I knew it, I just knew it.

Discussion in 'California Flyway Forum' started by Kevin Burroughs, Mar 12, 2018.

  1. Calikev

    Calikev Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    12,429
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2000
    Location:
    Oakdale, Ca , USA
    Either way I don't care. I eat it like everything else.........in moderation.
     
    goose gobbler likes this.
  2. letmwurk

    letmwurk Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    2,054
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    California
    Well for starters the infant mortality rate in 1900 was 20% and today in the US it is 0.5%. That tends to depress life expectancy. Another huge factor was the development of antibiotics. Penicillin began widespread use around 1942. Many of the casualties during the civil war were from infection, not gun shot wounds.

    In 1870 the average man ate 212 pounds of meat a year (2/3 from pork) and just 35 pounds of sugar. The amount of meat eaten declined to 190 pounds in 1900 and to 141 by 1940. On the other hand the amount of sugar eaten rose to 65 pounds in 1900 and to 108 pounds by 1940. Today the amount of meat eaten is 193 pounds and the amount of sugar eaten is 130 pounds.

    Total daily caloric intake from 1800 to 1970 for the average US male was 3,000 with little variation from year to year. Beginning in the 1970's it started to climb higher and now stands at 4,000 per day.
     
    Allinodad likes this.
  3. California Flyway

    California Flyway Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    17,854
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2001
    Location:
    Gualala, California
    The trick to eating healthy pork like bacon is to buy product cured without nitrates/nitrites. It is not the pork it is the chemical curing agents that are a problem for things like your colon. I make bacon curing only with salt and brown sugar. I then smoke it. I vacuum pack small batches and use before refrigeration lifespan is a problem. Another advantage of doing it yourself.
     
  4. mark seaters

    mark seaters Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    13,224
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2004
    Location:
    JUST ABOUT THE MIDDLE OF CALIF.
    Who in 1870 would have kept track of these number...and for what reason would they... IMO I don't think anyone back then cared to keep track of how much they ate.. """hey lets keep track of how much meat we eat because someday somebody with a computer on the internet will post how much we ate""" ...o_O:rolleyes:
     
    JuvieCoot and Jabird like this.
  5. Allinodad

    Allinodad Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    344
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2014
    Location:
    The 87
    Preach on! Finally someone looking beyond the actual numbers always cited and stating the reasons why the numbers are what they are. Thank you letmwurk, thank you! Cheers
     
  6. Allinodad

    Allinodad Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    344
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2014
    Location:
    The 87
    You’re probably right. Why would some uneducated hick from the backwoods keep journals on things they ate, planted or harvested? Dumb ancestors.
     
  7. mark seaters

    mark seaters Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    13,224
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2004
    Location:
    JUST ABOUT THE MIDDLE OF CALIF.
    :l:l:l

    I'm pretty sure in 1870 more people died in saloon gun fights than they did of obesity

    Obesity become popular in around 1955 when McDonald's opened up and that was about the time cancer become more common

    I don't think I ever remember seeing a fat cowboy only a few pleasantly plump girly girls in the saloons but I do watch too much TV

    I got no idea where to find those numbers though :scratch:l
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2018
  8. Allinodad

    Allinodad Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    344
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2014
    Location:
    The 87
    Other than your point about saloon gun fights being a little cartoonish, you do realize you are supporting letmwurk’s argument and not refuting it don’t you? Cheers
     
  9. LeakyW8ers

    LeakyW8ers Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    771
    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    San Jose, California
    One other thing to take into consideration is the feed and hormones used in modern pork production vs back in the 1870's. I'd be willing to bet that pork back then was a much leaner meat and raised on more natural feed sources that what is fed today. And the only hormones were those produced by the pig itself. Now they are shot full of hormones to speed up the growth process. That and most hogs back there were pasture raised, not pen raised. Big difference in the quality and nutritional content of the meat.
     
  10. mark seaters

    mark seaters Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    13,224
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2004
    Location:
    JUST ABOUT THE MIDDLE OF CALIF.
    I could care less ..really ...my only point was back in 1870 I bet nobody kept track of what they ate or even kept a record of it. Imo

    Was is there even such thing as a vegetarian then??

    Carry on
     

Share This Page