Gyroscopic Investing

So you're saying that the government basically mandated that grass-fed meat tastes bad? Are there any loopholes for the slaughterhouses or farmers to exploit? Or does it all have to be imported from Argentina? 

Pointedstick wrote: So you're saying that the government basically mandated that grass-fed meat tastes bad?

Exactly. The laws were written by the corn industry. The effects of "cold shortening" have been well known since the 1970s.

Pointedstick wrote:Are there any loopholes for the slaughterhouses or farmers to exploit? Or does it all have to be imported from Argentina? 

There appear to be some "looking the other way" at times. Barber says that in Argentina, the windows and doors are often left open on the slaughterhouses to let warm air in. He didn't want to go into detail as to what he does to skirt around the laws, but he implied that he finds ways. I suspect some slaughterhouses that set the thermostat to 31.5º to follow the letter of the law and either they leave the windows open or they wrap the carcasses in blankets for 6-12 hours. His top priority is flavor, so he's definitely finding a way around the law. But, I suppose he didn't want to discuss the loophole for fear it would be regulated. I'm going to ask my butcher after the holiday, to see what he says, because frankly I haven't noticed any toughness in my 100% grass fed meats.

What a ridiculous state of affairs. I'm tucking this away in my collection of things to tell people who extol the virtues of government, right next to the raw milk prohibition and no-knock raids. And the indefinite detention. And the endless foreign wars. And the eminent domain confiscations of private houses to give free land to corporations.

MediumTex wrote: What has always puzzled me is the way doctors will virtually never mention or ask about diet unless a person is very obese or diabetic.  It's like they know it's not even worth bringing up because so few people are really interested in (or capable of) making significant changes to their diets.

Alanw wrote: For many, a proper diet and exercise is all that is need to remain healthy.  It is unfortunate that the medical profession doesn't spend as much time prescribing these as they do various drugs.  But then, where would the pharmaceutical companys be without all the obese, depressed and angry people out there taking there products.

I just had this talk with 3 morbidly obese diabetic patients yesterday, and I tend to disagree that this is as simple as patients not understanding something and not being educated by their physicians. IMO, this phenomenon is infrequently caused solely by ignorance, laziness, or even sedentary lifestyles. It is caused by human inability to control that which we have been genetically engineered to do over millions of years: eat high calorie foods or perish! In that regard, it is similar to our sexuality. Do you think that the reason Clinton and Petraeus had an affair was because they were not educated properly by their physicians? Come on!

The solution? No easy one, unfortunately. Yes, education helps to a degree, and we should pursue this from all angles. But ultimately it is a problem of affluence and a culture that has been unwilling to endorse slow foods over fast foods, unprocessed over processed, and nutrition over taste. It is a problem of parents who were raised on jello and spam and who now raise their children to eat lunchables. And it is a problem where we allow corporate "ethics" to influence way too much of our public health policy (such as providing vending machines in public schools and no healthy food options in the cafeteria).

BearBones wrote: IMO, this phenomenon is infrequently caused solely by ignorance, laziness, or even sedentary lifestyles. It is caused by human inability to control that which we have been genetically engineered to do over millions of years: eat high calorie foods or perish! In that regard, it is similar to our sexuality. Do you think that the reason Clinton and Petraeus had an affair was because they were not educated properly by their physicians? Come on!

My major complaint against the "our genes are against us!" theory is that it cannot explain how the apparently genetically-caused traits are so unequally distributed throughout society. I don't know a single obese person or sexual predator, for example. Are all my friends genetically superior? It seems to me that genetically-programmed impulses certainly play a part in behavior, but they do in virtually everything! Your capacity to function as an adult in a civilized society has long been strongly affected by your ability to keep your base impulses in check, be they your impulses toward binge eating, sex, or violence. Why should overeating bad food be viewed any differently?

Maybe a certain segment of the population is just predisposed to obesity like a certain segment is predisposed to other traits like anger. When you put a person with a genetic predisposition to obesity into a society that is tailor made to induce overeating and laziness it cant help but manifest itself.

Pointedstick wrote:

BearBones wrote: IMO, this phenomenon is infrequently caused solely by ignorance, laziness, or even sedentary lifestyles. It is caused by human inability to control that which we have been genetically engineered to do over millions of years: eat high calorie foods or perish! In that regard, it is similar to our sexuality. Do you think that the reason Clinton and Petraeus had an affair was because they were not educated properly by their physicians? Come on!

My major complaint against the "our genes are against us!" theory is that it cannot explain how the apparently genetically-caused traits are so unequally distributed throughout society. I don't know a single obese person or sexual predator, for example. Are all my friends genetically superior? It seems to me that genetically-programmed impulses certainly play a part in behavior, but they do in virtually everything! Your capacity to function as an adult in a civilized society has long been strongly affected by your ability to keep your base impulses in check, be they your impulses toward binge eating, sex, or violence. Why should overeating bad food be viewed any differently?

And the genes of people in the U.S. can't be that different from the genes of people in other industrialized parts of the world.

I think that the U.S. has a much more serious obesity problem than probably anywhere else in the world.  Thus, I think that the explanation is perhaps more cultural and social than it is genetic.

BearBones, would you agree that doctors, in general, tend not to focus as much on diet and lifestyle-driven cures for disease as they do on drug and surgery-driven cures?  That has been my personal experience.

I don't ever intend for criticisms of the tendencies of a whole profession to mean that I am criticizing any individual member of that profession.  However much I might criticize the medical profession, I would criticize the legal profession even more, even though I think of myself and many people I know as very good lawyers.

doodle wrote: Maybe a certain segment of the population is just predisposed to obesity like a certain segment is predisposed to other traits like anger. When you put a person with a genetic predisposition to obesity into a society that is tailor made to induce overeating and laziness it cant help but manifest itself.

Sort of like when you put someone predisposed to alcoholism into a society that makes drinking seem like nothing more than good-natured fun.

MediumTex wrote: And the genes of people in the U.S. can't be that different from the genes of people in other industrialized parts of the world.

A few months ago I travelled to Denmark, and the only overweight people I saw during my time there were Americans at the airport. Denmark is pretty similar to the US in a lot of ways, but that disparity really jumped out at me. There's got to be a strong cultural or policy component to this.

KevinW wrote:

MediumTex wrote: And the genes of people in the U.S. can't be that different from the genes of people in other industrialized parts of the world.

A few months ago I travelled to Denmark, and the only overweight people I saw during my time there were Americans at the airport. Denmark is pretty similar to the US in a lot of ways, but that disparity really jumped out at me. There's got to be a strong cultural or policy component to this.

Fewer corn-based products sprinkled throughout their diets as well.

MediumTex wrote:

KevinW wrote:

MediumTex wrote: And the genes of people in the U.S. can't be that different from the genes of people in other industrialized parts of the world.

A few months ago I travelled to Denmark, and the only overweight people I saw during my time there were Americans at the airport. Denmark is pretty similar to the US in a lot of ways, but that disparity really jumped out at me. There's got to be a strong cultural or policy component to this.

Fewer corn-based products sprinkled throughout their diets as well.

The corn industry really is something to behold. It really has taken over our country (and politicians) in a way. Ethanol fuel from corn, sweeteners from corn, fertilizer from corn, livestock feed from corn, cereal from corn, whisky from corn, cooking oil from corn, flour/starch from corn. It's been woven into every aspect of our lives and most of those products kind of suck when you think about it. Ethanol fuel really isn't that great. Corn gluten fertilizer really isn't that great. Livestock feed from corn has all sorts of issues. High Fructose Corn Syrup is pretty nasty stuff. Corn oil is easily oxidized and really isn't that great for cooking, etc. etc. Only in America...

The only thing that's good about corn is corn on the cob, and even that isn't very nutritious. Kind of makes you wish the midwest had a market to grow more of a variety of foods.

Pointedstick wrote: What a ridiculous state of affairs. I'm tucking this away in my collection of things to tell people who extol the virtues of government, right next to the raw milk prohibition and no-knock raids. And the indefinite detention. And the endless foreign wars. And the eminent domain confiscations of private houses to give free land to corporations.

Funny. My instinct is to curse the corn industry. Your instinct is to curse the goverment. I see your point though. Just saying my first thought is to blame the author, not the enabler.

Gumby wrote: Funny. My instinct is to curse the corn industry. Your instinct is to curse the goverment. I see your point though. Just saying my first thought is to blame the author, not the enabler.

Heh, I know it is, and I really do understand your perspective. But the way I see it, in the absence of government, the corn industry can squawk all it wants but it can't force farmers and butchers to do something so silly as destroy the quality of the meat they sell to their customers. But in the absence of the corn industry, the government can (and does) continue to impose these types of restrictions all across the land.

In the end, the government is a weapon. It can be used just as easily against foreign invaders as it can be turned against its own people. I strain to see the moral uses of government, so my preference is to dismantle the weapon rather than work toward finding a more appropriate group to wield it--a pursuit I find to be futile due to the lure that such a powerful force in society always has to those least fit to touch it. J.R.R. Tolkien was right!  The most hobbit-like president we've ever had was good ol' Silent Cal, but unfortunately much of our history has been full of Saurons and Sarumans eagerly lashing out with their Ring Of Government Power.

So, I finally asked my butcher about why the grass fed meat he sells isn't toughened up from "cold shortening" (i.e. chilling the meat too quickly before rigor mortis sets in)...

He said that when you get grass fed meat from a typical supermarket, the meat typically comes from a factory-type slaughterhouse where they are slaughtering many, many animals in a short amount of time. In those situations, the larger slaughterhouses have a special short-term "wind" room where they are blowing very cool air onto the carcasses to bring them down to temperature very quickly so they can then enter the long-term chilling room (right at 31.5º) without warming that next room up. This is all done because having many warm carcasses enter the chilling room in a short amount of time would raise the temperature of the chilling room. All corn fed cows have that thick layer of fat insulation around them, so the rigor mortis still has a chance to take place despite this rapid chilling process that takes place in the first room.

But, when a grass fed carcass enters that rapid-chilling "wind" room it never really gets the chance to go through rigor mortis and the meat tastes tough from "cold shortening."

However... If you happen to buy grass fed meat from a butcher who gets his meat from a small family-owned slaughterhouse, the smaller slaughterhouse doesn't have the money for a special "wind" chilling room. So, when the animals are slaughtered, the warm carcasses raise the temperature of their chilling room a few degrees and it can take awhile for the room to get back down to 31.5º.

In other words, the smaller family-owned slaughterhouse doesn't have the ability to maintain their chilling room at the corn-industry's mandated temperature due to their refrigeration constraints. It's a good thing because grass fed meat from those smaller slaughterhouses will be a lot more tender by reaching 31.5º more slowly.