Deadly Nightshades and Do Brits call themselves English or British or both?

[shadowkat]

1. Currently reading a 1980s Judith McNaught Boddice Ripper entitled Whitney, My Love which is highly controversial. (ie. some hate, some love. Mainly, I think a lot of people just don't read very carefully - but that's just me. Romance genre is known for readers that skim and do not think all that hard about what they've read.) At any rate, the book takes place in England during the 1800s. And while reading it...I noticed that the characters called people who hailed from England, English. This begs a question - is this accurate?
Would someone who lives in England - call another person, English, or would they call them, British, during this time period? Or does it depend on the situation? Sort of like in the US, when we generally call each other Americans, but also might state "Kansan" or "New Yorker" or...honestly some of the states this doesn't quite work with. You don't call people from Massachustus - Massachustusians, do you? Anyhow - to the folks who live in Great Britian or England - what do you prefer? British or English? I can't imagine someone from Scotland or Wales wanting to be called English. At least they didn't when I visited in the 1980s, and I don't refer to my heritage as English, but rather Welsh, Scotch-Irish, Irish, French-Belgium and German (yes, Northern Celt - Lady of the Moon, can't you tell?).

2. Suffering from Arthritis? Inflammation? Feel like a human weather vane - the weather gets nasty and you begin to ache?

Try going off nightshades for three months. Of course first you have to figure out what they are and what the heck I'm talking about. Also it's a rather controversial topic.

Nightshade...sounds like something out of a Neal Gaiman/Tim Burton story, doesn't it? Apparently in reality Nightshades are foods with a chemical known as Solanine which is an alkoid and can be highly toxic for some people. Some people are highly sensitive to it. Others not so much.

This view is rather controversial. Some people believe nightshades cause arthritic pain and are inflammatory, and some do not. And they are quite strident in their views. (If you thought fandom was bad, try the health field.)

From Dr. Chase Hayden:

The connection of nightshades and arthritis-type disorders was brought to the forefront largely by the efforts of Dr. Norman F. Childers, former Professor of Horticulture at Rutgers University. Dr. Childers knew first-hand the affects of severe joint pain and stiffness. He discovered that after consuming a meal containing any tomatoes, he experienced severe pain. As his interest in the inflammatory responses to nightshades grew, he observed livestock kneeling in pain from inflamed joints – the livestock had consumed weeds containing a substance called solanine. Solanine is a chemical known as an alkaloid, which can be highly toxic.

An enzyme present in the body called Cholinesterase originates in the brain where its responsible for flexibility of muscle movement. Solanine, present in nightshades, is a powerful inhibitor of cholinesterase. In other words, its presence can interfere with muscle function – the cause of stiffness experienced after consuming nightshades. All people are not sensitive to nightshades in the same degree. Research has proved that when an inflammatory condition exists, consuming nightshades is like adding “fuel to the fire”. That said, there is no scientific evidence that for those not afflicted with inflammation that nightshades will cause it.

From Rhea Seymore - Best Health Magazine (who doesn't appear to be a doctor and doesn't seem to get the fact that they cause it in individuals who are sensitive to nightshades NOT everyone.) The Counter Argument or Nightshades are bogus:

Sometimes even vegetables get a bad rap. Take the nightshade vegetables or Solanaceae, a plant family that includes eggplant, peppers, potatoes and tomatoes. (The term “nightshade” may have been coined because some of these plants prefer to grow in shady areas, and some flower at night.) An online search of “nightshade vegetables” yields results linking them to a host of health ailments from arthritis to migraines. Naturo­paths sometimes recommend that people with arthritis avoid nightshades. And Patricia J. Wales, a naturopathic doctor in Calgary, says naturopaths may suggest that people with osteoarthritis eliminate nightshades. These vegetables are also excluded from certain eating plans. Dr. Joshi’s Holistic Detox—endorsed by Gwyneth Paltrow and Kate Moss—claims nightshades are related to poison ivy and potentially poisonous. “But poison ivy isn’t even in the same plant family,” explains Barry Micallef, a plant biochemistry expert at the University of Guelph.

Why the bad reputation? Some people may think nightshade vegetables are harmful because they’re confusing them with “deadly nightshade” or Atrope belladonna, an inedible weed that’s also part of the Solanaceae family, explains Micallef. Historically, the deadly nightshade has been associated with witchcraft. When ingested in large amounts, it may cause convulsions or even death. But that has nothing to do with these vegetables.

http://www.besthealthmag.ca/eat-well/nutrition/4-myths-about-nightshade-vegetables

This site - proposes a compromise - take a three month test, go off all nightshades for three months and see what happens.

If you want to know if nightshades negatively affect you, take the three month challenge. Avoid all nightshades for three months. (It's called a challenge for a reason).Be careful to note the nightshade list, and become a label reader as some homeopathics, prescriptions, over the counter medications as well as numerous processed foods contain nightshades. Prescriptions and over the counter medicines may require a discussion with your pharmacist or a phone call to the manufacturer of your over the counter medicines to determine ingredients.

After three months, begin to reintroduce one nightshade at a time. Take note of any aches, pains, stiffness, and loss of energy, headaches, respiratory problems or any other symptoms. You may find as many others have, that the quality of your daily health will dramatically improve after eliminating nightshades from your diet.

The nightshade list

­ tomatoes (all varieties, including tomatillos)
­ potatoes (all varieties, NOT sweet potatoes or yams)
­ eggplant (aubergine)
­ okra
­ peppers (all varieties such as bell pepper, wax pepper, green & red peppers, chili peppers, cayenne, paprika, etc.)
­ goji berries
­ tomarillos (a plum-like fruit from Peru)
­ sorrel
­ garden huckleberry & blueberries (contain the alkaloids that induce inflammation)
­ gooseberries
­ ground cherries
­ pepino Melon
­ the homeopathic "Belladonna" [note: this is highly precautionary as homeopathics contain virtually no measurable "active" chemical]
­ tobacco
­ paprika
­ cayenne pepper

Soy sauce made in the U.S. is generally made with genetically modified (GMO) soy beans, which are cut with the nightshade plant Petunia.

The condiments black/white pepper and pepper corns are not nightshades
Other ingredients and products to avoid

­Homeopathic remedies containing Belladonna [note: this is highly precautionary as homeopathics contain virtually no measurable "active" chemical]
­Prescription and over-the-counter medications containing potato starch as a filler (especially prevalent in sleeping and muscle relaxing medications)
­Edible flowers: petunia, chalice vine, day jasmine, angel and devil's trumpets
­Atropine and Scopolamine, used in sleeping pills
­Topical medications for pain and inflammation containing capsicum (in cayenne pepper).
­Many baking powders contain potato starch
­Don't lick envelopes, many adhesives contain potato starch
­Vodka (potatoes used in production)

Read labels carefully because you could be doing everything else right, and still be sabotaged by one small amount of an ingredient.

Mark's Daily Apple seems to agree:

So, what gives? Are they bad, or are they O.K.? Our simple answer: eat them (and enjoy them) in moderation if you don’t feel any ill effects. While research hasn’t yet turned up any definitive evidence that the alkaloid-containing foods in question harm the human system, it’s generally accepted that some people are much more sensitive to them than others. Nightshades, in those with this sensitivity, have been associated with symptoms like stomach discomfort, digestive difficulties, joint pain, and muscle tremors. These reports have been enough to influence medical care professionals and some organizations to advise those with certain conditions like GERD, gout, or arthritis to avoid nightshades. If you don’t have these conditions but are concerned, it’s a good idea to take a full 2-4 weeks off from nightshade foods and see if you feel any differently. Some of us have mild enough reactions that we may not feel the difference until we set our own “control” scenario for comparison.

Finally, if sensitivity doesn’t seem to be a problem but you’d like to take some reasonable precautions, know that cooking nightshade foods (steaming, boiling, baking) can reduce the alkaloid levels to nearly half. And yet another reason to avoid potatoes: sprouted potatoes (and their associated green parts) have higher levels of alkaloids than other foods.

And, finally, we’d like to put in a plug for a widely varied diet. As much as we love our tomatoes, eggplants, and peppers, we wouldn’t recommend making them the sole or primary vegetables in your diet. Variety offers the best in nutrient-rich and low-risk nourishment.

Read more: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/nightshades/#ixzz2nJgijolW

What I can't find anywhere is proof that apples are nightshades. So I don't trust the Nutritionist on this point. Also weirdly did find Chayote squash on the nightshade list. Blueberries are on some lists and not others.

See? This is the problem with the nutrition field, everyone believes they are an expert but when all is said and done they are only an expert when it relates to them. At any rate, my nutritionist and this site Educate Me: Nightshades, written by a Registered Nurse and Dietician, state that if you find you are sensitive, go off of them and see what happens.

I know eggplant, tomatoes, potatoes, and peppers have always disagreed with me on some level - and going off them relieved a lot of symptoms. Also I was eating a lot of them last year - because you know - they taste good and I'm a foodie. But, when I went off of all of them, the pain went away or decreased. Apples and blueberries I remain unconvinced about - although she recommended just going off of all apples but the Green Granny Smiths - which to be honest are really the only ones that I like. The others...tend to disagree with me or are too sweet.

So I think the elimination diet is key here.


Tomorrow, I'll discuss what I've learned about grains.

Comments

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

I read Whitney, My Love way back in high school. I have no memory of the plot. None. Can remember the cover but not the story. Weird. There was some Judith McNaught that I remember liking a great deal... but I have no memory of which one. Huh. Strange that I remember reading them but nothing about them.

[ETA: Poked around on Good Reads last night trying to refresh my memory. Still have no memory of the plot of that one, but I do vaguely remember (I think) thinking the 'hero' was an asshole. Speaking of that kind of romance, I remember reading Kathleen Woodiwiss's "The Flame and the Flower" way back in high school, too, and being fairly (though not adequately) apalled.

Thinking back on that plot now (whose plot I actually do remember) I am appalled. Holy bejesus the guy was raping 'prostitutes' (which she wasn't, but he didn't know that... which in no way makes it 'okay' to rape a damn prostitute! :shudder:)

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I have no memory of the plot. None. Can remember the cover but not the story. Weird.

Well at least you can claim that it was years ago. I can't remember the plots of romance novels that I read five months ago. OR the titles for that matter. There's something about the romance and mystery genres...because I have the same problems with mysteries. Sci-Fi and Fantasy novels tend to stick in my head longer, mystery and romance novels, not so much. I wonder if its because their plots tend to be, for the most part, fairly interchangeable and paint by numbers? There are a few that stick out - either because they subvert the trope or do something bizarre, but not many.

There's two romance novels I remember, possibly three - Flowers from the Storm by Laura Kinsale, Pleasure for Pleasure by Eloisa James, and The Heiress Effect by Courtney Milan - but all three were rather different, which may be why?

I honestly can't remember the plots of any of the romances I read in my teens and twenties - unless they were written by Jane Austen, the Brontes, or
Mary Stewart (Touch Not the Cat sticks in my memory but it was also really different...and like nothing else out there.)

Flame and the Flower? I remember enjoying it at the time, but I can't remember why or what it was about. I think I preferred The Wolf and the Dove, mainly because the heroine had more spirit and the hero was more likable. But I don't remember enough about it to know why. I did read all of them: Shanna, Ashes in the Wind, The Wolf and the Dove, the Flame and the Flower...but don't ask me what they were about or what happened in them. LOL!

I don't think I read any of Judith McNaught when I was a kid ...who is actually tamer than Woodliss and Rodgers were. (Less sex, less sexual violence, and more description.) My mother didn't keep hers - so no access.

My favorite of the boddice rippers were: Moonlight Madness - Laurie McBain (female highwayman), Devil's Desire by Laurie McBain, Wildest Heart by Rosemary Rodgers (it had a mystery), Bride of the McHugh by Jan Cox Spears (out of print) and this book about a female pirate by Fern Michaels, Captive Splendor? I actually remember the plot of Moonlight Madness and Captive Splendor because they were different. Almost all of these are either out of print or hard to find.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Still have no memory of the plot of that one, but I do vaguely remember (I think) thinking the 'hero' was an asshole.

Hence the controversy. LOL! (well that and the fact that he does, ahem, forcefully take her virginity because he thought she had slept with someone else and got jealous. Seriously, the dude has the worst caveman mentality. He's slept with hundreds of women...but he needs her to be pristine because she's his possession? Dude, get a grip. But that's partly the trope - Dude starts out as Caveman, all male, all penis, then as the book progresses, he becomes nicer, less Caveman, kinder, and not just about possession. In short he softens and figures out how to love. )

As far as I can tell.. boddice rippers had one of two plot tropes, or rather a combination of these two plot tropes:

Powerful, arrogant, attractive guy who has women falling over themselves for him - becomes insanely attracted to heroine, who is a bit of a spitfire (usually tough and iron-willed, and stubborn). She's basically his match, except he's "physically" stronger than she is.

What ensues is a battle of wills - on all fronts, physical, cereberal and emotional. He tries to break her with his penis or sex (either with forceful seduction or rape) it does not work. She tries to break his will by denying him sex (which sort of works and doesn't at the same time). A misunderstanding ensues - ie, he decides she isn't a virgin and has been sleeping with other people while denying him. So he well, rapes or forcefully seduces her - it's not always clear. And of course it does not give him what he wants. He hurts her and hates himself. And fears he's lost her forever...and tries to figure out how to live with himself and without her. Time passes. He attempts to make amends. She finds a way to understand why he did what he did and manages to forgive him. And love him. He regains her trust...and through trust and understanding are able to build a life together and live happily ever after.

The moral? You may do grievous acts, but with remorse and apology, you can be forgiven and loved. No one is irredeemable. And no matter how grievous, the act can be forgiven and healing can come about through that act of forgiveness.

Of course depending on the writer - it isn't always convincing. Some writers don't do a good job of developing the male hero - so he comes across as a bit of an ass. Whitney, My Love was Judith McNaught's first book and the hero in it is not as well developed as some of the heroes in her later novels. Other writers don't do a good enough job of developing the heroine.
And others don't develop the plot very well.

For the trope to work - the hero has to commit a "beastly" act and it has to be unforgivable, if it's not really bad - the time the two are separated and his self-loathing won't make sense. In short, he's searching for a way not to be a Caveman (want take have) and be a Gentleman or Good Man. (ie. he's coming to grips with the feminine part of himself - not the male part, sort of like Spike searching for his soul.) The most unforgivable act that a hero in a romance can commit is like it or not - rape. There really is nothing worse. I suppose beating - but romance novelists tend to like to steer clear of that, although a few have done it instead. That's why, I think, its in so many of these books - at least Judith McNaught's. I also think that many writers are struggling to deal with their own fears of it.

I will state that the books written in the 1980s and 1970s do a far better job of pulling this off than ones written now - which either are too politically correct for their own good (ie. no conflict) or make the act beyond the realm of forgivable (ie. the heroine is repeatedly raped, beaten, kidnapped, and emotionally tortured by the hero...then weirdly she falls in love with him and forgives him? In that order. I don't know that's taking Stockholm syndrome a bit far.) or have jumped into absurd and rather silly paranormal/gothic horror territory.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

This was basically the plot of Woodiwiss's "The Flame and the Flower" and of all her heroes, Brandon is the one I never really liked (Though I seem to vaguely remember the hero of the Civil War one "Ashes in the Wind" was kind of a dick as well. And don't get me started on Catherine Coulter, her books are rife with rape.)

My favorite Woodiwiss was "Shanna". Problematic in a host of ways, but I sort of liked that in that one the heroine was rather a bitch and the hero was the long-suffering one instead. Just the reversal was enough to make me enjoy it.

The romance novels I remember tend to be the ones that did something 'different.' Though what that might be varies. I vaguely remember liking "A Woman Scorned" by Liz Carlyle because it was a 'scandalous' heroine and an upright, uptight hero. (I think I also liked her "No True Gentleman" as well, but again I have little to no memory. I know that I didn't like all of her books so if I'm wrong, I could be very wrong.) I seem to remember liking Brenda Haitt's "Scandalous Virtue" because it also played with a heroine that was willing to be something other than a pristine good girl.

One of my faves (and it's totally sexless and innocent, so it's not a bodice ripper in any way) is Carla Kelly's "The Lady's Companion" because when the impoverished lady falls for a servant he is actually a servant. There's no "he's some lord in disguise." He is what he is, and she figures out that she'd rather be happy.

[alexisjane.livejournal.com]

I tend to refer to myself as British, mostly as I have a Welsh grandfather and spent most of my childhood in Wales as well as living for a short time in Scotland. Friends that have grown up in England refer to themselves more often as English though, I think.
Someone from Scotland or Wales would never allow themselves to be called English and in fact it would be a major insult, given the way in which the English systematically eroded and suppressed their cultural identities (there's a fab scene in Torchwood when Gwen is called English by someone, which is a great 'oh god, you're really in for it now!' moment which I guess could be lost if you don't know)
I think it really depends on peoples personal experiences, and cultural and regional background how they define themselves. I think there's perhaps a little reluctance to be very patriotic, flying flags etc here, as that kind of thing has become synonymous with fascism so I think is less prevalent than in the US.
But that's just in my experience : ) x

[kathyh]

I call myself English because that is what I am as I have not a drop of Welsh, Scottish or Irish (my "Irish" great-grandmother turned out not to be) blood. If I'm abroad I'd probably say British though. My husband who certainly has Welsh blood and may be a bit Scottish also refers to himself as English. My mother-in-law, who was half Welsh, born and brought up there, also called herself English because that is where she spent most of her life.

The English don't really do nationalism in the same way as the Scots, Welsh or Irish, and get a bit uncomfortable about flag-waving, unless sport is involved!

*Never* refer to Scots or Welsh as English!

the weather gets nasty and you begin to ache?

I begin to ache *before* the weather gets nasty. I'm better than a barometer. Some of the foods on that list upset my digestion, particularly peppers and apples, but I don't think they have much to do with my muscular problems, which are more the result of cold damp weather.

[stormwreath.livejournal.com]

As someone born in England and living in London, I tend to use English and British about myself interchangeably. You could maybe say that 'English' is my ethnicity, 'British' is my nationality. Immigrant communities tend to identify as British rather than English - 'Black British', 'British Asian' etc; and of course the Scots, Welsh and (Northern) Irish are certainly not English.

Back in the 19th and early 20th century the use of 'England' was much more common than it is now. People like Winston Churchill regularly talked about 'English foreign policy' and 'the national interests of England' when they really meant 'British' or 'the UK'.

By the second half of the 20th century it was recognised that this was insulting and disrespectful to the Scots/Welsh/Irish, and a conscious effort was made to replace 'England' by 'Britain' in official discourse. That's why it's considered a major faux pas when people from other countries still follow the old usage and say 'England' to mean the UK as a whole.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Thank you! That's what I thought was the case, but wasn't certain.

I remember when I was living and traveling in England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland during the 1980s - collecting stories, that the Welsh, Scottish and Irish were pretty negative about the English, and did not want to be called English. Which makes sense - after all the English invaded them.
What's interesting though is that now it's considered a big deal, when they've technically been part of England and under English rule for well a long time, while when it was far more recent...England was referred to as England. Is the change due to increased sensitivity and a desire to get along (ie. political correctness), when before they didn't care?
Or is there another reason that I'm missing?