Live data from Hacker News

Fish bad, sugar good, and other medieval ideas about food

lithub.com

41–50 of 84 posts

Re: Fish bad, sugar good, and other medieval ideas about food

#41
post #21
post #10

> According to Galen, food “is probably the most important of all medical subjects,” Just remember that in medieval times growing food was the job of the majority of men. Men also were the people most likely to be educated and actually write and talk about things and so food would be something on their mind. They would be growing it and thus writing about it. contrary to modern ideas men actually appeared to have don…

> Even your common peasant farmer man would likely spend a significant amount of time out in the field at lunchtime where the women are not around and so would have to fend for themselves for their lunch. Womem were in the fields. And kids too. Generally men were doing physically most demanding work, but not all of it is like that. And people working in the fields would also take the food that does not necessitate co…

A real historian has written on this. https://acoup.blog/2021/03/19/collections-clothing-how-did-t...

> And textile production was a major activity (indeed, the major activity) for probably around 40% of the population in most pre-modern societies – not merely almost all adult women, but girls too would start spinning and weaving (spinning in particular, again, we’ll get there) at very early ages. Consequently, spinning thread may have been the single most frequently performed work-task in the ancient world

Sure women did get to the fields at times. How much did vary by culture. However there is very good reason (pregnancy and nursing) that most cultures had men's and women's work as separate things. That separation often resulted in men and women being separated by long enough that men would really want to cook their own meals instead of eating a packed meal.

> You cant "fend for yourself" in the fields and also do the fields work.

That depends greatly on what you mean by fend for yourself. You wouldn't be a gatherer, but you could cook a quick meal over a fire, maybe throw some fresh herbs in the pot if you happened to see any.

Re: Fish bad, sugar good, and other medieval ideas about food

#42
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just nutrition, over the last ~30 years there's also been a philosophical shift globally where many people went from thinking about impact on humans as the only thing to assess, to considering the impact on the wider ecosystems. Today not only we discuss nutritional content we also discuss the externalities to produce those calories.

You're talking about the common misconception that this planets ecology is somehow broken, that humans are supernatural (literally above nature) and that only other humans can fix it. I'm also assuming that you're goodwill for other species ends at insects and bacteria

DDT kills both bees and bald eagles. Let's not overuse it, even if we could grow more nutritious food if we did.

Re: Fish bad, sugar good, and other medieval ideas about food

#43
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but farming was still somewhat visible to many of the elite. The bible (old testament) has a number of farmers who were also elite.

The whole point of the elite is that they don't have to do the hard work.... It's like Jefferson being out in the fields picking cotton whilst paying for a bunch of slaves.. a highly dubious proposition

That is ONE elite. There have been many elites over history with different levels of wealth and different things they did. Those who could afford a lot of slaves were not out in the field, but not all elite were that wealthy. I'm sure Jefferson wasn't picking cotton, but that doesn't mean no elite were out in the fields.

Re: Fish bad, sugar good, and other medieval ideas about food

#45
post #41
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even your common peasant farmer man would likely spend a significant amount of time out in the field at lunchtime where the women are not around and so would have to fend for themselves for their lunch. Womem were in the fields. And kids too. Generally men were doing physically most demanding work, but not all of it is like that. And people working in the fields would also take the food that does not necessitate co…

A real historian has written on this. https://acoup.blog/2021/03/19/collections-clothing-how-did-t... > And textile production was a major activity (indeed, the major activity) for probably around 40% of the population in most pre-modern societies – not merely almost all adult women, but girls too would start spinning and weaving (spinning in particular, again, we’ll get there) at very early ages. Consequently, spinn…

Spinning and weaving does not exclude your presence in the field when that seasonal work is required. Nor does cooking or childcare or house animals care. Also, that article is not about medieval times.

> However there is very good reason (pregnancy and nursing) that most cultures had men's and women's work as separate things.

I did not said women and men did the same things. I said women were in the fields. That should be uncontroversial considering we have medieval drawings of women working in the fields and historical literature lists field work women were involved in or responsible for (harvesting, planting plants, removing weeds, other similar work).

> That separation often resulted in men and women being separated by long enough that men would really want to cook their own meals instead of eating a packed meal.

We are talking about medieval farm and peasants field work. Even if it was only a man in that field, he was separated for a day and within walking distance. There is zero reason to cook food if you can pack it or if a kid can bring it to you.

> You wouldn't be a gatherer, but you could cook a quick meal over a fire, maybe throw some fresh herbs in the pot if you happened to see any.

Starting fire without matches is not quick. Cooking over fire that you just started is not quick. And it requires you to carry pot and raw food there, dirty one back. You don't do quick meal over a fire in the field from raw materials and have no logical reason to.

Re: Fish bad, sugar good, and other medieval ideas about food

#46
post #20

I am sure that in the past, good or bad food was more about conservation and food borne diseases than it was about nutrition. At least, that's the attitude that would make the most sense. That would explain sugar good / fish bad. There is probably a political aspect too, local food is seen as better than the rival neighbor food. The modern, first world attitude must be very unusual towards history. We basically solve…

For most of human history calories in was way more important than nutrition since we could barely even manage that. Just the fact that you can buy fresh fruit and vegetables in the middle of a harsh winter is an incredible feat of logistics and technology that has taken a century to develop.

Re: Fish bad, sugar good, and other medieval ideas about food

#47

> In thirteenth-century England, Christians were expected to avoid meat every Wednesday, Friday and Saturday during Lent (when eggs and dairy products were also forbidden), Advent and on some saints’ days (or the eves of their feasts) Every person (back then) could observe farm animals had sex. Since no one had seen fish having sex, it was believed that fish spawned spontaneously from rivers/lakes/oceans and therefor…

> They observed that pickled vegetables preserved the veggies for months. Kind of a tautology. Why would they think to pickle something in the first place?

i've pickled by accident before. first time it happens by accident and you're brave enough to try it and you're fine, it becomes something you'll try with anything.

Re: Fish bad, sugar good, and other medieval ideas about food

#48

> "Fish Bad, Sugar Good" > "Similarly, some fruits were safer than others: citrus fruits improved digestion, especially in hot weather, while raisins were good for the stomach, lungs and liver. And nuts were nutritious and good for the brain." My impression is that refined sugar was extremely rare in medieval times and into the renaissance. But everybody loved raisins, and they were used extensively, even though they…

They had honey and could sweeten things that way but it’s not like table sugar from beets or sugar cane.

Re: Fish bad, sugar good, and other medieval ideas about food

#49

> In thirteenth-century England, Christians were expected to avoid meat every Wednesday, Friday and Saturday during Lent (when eggs and dairy products were also forbidden), Advent and on some saints’ days (or the eves of their feasts) Every person (back then) could observe farm animals had sex. Since no one had seen fish having sex, it was believed that fish spawned spontaneously from rivers/lakes/oceans and therefor…

> They observed that pickled vegetables preserved the veggies for months. Kind of a tautology. Why would they think to pickle something in the first place?

You can ask this about a lot of foods, but probably won't get many satisfying answers. For example cheese goes back many thousands of years, and it's theorized that it was invented accidentally due to storing milk in sheep stomachs or similar.

Probably something similar for pickling. Someone noticed that salted foods last a long time, and vinegar never seems to go bad, so why not try combining them?

Post reply on HN