic disorders such as diabetes this can cause problems. But for healthy individuals without metabolic disorders, the occasional ingestion of refined sugar should cause no problems what so ever. However... the key words here are 'occasional ingestion.' Every can of Coke has several spoonfuls of sugar. Drink one a day and there's no real problem. Drink one every few hours (which is usually caused by the blood sugar spiking,) and there is a problem. Virtually all processed foods contain sugar these days, so a diet that relies upon processed foods is taking a beating because of it. But it's not the sugar itself causing the problem... It's the constantly repeated bombardment from the sugar that can cause difficulties for people with less than optimum metabolic systems.

The health human body is well designed to handle stressors, be they metabolic, psychological, or kinisiological. In fact, without eustress (the opposite of distress,) the human body doesn't function well at all! This is why climbing stairs is better for you than taking the lift. Or why a variety of foods is healthier than eating just two or three different items every day. Without 'resistance,' muscles don't grow. Without 'resistance,' the pancreas ceases to to produce enzymes in the correct manner. (BTW, when you are talking about digestion, it's enzymes, not hormones. There's a big difference.)

The net result is that for a body to be healthy, it NEEDS to work hard. It needs healthy levels of stress. (Note that I say 'healthy levels.') It does need moderation. Nothing BUT stress is not good. Complete lack of stress is not good. Too much or too little... both equally bad, and the result on the human body is dis-ease. Sugar won't hurt the healthy body. TOO MUCH TOO OFTEN will. Same with alcohol. One beer won't hurt. The healthy body can handle that stress. Many beers repeated day after day will. Alcohol is a known poison. It's classified as such. But in moderation, the healthy human body can deal with it without harm. Frankly, the same can be said of arsenic...

The human body is a remarkable machine. 'Most' of its systems are designed to handle most stresses, physical and mental. (The skeletal system is one of the few that has failed to keep up with evolution, hence back and knee pains.) As long as we don't over-do any of the stressors, we get to live for a long, long time. We can eat refined sugar. We can drink alcohol. We can run, climb, fight, make love, contort, and even stop breathing for a while. As long as we don't do any of these to much or to hard, the human body is up to the task.

[Ulysses G.]

Yes, you're correct to say that refined sugar DOES cause sugar spikes and insulin release, and for people with metabolic disorders such as diabetes this can cause problems.

Unrefined sugar, maple syrup and honey does the same thing to people with diabetes. There is very little difference.

[AngelsLariat]

Yes, you're correct to say that refined sugar DOES cause sugar spikes and insulin release, and for people with metabolic disorders such as diabetes this can cause problems.

Unrefined sugar, maple syrup and honey does the same thing to people with diabetes. There is very little difference.

Next time you run a 10K or longer road race, try eating a few snickers bars just before the race and see how it affects your time.

[mamborobert]

Are we posting anything about Chiang Mai yet?

[AngelsLariat]

Are we posting anything about Chiang Mai yet?

“The Burgers at The Duke’s contain no MSG”. Does that count?

[belg]

streetfood = roadkill and animals that died in the factory/farm and sold on the cheap to street vendors

[mamborobert]

Are we posting anything about Chiang Mai yet?

“The Burgers at The Duke’s contain no MSG”. Does that count?

Not even an honorable mention I'm afraid. It's a negative and not about Chiang Mai. Same as writing they contain no sawdust, human embryos, saturated animal fats, toxins, carcinogens etc etc.

According to some posters here the same hamburgers possibly contain killer salad, possibly ex special forces, expert in camouflage, deadly, silent, and by all police accounts a strong suspect in the death of the meat component of the hamburger.

OP has had their marketing opportunity, and the organic alfalfa brigade have had their run or are we going to link MSG, Refined Sugar and Formaldehyde to the sinking of the Lusitania, the fake moon landings, and the second gunman on the grassy knoll.

Any chance we could get back to something Chiang Mai related?

[ThaiHerbs]

But I am interested in this, can you expand please?

"I have found a few Thai restaurants that only use the best quality ingredients with no msg and the food is GREAT",

There are 3 my GF and I now go to where we both really like the food. I will get more specific info from her tonight and post tomorrow.

They are smaller Thai-type eateries that do not stand out, not in downtown CM - plus menu and signs are in Thai only so I have difficulty in describing them exactly so you could find them.

OK, look forward to the info.

I haven't replied as I had motorbike mishap and just got out of the hospital. More below on that but I do not want to distract from this discussion on toxins in CM foods.

Been thinking since I started this post that I would start a new thread titled something like: "Favorite Thai Food Outlets Including Street Vendors in CM with Quality Ingredients & NO MSG etc". Each time I visit a Thai restaurant I like I would post a couple pics, directions, and comments from the owner/mgr about their cooking process and how they source ingredients. Nothing in depth but an overview short and sweet. In the meantime some may want to visit this place http://www.chiangmaiplaces.com/603-the-hideaway https://www.facebook.com/Thehideaway.chiangmai

They have an onsite bakery, a dairy across the street (make their own cheese and yogurt) and I enjoy most of their menu as ingredients are quite fresh and tasty.

Edited March 3, 2014 by onthedarkside
completely off topic report removed

[femi fan]

Folk Guitar

Yes, it's easy to agree pretty much with the sentiments and main points you make, but some of it seems somewhat disingeneous to me! And i'm having problems with your stuff on white sugar. For example:

"But it's not the sugar itself causing the problem... It's the constantly repeated bombardment from the sugar that can cause difficulties for people with less than optimum metabolic systems."

I'd have to say it's both. Of course sugar is the problem here, it's what is being ingested. It's the combination of the make-up of the food and what the body does in reaction to the food that comes inside it. Clearly a few granules here or there, or whatever limit can safely be dealt with, with no long-term accumulative effect, is no big drama. Too much sugar means sugar is the problem. And to say that refined sugar is no worse for the body than raw forms of sugar is simply not correct, regardless of what the body does to it in making it into glucose. Raw sugar carries its own enzymes to help digest it, and the pancreas does not have to release insulin in the same way it does for white sugar consumption. I'm talking like for like, gram for gram here.

Repeated bombardment will lead to 'less than optimum metaboic systems'.

Pretty much the only people who occasionally ingest small quantities of white sugar are those who know the damage it will cause their body in large amounts. People eating processed foods as a norm, drinking cokes as a norm, considerably outweigh those who just imbibe occasionally i suspect. There's a science in the processed foods industry designed to make the eater want more and more because the taste of the combined sugars, salts, and fats triggers releases of hormones in their bodies that give pleasurable feelings. They also eat too much before their body can tell them they're full.

"Without 'resistance,' the pancreas ceases to to produce enzymes in the correct manner. (BTW, when you are talking about digestion, it's enzymes, not hormones. There's a big difference.)"

I understand that we have a finite amount of enzymes available, and that eating whole foods either raw or lightly cooked means the foods carry their own enzymes and therefore we don't use from our finite store. Furthermore, when we're talking about digestion of foods that are toxic this is a stressor to the body and hormones are released to deal with this stress. That's what i meant. Digestion requires enzymes yes, but stressfull digestion leads to heightened hormone production.