Recently, HSR and I travelled to the Big Bad City to see the temporary exhibit Race to the End of the Earth at that 'crazy evolution museum' on Central Park West (also known as the American Museum of Natural History - and very fine it is too). The exhibit was all about the race to the South Pole at the turn of the last century, a subject with which I have long been fascinated. Indeed, my enthusiasm is such that the one journey I absolutely positively must make before I pop my clogs is from Auckland to Cape Evans to see Scott's Hut and, hopefully, soak in lots of good Antarctic atmosphere. Sadly, this is one of those vacations that is a tad expensive, requiring as it does at least one million dollars' worth of evacuation insurance should the unthinkable happen and rescue by the Royal New Zealand Navy become an urgent necessity. For now, I content myself with the contemplation of glacial artifacts and idle daydreams about marching steadfastly towards 90 degrees South with Scott, Amundsen, Shackleton and the rest.
But here's the thing. I've been reading a lot about sledging rations lately and discovered that I would have been totally ill-equipped to be an early British Polar adventurer. Setting aside the inescapable facts that women were simply Not Allowed on these excursions and I don't very much like the cold, the diet was totally unsuited to gluten-freedom fighters such as myself. The museum exhibit had a case in which was displayed the day's alimentary allotment for one of Scott's sledge-haulers, and what did I see but a huge pile (1730 calories' worth) of Huntley and Palmer's biscuits, made from white wheat flour and swimming with gluten? Apparently, they mushed the biscuits up and stirred them into their melted pemmican to make a sort of stew they called 'hoosh'. Yum. The rations, which also included cocoa, butter, cheese and sugar, seemed to me to be terribly lacking in fiber. Of vitamin C, there was none.
Amundsen, on the other hand, carried wholesome Norwegian oaten biscuits, so I think maybe I would have been better suited to skiing South with him (having first learned to ski, I suppose). In addition, he loaded his pemmican with dried peas, adding that all-important insoluble fiber to the rations. Did you know constipation and hemorrhoids were a terrible scourge of these brave fellows? Neither did I, but given the diet, I'm not in the least bit surprised.
Which thought brings me around, like the swirling currents of the Ross Sea, to my fibrous theme. Here's a secret that nobody tells the novice gluten-free commando - not the quacks, not The Nutritionist, not even most of the g/f web resources out there, unless one is really paying attention. When you go gluten-free, you in a stroke eliminate about - oh - 90% of the fiber from your diet without even realizing it. Guess what common substance in the American diet has the highest percentage of insoluble fiber by weight. Go on, guess - you know you want to. That's right - white, soft bread, 70 g of which contain a whopping 9.5 g of fiber - almost half the daily USDA requirement. That's more than brown rice, oatmeal, or whole wheat bread. I know, I know - I was flabbergasted, myself. Clearly, this whole fiber issue is somewhat counterintuitive.
In an effort to forestall the development of any dire Polar conditions, I have therefore subjected myself to a crash course on this important topic and can now speak with some authority on the benefits of soluble and insoluble fiber, why you need them both, and what foods have which. Of course, controversy dogs this subject, as it has so many that have come to my attention lately. Take the humble apple. The USDA says apples have three times as much insoluble fiber as soluble fiber - whereas in a trice, you can find several different internet authorities (including the American Journal of Nutritional Medicine) who say the exact opposite. Do you see what I am up against? All I want to do is eat and not think too much about it.
It's enough to make me want to flee to Antarctica.
No comments:
Post a Comment