Re: Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
jombithedjinn
Krusty wrote:
> "trijcomm" <trij...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
> > >That's really unfair, Janis. Where did you learn all this info....was
> > the setup to one of your women's apartment wrestling videos some chick
> >>in pantyhose reading an Atkins diet book?
> >
> > You should really look into that Atkins diet book ...
>
> Hardly, it's a "diet" for idiots.
>
> Get a biology degree and *really* learn about food.
You obviously know nothing about nutrition. Do you REALLY think human
beings were truly meant to eat grass like wheat and barley? I'm sure
that you do, you're just the type to be so undereducated.
Typical diets are inferior to the atkins diet strictly because the
conventional diets would have people eat foods that nature never
intended for human beings to eat. Humans were meant to eat meat, eggs,
green leafy vegetables, and certain berries. They were certainly not
meant to eat wheat grass.
Dana Carpender
jombithedjinn wrote:
Data Point: I've been eating a low carb diet for going on eleven years
now. I am very healthy; all the tests confirm it. Have kept 40 pounds
off (with the occasional bump upward after a nasty car wreck, when I
couldn't exercise; and when I've gone hypothyroid.) Drastically
improved my energy level. Enjoy the food tremendously, and really don't
miss anything.
And yeah, since grains and beans in any quantity have only been part of
the human diet for 10,000 of the 2 million or more years we've been
around, it's really hard to see how they're essential. Research
indicates that the hunter/gatherer diet generally consisted of roughly
50%-60% animal food, and the rest vegetables, wild (very low sugar)
fruit in season, and nuts and seeds. Sounds about like my diet.
Dana
Mary
>
> Data Point: I've been eating a low carb diet for going on eleven years
> now. I am very healthy; all the tests confirm it. Have kept 40 pounds
> off (with the occasional bump upward after a nasty car wreck, when I
> couldn't exercise; and when I've gone hypothyroid.) Drastically
> improved my energy level. Enjoy the food tremendously, and really don't
> miss anything.
Another data point: I've been eating a low-fat diet for two years now.
I am very healthy; all the tests confirm it. Have kept 45 pounds off
with no bumps (luckily I've been able to keep to my exercise schedule).
Drastically improved my energy level. Enjoy the food tremendously,
and really don't miss anything.
> And yeah, since grains and beans in any quantity have only been part of
> the human diet for 10,000 of the 2 million or more years we've been
> around, it's really hard to see how they're essential. Research
> indicates that the hunter/gatherer diet generally consisted of roughly
> 50%-60% animal food, and the rest vegetables, wild (very low sugar)
> fruit in season, and nuts and seeds. Sounds about like my diet.
Evolution can occur in a lot less than 10,000 years.
Mary
Dana Carpender
Mary wrote:
> Dana Carpender wrote:
>
>>
>> Data Point: I've been eating a low carb diet for going on eleven
>> years now. I am very healthy; all the tests confirm it. Have kept 40
>> pounds off (with the occasional bump upward after a nasty car wreck,
>> when I couldn't exercise; and when I've gone hypothyroid.)
>> Drastically improved my energy level. Enjoy the food tremendously,
>> and really don't miss anything.
>
>
> Another data point: I've been eating a low-fat diet for two years now.
> I am very healthy; all the tests confirm it. Have kept 45 pounds off
> with no bumps (luckily I've been able to keep to my exercise schedule).
> Drastically improved my energy level. Enjoy the food tremendously, and
> really don't miss anything.
God bless. I ate a low fat diet high in whole grains and beans before I
went low carb; it's not like I was eating Lucky Charms and Krispy
Kremes, and swilling down soda. I hadn't bought white bread or white
rice in over 15 years. A low fat diet high in whole grains and beans
got me up to nearly 200 pounds at 5'2", with nasty energy swings and
high blood pressure. I was gaining weight despite doing 5 step aerobics
classes per week. *Low fat/high carb did not work for me.*
>
>> And yeah, since grains and beans in any quantity have only been part
>> of the human diet for 10,000 of the 2 million or more years we've been
>> around, it's really hard to see how they're essential. Research
>> indicates that the hunter/gatherer diet generally consisted of roughly
>> 50%-60% animal food, and the rest vegetables, wild (very low sugar)
>> fruit in season, and nuts and seeds. Sounds about like my diet.
>
>
> Evolution can occur in a lot less than 10,000 years.
To the point where foods that were not even consumed become absolutely
essential, and foods that were staples become dangerous? Cite?
Dana
Blair P. Houghton
jombithedjinn wrote:
> You obviously know nothing about nutrition.
You shouldn't say things like that when you are just about to say
things like this:
> Typical diets are inferior to the atkins diet
A diet that forces you into an illness in order to create a particular
look for a purely subjective reason is inferior to almost any other
diet in almost every way.
Atkins was a scam, then a fad, now it's just an old joke.
--Blair
Blair P. Houghton
Dana Carpender wrote:
> And yeah, since grains and beans in any quantity have only been part of
> the human diet for 10,000 of the 2 million or more years we've been
> around, it's really hard to see how they're essential. Research
> indicates that the hunter/gatherer diet generally consisted of roughly
> 50%-60% animal food, and the rest vegetables, wild (very low sugar)
> fruit in season, and nuts and seeds. Sounds about like my diet.
You know nothing about evolution, either.
--Blair
Pushmi-Pullyu
Could you elaborate?
Thanks!
P
Dana Carpender
Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> jombithedjinn wrote:
>
>>You obviously know nothing about nutrition.
>
>
> You shouldn't say things like that when you are just about to say
> things like this:
>
>
>>Typical diets are inferior to the atkins diet
>
>
> A diet that forces you into an illness in order to create a particular
> look for a purely subjective reason is inferior to almost any other
> diet in almost every way.
>
People who think ketosis is an illness are misinformed. It's very likely
that our hunter/gatherer ancestors spent much of their lives in ketosis.
> Atkins was a scam, then a fad, now it's just an old joke.
Atkins works, has been around for over 30 years, and has quite a lot of
independant clinical research backing it up.
Dana
Dana Carpender
Blair P. Houghton wrote:
Nice assertion. Care to back it up?
Dana
Dana Carpender
are referring to Atkins as a "scam" or claim it's unhealthy have
actually *read* Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution, or any book written by
Dr. Atkins, for that matter?
Dana
Mary
>
>
> Mary wrote:
>> Dana Carpender wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Data Point: I've been eating a low carb diet for going on eleven
>>> years now. I am very healthy; all the tests confirm it. Have kept
>>> 40 pounds off (with the occasional bump upward after a nasty car
>>> wreck, when I couldn't exercise; and when I've gone hypothyroid.)
>>> Drastically improved my energy level. Enjoy the food tremendously,
>>> and really don't miss anything.
>>
>>
>> Another data point: I've been eating a low-fat diet for two years
>> now. I am very healthy; all the tests confirm it. Have kept 45
>> pounds off with no bumps (luckily I've been able to keep to my
>> exercise schedule). Drastically improved my energy level. Enjoy the
>> food tremendously, and really don't miss anything.
>
> God bless. I ate a low fat diet high in whole grains and beans before I
> went low carb; it's not like I was eating Lucky Charms and Krispy
> Kremes, and swilling down soda. I hadn't bought white bread or white
> rice in over 15 years. A low fat diet high in whole grains and beans
> got me up to nearly 200 pounds at 5'2", with nasty energy swings and
> high blood pressure. I was gaining weight despite doing 5 step aerobics
> classes per week. *Low fat/high carb did not work for me.*
Yeah, I know -- the only point I want to make is that some things work
for some people, and others for others.
>>> And yeah, since grains and beans in any quantity have only been part
>>> of the human diet for 10,000 of the 2 million or more years we've
>>> been around, it's really hard to see how they're essential. Research
>>> indicates that the hunter/gatherer diet generally consisted of
>>> roughly 50%-60% animal food, and the rest vegetables, wild (very low
>>> sugar) fruit in season, and nuts and seeds. Sounds about like my diet.
>>
>>
>> Evolution can occur in a lot less than 10,000 years.
>
> To the point where foods that were not even consumed become absolutely
> essential, and foods that were staples become dangerous? Cite?
Well, I didn't say that, did I? Only that it wouldn't surprise me at
all to find that it takes a lot less than 10,000 years to change our
ability to digest various things and get nutrients from them.
I just get uncomfortable when people proselytize about various diets.
Different things work for different people. Some people are quite
healthy on a vegatarian diet; others eat low-fat; others eat low-carb.
About the only thing I'm willing to make a blanket statement about is
that eating mostly highly processed junk food isn't good for you.
Mary
Dana Carpender
Mary wrote:
>
> I just get uncomfortable when people proselytize about various diets.
> Different things work for different people. Some people are quite
> healthy on a vegatarian diet; others eat low-fat; others eat low-carb.
> About the only thing I'm willing to make a blanket statement about is
> that eating mostly highly processed junk food isn't good for you.
>
>
'Sfine by me. I have no argument with what works. But it was stated here
that "Atkins is a diet for idiots," that it puts you into a "disease"
state, that it's a "scam" and a "fad", as if those of us who have had
overwhelming success with low carb diets somehow were mistaken about the
immensely positive changes in our bodies.
Dana
Mary
That's why I trimmed the cross-posts before jumping in. I don't think
that guy was here.
Mary
Dana Carpender
Since we like citations here at AFCA:
Yeah, hunter-gatherers really did eat a low carb diet:
http://tinyurl.com/fpv3s
Department of Food Science, RMIT University, Melbourne, 3001, Australia.
Background - Anthropologists and some nutritionists have long recognised
that the diets of Paleolithic and recent hunter-gatherers (HG) may
represent a reference standard for modern human nutrition and a model
for defense against certain western lifestyle diseases. Boyd Eaton of
Emory University (Atlanta) has spent over 20 years reconstructing
prehistoric diets from anthropological evidence and observations of
surviving HG societies, put this succinctly: "We are the heirs of
inherited characteristics accrued over millions of years, the vast
majority of our biochemistry and physiology are tuned to life conditions
that existed prior to the advent of agriculture some 10,000 years ago.
Genetically our bodies are virtually the same as they were at the end of
paleolithic some 20,000 years ago. The appearance of agriculture and
domestication of animals some 10,000 years ago and the Industrial
Revolution some 200 years ago introduced new dietary pressures for which
no adaptation has been possible in such a short time span. Thus an
inevitable discordance exists between our dietary intake and that which
our genes are suited to". This discordance hypothesis postulated by
Eaton, could explain many of the chronic "diseases of civilisation". But
what did hunter-gatherer populations actually eat? Review - The lines of
investigation used by anthropologists to deduce the evolutionary diet of
hominids include the study of: (i) changes in cranio-dental features,
(ii) isotopic chemical tracer methods, including carbon isotope
(13C/12C), strontium isotope (87Sr/86Sr) and trace element Sr/Ca ratios
in enamel and bone of fossils,(iii) comparative gut morphology of modern
humans and other mammals, (iv) the energetic requirements of a
developing a large brain:body size ratio, (v) optimal foraging theory
and food selection, (vi) the study of dietary patterns of surviving
hunter-gatherer societies. Findings show clear cranio-dental changes
including, a decrease in molar teeth size, jaws/skull became more
gracile and front teeth became well-buttressed, all indicative of less
emphasis on grinding course foliage and more on biting and tearing.
Carbon isotope studies indicate the dietary intake of C4 grasses,
undoubtedly in the form of herbivorous animals, at a level which
increased substantially during the progression of our genus from A.
aferensis to H. sapiens. Even as far back as 3.5 million years, the
Sr/Ca ratio falls in between those typical for herbivores and
carnivores. Gut morphology studies indicate a closer structural analogy
with carnivores than the folivorous or frugivorous mammals. Energetic
requirements of a relatively enlarged brain have been balanced by
reduction in size and energy requirement of the digestive system, a
phenomena requiring a high quality diet. Investigation of food
procurement habits of hunter-gatherer societies indicates the advantage
of hunting of game animals compared with plant foraging in terms of
energy gain versus expenditure. Study of macronutrient energy
proportions in the diet of HG societies (n=229) show a relatively high
protein intake 19-35%, highly variable fat intake 28-47% and low
carbohydrate level 22-40%. Conclusions - It is postulated that changes
in food staples and food processing procedures introduced during the
Neolithic and Industrial era have fundamentally altered seven crucial
nutritional characteristics of our ancestral diet: (i) glycaemic load,
(ii) fatty acid balance, (iii) macronutrient balance, (iv) trace
nutrient density, (v) acid-base balance, (vi) sodium-potassium balance,
(vii) fiber content.
OBJECTIVE: Field studies of twentieth century hunter-gathers (HG) showed
them to be generally free of the signs and symptoms of cardiovascular
disease (CVD). Consequently, the characterization of HG diets may have
important implications in designing therapeutic diets that reduce the
risk for CVD in Westernized societies. Based upon limited ethnographic
data (n=58 HG societies) and a single quantitative dietary study, it has
been commonly inferred that gathered plant foods provided the dominant
energy source in HG diets. METHOD AND RESULTS: In this review we have
analyzed the 13 known quantitative dietary studies of HG and demonstrate
that animal food actually provided the dominant (65%) energy source,
while gathered plant foods comprised the remainder (35%). This data is
consistent with a more recent, comprehensive review of the entire
ethnographic data (n=229 HG societies) that showed the mean subsistence
dependence upon gathered plant foods was 32%, whereas it was 68% for
animal foods. Other evidence, including isotopic analyses of Paleolithic
hominid collagen tissue, reductions in hominid gut size, low activity
levels of certain enzymes, and optimal foraging data all point toward a
long history of meat-based diets in our species. Because increasing meat
consumption in Western diets is frequently associated with increased
risk for CVD mortality, it is seemingly paradoxical that HG societies,
who consume the majority of their energy from animal food, have been
shown to be relatively free of the signs and symptoms of CVD.
CONCLUSION: The high reliance upon animal-based foods would not have
necessarily elicited unfavorable blood lipid profiles because of the
hypolipidemic effects of high dietary protein (19-35% energy) and the
relatively low level of dietary carbohydrate (22-40% energy). Although
fat intake (28-58% energy) would have been similar to or higher than
that found in Western diets, it is likely that important qualitative
differences in fat intake, including relatively high levels of MUFA and
PUFA and a lower omega-6/omega-3 fatty acid ratio, would have served to
inhibit the development of CVD. Other dietary characteristics including
high intakes of antioxidants, fiber, vitamins and phytochemicals along
with a low salt intake may have operated synergistically with lifestyle
characteristics (more exercise, less stress and no smoking) to further
deter the development of CVD.
Department of Health and Exercise Science, Colorado State University,
Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA. cor...@cahs.colostate.edu
Both anthropologists and nutritionists have long recognized that the
diets of modern-day hunter-gatherers may represent a reference standard
for modern human nutrition and a model for defense against certain
diseases of affluence. Because the hunter-gatherer way of life is now
probably extinct in its purely un-Westernized form, nutritionists and
anthropologists must rely on indirect procedures to reconstruct the
traditional diet of preagricultural humans. In this analysis, we
incorporate the most recent ethnographic compilation of plant-to-animal
economic subsistence patterns of hunter-gatherers to estimate likely
dietary macronutrient intakes (% of energy) for environmentally diverse
hunter-gatherer populations. Furthermore, we show how differences in the
percentage of body fat in prey animals would alter protein intakes in
hunter-gatherers and how a maximal protein ceiling influences the
selection of other macronutrients. Our analysis showed that whenever and
wherever it was ecologically possible, hunter-gatherers consumed high
amounts (45-65% of energy) of animal food. Most (73%) of the worldwide
hunter-gatherer societies derived >50% (> or =56-65% of energy) of their
subsistence from animal foods, whereas only 14% of these societies
derived >50% (> or =56-65% of energy) of their subsistence from gathered
plant foods. This high reliance on animal-based foods coupled with the
relatively low carbohydrate content of wild plant foods produces
universally characteristic macronutrient consumption ratios in which
protein is elevated (19-35% of energy) at the expense of carbohydrates
(22-40% of energy).
And these researchers seem pretty concerned that evolution hasn't kept
up with agrarian diets:
http://tinyurl.com/jcfqu
ABSTRACT : BACKGROUND : The global pattern of varying prevalence of
diseases of affluence, such as obesity, cardiovascular disease and
diabetes, suggests that some environmental factor specific to agrarian
societies could initiate these diseases. PRESENTATION OF THE HYPOTHESIS
: We propose that a cereal-based diet could be such an environmental
factor. Through previous studies in archaeology and molecular evolution
we conclude that humans and the human leptin system are not specifically
adapted to a cereal-based diet, and that leptin resistance associated
with diseases of affluence could be a sign of insufficient adaptation to
such a diet. We further propose lectins as a cereal constituent with
sufficient properties to cause leptin resistance, either through effects
on metabolism central to the proper functions of the leptin system,
and/or directly through binding to human leptin or human leptin
receptor, thereby affecting the function. TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS :
Dietary interventions should compare effects of agrarian and
non-agrarian diets on incidence of diseases of affluence, related risk
factors and leptin resistance. A non-significant (p = 0.10) increase of
cardiovascular mortality was noted in patients advised to eat more
whole-grain cereals. Our lab conducted a study on 24 domestic pigs in
which a cereal-free hunter-gatherer diet promoted significantly higher
insulin sensitivity, lower diastolic blood pressure and lower C-reactive
protein as compared to a cereal-based swine feed. Testing should also
evaluate the effects of grass lectins on the leptin system in vivo by
diet interventions, and in vitro in various leptin and leptin receptor
models. Our group currently conducts such studies. IMPLICATIONS OF THE
HYPOTHESIS : If an agrarian diet initiates diseases of affluence it
should be possible to identify the responsible constituents and modify
or remove them so as to make an agrarian diet healthier.
Anyone else got some cites? Or just assertions?
Dana
Krusty
Yeah you fucking idiot. Human Beings haven't been around for 2 million
years.
What else do you want to know.
Krusty
> You obviously know nothing about nutrition. Do you REALLY think human
> beings were truly meant to eat grass like wheat and barley? I'm sure
> that you do, you're just the type to be so undereducated.
You're a fucking idiot.
Seriously.
And you're totally wrong.
Wrong, AND an idiot.
Happy to Help.
Dana Carpender
Krusty wrote:
Cite?
This suggests roots 3 million years back:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/231442.stm
And we've been homo sapiens for an estimated 200,000 years. If you want
to go by that, we were still hunter-gatherers for 80% of our existance.
Or do you believe the world was created in 4004 BC? Because if you do,
we can talk about who's the idiot.
Dana
>
>
Dana Carpender
Krusty wrote:
You're long on vitriol and short on facts. Care to back up your big mouth?
Dana
Krusty
Me. It's a scam. It's unhealthy, and you're a fucking moron if you buy into
"fad" diets.
But hey, since this all started with an offhanded comment by Trijcomm, I'm
not surprised it drew other hopelessly clueless rubes.
Lord Hatred
Dana Carpender <dcar...@kivanospam.net> wrote:
So you are calling Krusty an idiot by agreeing that you made an
ignorant statement? Good job. I think that's a new one on UseNet.
--
Stefan:
Lord Hatred
"Pushmi-Pullyu" <sandsto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dana Carpender wrote:
> > Krusty wrote:
> > > You're a fucking idiot.
> > > Seriously.
> > > And you're totally wrong.
> > > Wrong, AND an idiot.
> > > Happy to Help.
> >
> > You're long on vitriol and short on facts. Care to back up your big mouth?
> >
> > Dana
>
>
> Oops, someone accidentally wandered in here from the pro-wrestling
> group.
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=5oZGKRAAAADt4HCFwEzR8hglMMGDf
> YZl
> http://tinyurl.com/mym2n
>
You should also use Google to find out where this thread originated.
And to find out who the OP was. HTH.
--
Stefan:
Dana Carpender
Lord Hatred wrote:
Nope. It's a question of what you want to call "human history." I was
clarifying, and making the point that even if you want to go with the
narrowest possible definition, we still, as a species, have an
overwhelming history of eating a hunter-gatherer diet, which makes
claims that grains and beans are essential for human health ridiculous.
Dana
Lord Hatred
Dana Carpender <dcar...@kivanospam.net> wrote:
So you're saying you approve of using evolution as it pertains to the
origin of homosapien but against the usage of the evolution of
homosapien as a creature itself as it pertains to dietary requirements?
You can't have it both ways.
--
Stefan:
livin...@yahoo.com
No, she's right. (In the correct sense, not the poltical spectrum.) The
scientific community views Ergaster, Habilis, Neanderthalis and others
of the Homo genus as human, and counts them as human beings.
Dana Carpender
Lord Hatred wrote:
No, I'm unconvinced that 10,000 years -- maybe 500 generations -- is
long enough for evolution to have completely altered our nutritional
requirements. If grains and beans weren't essential for the first
190,000 years (and our forerunners for roughly 2 million years previous
to that), there's no reason why they should be essential now. If a diet
based on animal foods, vegetables, fruit (keeping in mind that modern
fruit is candy compared to wild fruit), nuts and seeds, and the like,
nourished our ancestors well for 190,000 years (and again, their
forebears for another 2 million years), there's no reason why it
shouldn't do so now.
Furthermore, I see evidence that a diet based on concentrated
carbohydrate foods is a good idea. Do a quick pubmed search on
"glycemic load," and see what turns up.
Dana
Shuurai
jombithedjinn wrote:
> Krusty wrote:
> > "trijcomm" <trij...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
> > > >That's really unfair, Janis. Where did you learn all this info....was
> > > the setup to one of your women's apartment wrestling videos some chick
> > >>in pantyhose reading an Atkins diet book?
> > >
> > > You should really look into that Atkins diet book ...
> >
> > Hardly, it's a "diet" for idiots.
> >
> > Get a biology degree and *really* learn about food.
>
> beings were truly meant to eat grass like wheat and barley? I'm sure
> that you do, you're just the type to be so undereducated.
Well, regardless of what you think humans are "meant" to be eating, the
fact of the matter is that wheat, barley, and so forth have been
staples of human consumption for eons. In fact, the rise of human
civilization has been directly correlated with the successful
cultivation of these grains.
You might consider the fact that we humans have molars - teeth
specifically designed for grinding fiberous materials like *gasp*
grains; and the fact that we've had them for as long as we've existed
as a species. All of which indicates that, gee whiz, maybe the idea of
humans eating grains isn't so far out of left field as you're
suggesting.
> Typical diets are inferior to the atkins diet strictly because the
> conventional diets would have people eat foods that nature never
> intended for human beings to eat. Humans were meant to eat meat, eggs,
> green leafy vegetables, and certain berries. They were certainly not
> meant to eat wheat grass.
If we were not "meant" to be eating grains, we would not have teeth
specifically designed for chewing them. We wouldn't have enzymes
specifically designed for digesting them. We wouldn't have survived
and in fact *thrived* on them for thousands and thousands of years.
If you agree with the Adkins diet, good for you. If you start asking
doctors and nutritionists, some of them will agree with you - others
will not. But your assertion that humans are not "meant" to eat grains
is utter nonsense. Human anatomy says otherwise - as does human
history.
Dana Carpender
Dana Carpender wrote:
To add a quick cite; from a PBS site re evolution:
1. How long does evolution take?
Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many
species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except
over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to
witness in a human lifetime. There are cases in quickly reproducing life
forms like bacteria and fruit flies, however, where evolution can be
seen happening in a matter of weeks for the bacteria and many months for
the flies. In these cases the relatively large number of generations in
a given period of time is key, since evolutionary change occurs
incrementally from one generation to the next. All else being equal, the
more generations you have, the more quickly evolution happens.
Since human beings are not bacteria nor fruit flies, and tend to roughly
20 year generations, I'm leaning toward that
thousands-to-hundreds-of-thousands figure. Makes 10,000 years seem
damned puny.
Dana
Veronique
Mary wrote:
> Dana Carpender wrote:
> >
> >
> > Mary wrote:
> >> Evolution can occur in a lot less than 10,000 years.
> >
> > To the point where foods that were not even consumed become absolutely
> > essential, and foods that were staples become dangerous? Cite?
>
> Well, I didn't say that, did I? Only that it wouldn't surprise me at
> all to find that it takes a lot less than 10,000 years to change our
> ability to digest various things and get nutrients from them.
Lactose tolerance/intolerance pops right to mind. The "Darwin" issue of
Natural History magazine (Nov. 2005) has an interesting article,
"Evolution in Action" by Jonathan Weiner, that cites the Galapagos
studies of Peter and Rosemary Grant (cf "Beak of the Finch"), studies
of changes from hunting pressures on bighorn sheep, and a study by
Andrew Hendry on sockeye salmon in Washington State that show changes
significant enough to lead to reproductive isolation in populations
that spend time side-by-side in less than twenty years. Bacterial
changes, such as in gut flora like E. coli, are much faster because a
generation may be only twenty minutes.
>
> I just get uncomfortable when people proselytize about various diets.
> Different things work for different people. Some people are quite
> healthy on a vegatarian diet; others eat low-fat; others eat low-carb.
> About the only thing I'm willing to make a blanket statement about is
> that eating mostly highly processed junk food isn't good for you.
>
Word. Or Leroy. Or somethin'.
V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
Lord Hatred
livin...@yahoo.com wrote:
Some scientists will also argue that chimpanzees and gorillas should
be included in the Homo class due to the genetic similarities. I
wouldn't call them humans at all. As I stated before, you can't accept
evolution of a species without evolution within the species.
--
Stefan:
Dana Carpender
Shuurai wrote:
> jombithedjinn wrote:
>
>>Krusty wrote:
>>
>>>"trijcomm" <trij...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
>>>
>>>>>That's really unfair, Janis. Where did you learn all this info....was
>>>>
>>>>the setup to one of your women's apartment wrestling videos some chick
>>>>
>>>>>in pantyhose reading an Atkins diet book?
>>>>
>>>>You should really look into that Atkins diet book ...
>>>
>>>Hardly, it's a "diet" for idiots.
>>>
>>>Get a biology degree and *really* learn about food.
>>
>>You obviously know nothing about nutrition. Do you REALLY think human
>>beings were truly meant to eat grass like wheat and barley? I'm sure
>>that you do, you're just the type to be so undereducated.
>
>
> Well, regardless of what you think humans are "meant" to be eating, the
> fact of the matter is that wheat, barley, and so forth have been
> staples of human consumption for eons.
Um, no. From dictionary.com, a definition of "eon"
1. An indefinitely long period of time; an age.
2. The longest division of geologic time, containing two or more eras.
10,000 years doesn't fit the definition.
In fact, the rise of human
> civilization has been directly correlated with the successful
> cultivation of these grains.
True.
>
> You might consider the fact that we humans have molars - teeth
> specifically designed for grinding fiberous materials like *gasp*
> grains;
Or vegetables and nuts. Cows have molars, they evolved to eat grass.
That they can use those molars to eat grains doesn't change that.
>
>>Typical diets are inferior to the atkins diet strictly because the
>>conventional diets would have people eat foods that nature never
>>intended for human beings to eat. Humans were meant to eat meat, eggs,
>>green leafy vegetables, and certain berries. They were certainly not
>>meant to eat wheat grass.
>
>
> If we were not "meant" to be eating grains, we would not have teeth
> specifically designed for chewing them.
We don't. See above.
We wouldn't have enzymes
> specifically designed for digesting them.
We don't. We do have carbohydrate digesting enzymes, but they're
equally applicable to fruits and vegetables.
We wouldn't have survived
> and in fact *thrived* on them for thousands and thousands of years.
Actually, skeletal evidence shows that when hunter-gatherers became
farmers, they got shorter, with weak bones and bad teeth, probably due
to the fact that grain phytates bind up minerals. Doesn't sound like
thriving, really.
>
> If you agree with the Adkins diet, good for you. If you start asking
> doctors and nutritionists, some of them will agree with you - others
> will not. But your assertion that humans are not "meant" to eat grains
> is utter nonsense. Human anatomy says otherwise - as does human
> history.
Beg to differ, except in that the word "meant" is meaningless. But we
did not evolve to eat a diet of grains and beans.
Dana
Dana Carpender
Lord Hatred wrote:
I do. Now, compare 2-3 million years with 10,000 years.
Dana
Double T the Legally Blind Referee
>
> Just a note: trimming all the cross posting out of the headers may
> lead to a more reasoned discussion.
>
> Susan <just sayinzall>
>
Bite me
--
----------------------------------==
Double T the legally blind referee
----------------------------------==
Like you read the bullshit down here
mWO 4 a long time baby
Lord Hatred
Dana Carpender <dcar...@kivanospam.net> wrote:
What about cooking meat? If you're going to go this route then you
should go all the way with your argument. Early man did not cook meat.
Thus, it is unnecessary for us to do so now. It's actually unhealthy to
do so! The human body wasn't designed to eat cooked meat. Also. hell,
why eat every day? They didn't! They went days without eating. We should
too! It's healthy with out current lifestyles to not eat everyday. So
here's what you do. Go to the local wooded lands, pick a few random
berries. Bring them home. Feast on them for a good day or two. Then go
out and kill yourself a deer. Drag it back home. Use a sharp rock to cut
it open. Don't use knives. Early man didn't use them. They used rocks.
We weren't meant to use knives. Use the sharp rock to ct open that deer.
Cut off a slab and eat it. Yum. Feel those all natural life giving
juices fill your mouth! Feel them dribbling down your chin. This is what
man was meant to do! Be covered in blood. Eat nothing but that deer
until it goes rancid. Then wait a few days. Start over.
> Furthermore, I see evidence that a diet based on concentrated
> carbohydrate foods is a good idea. Do a quick pubmed search on
> "glycemic load," and see what turns up.
Bah Gawd! Eating too many carbs is bad for you! Somebody alert the
media! This might cause widespread obesity and other health disorders!
I'm glad you saved me! I almost ate this entire bag of sugar and drank
this nice thick glass of flour and water!
--
Stefan:
Shuurai
> > Well, regardless of what you think humans are "meant" to be eating, the
> > fact of the matter is that wheat, barley, and so forth have been
> > staples of human consumption for eons.
>
> Um, no. From dictionary.com, a definition of "eon"
>
> 1. An indefinitely long period of time; an age.
> 2. The longest division of geologic time, containing two or more eras.
>
> 10,000 years doesn't fit the definition.
Well, gee whiz you got me on the "eon" thing... now how in the hell is
that relevant to the point of the discussion?
But just to make you happy:
Well, regardless of what you think humans are "meant" to be eating, the
fact of the matter is that wheat, barley, and so forth have been
staples of human consumption for a really, really gosh darn long time.
> In fact, the rise of human
> > civilization has been directly correlated with the successful
> > cultivation of these grains.
>
> True.
>
> >
> > You might consider the fact that we humans have molars - teeth
> > specifically designed for grinding fiberous materials like *gasp*
> > grains;
>
> Or vegetables and nuts. Cows have molars, they evolved to eat grass.
> That they can use those molars to eat grains doesn't change that.
Molars are more specialized towards grains than veggies - though nuts
are certainly a possibility.
> >>Typical diets are inferior to the atkins diet strictly because the
> >>conventional diets would have people eat foods that nature never
> >>intended for human beings to eat. Humans were meant to eat meat, eggs,
> >>green leafy vegetables, and certain berries. They were certainly not
> >>meant to eat wheat grass.
> >
> >
> > If we were not "meant" to be eating grains, we would not have teeth
> > specifically designed for chewing them.
>
> We don't. See above.
Even if we take what you wrote above as a given, all we could conclude
is that they're designed for veggies, nuts, grains - or some
combination of all.
> We wouldn't have enzymes
> > specifically designed for digesting them.
>
> We don't. We do have carbohydrate digesting enzymes, but they're
> equally applicable to fruits and vegetables.
So given that we have teeth and digestive systems that work with
fruits, veggies, AND grains, how do you conclude that we are not meant
to eat grains?
> We wouldn't have survived
> > and in fact *thrived* on them for thousands and thousands of years.
>
> Actually, skeletal evidence shows that when hunter-gatherers became
> farmers, they got shorter, with weak bones and bad teeth, probably due
> to the fact that grain phytates bind up minerals. Doesn't sound like
> thriving, really.
Human populations absolutely skyrocketed around grains - that's what
"thriving" means. And the decrease in height, weakened bones and so
forth have *also* been explained by population conditions.
> > If you agree with the Adkins diet, good for you. If you start asking
> > doctors and nutritionists, some of them will agree with you - others
> > will not. But your assertion that humans are not "meant" to eat grains
> > is utter nonsense. Human anatomy says otherwise - as does human
> > history.
>
> Beg to differ, except in that the word "meant" is meaningless. But we
> did not evolve to eat a diet of grains and beans.
We evolved to eat a widely varied diet that included grains and beans.
Mary
> Mary wrote:
>> Dana Carpender wrote:
>>>
>>> Mary wrote:
>
>
>>>> Evolution can occur in a lot less than 10,000 years.
>>> To the point where foods that were not even consumed become absolutely
>>> essential, and foods that were staples become dangerous? Cite?
>> Well, I didn't say that, did I? Only that it wouldn't surprise me at
>> all to find that it takes a lot less than 10,000 years to change our
>> ability to digest various things and get nutrients from them.
>
>
> Lactose tolerance/intolerance pops right to mind. The "Darwin" issue of
> Natural History magazine (Nov. 2005) has an interesting article,
> "Evolution in Action" by Jonathan Weiner, that cites the Galapagos
> studies of Peter and Rosemary Grant (cf "Beak of the Finch"), studies
> of changes from hunting pressures on bighorn sheep, and a study by
> Andrew Hendry on sockeye salmon in Washington State that show changes
> significant enough to lead to reproductive isolation in populations
> that spend time side-by-side in less than twenty years. Bacterial
> changes, such as in gut flora like E. coli, are much faster because a
> generation may be only twenty minutes.
I was thinking of that when I posted. Also of the Apaches, who as a
group evidently continued with the hunter-gatherer diet must longer than
most Native American tribes did and as a result have a much higher
incidence of diabetes now. It appears that the other tribes have
already adjusted to eating grains and whatnot.
Mary
Dana Carpender
Lord Hatred wrote:
True enough. And I rather like carpaccio.
It's actually unhealthy to
> do so! The human body wasn't designed to eat cooked meat. Also. hell,
> why eat every day? They didn't!
I don't know that we know that. Indeed, I've read studies indicating
that the average hunter-gatherer ate a diet that compared pretty well,
calorically speaking, with the average non-impoverished citizen of a
third world country, and higher in calories than your average
impoverished member of first-world countries.
They went days without eating.
Cite?
We should
> too! It's healthy with out current lifestyles to not eat everyday. So
> here's what you do. Go to the local wooded lands, pick a few random
> berries. Bring them home. Feast on them for a good day or two. Then go
> out and kill yourself a deer. Drag it back home. Use a sharp rock to cut
> it open. Don't use knives. Early man didn't use them. They used rocks.
> We weren't meant to use knives. Use the sharp rock to ct open that deer.
> Cut off a slab and eat it. Yum. Feel those all natural life giving
> juices fill your mouth! Feel them dribbling down your chin. This is what
> man was meant to do! Be covered in blood. Eat nothing but that deer
> until it goes rancid.
Funny you should mention it. I have venison in the fridge right now.
Also grass-fed beef.
>>Furthermore, I see evidence that a diet based on concentrated
>>carbohydrate foods is a good idea. Do a quick pubmed search on
>>"glycemic load," and see what turns up.
>
>
> Bah Gawd! Eating too many carbs is bad for you! Somebody alert the
> media! This might cause widespread obesity and other health disorders!
> I'm glad you saved me! I almost ate this entire bag of sugar and drank
> this nice thick glass of flour and water!
Probably not. But have you eaten a plate of pasta recently? Same
thing, nutritionally speaking.
But if you agree that eating a high glycemic load is a bad idea, what
the hell are you arguing about?
Dana
Lord Hatred
Dana Carpender <dcar...@kivanospam.net> wrote:
Ok. Now add in rapidly advanced species migration and the environment
adaptations necessary, the ability to reason, religion, bacterial
evolution (which you admitted can be rapid), and evolution within the
species on a basic level to combat the bacterial evolution. Today's
modern man simply would NOT be able to digest the foods from the diet of
early man. Even going back so far as the middle ages. We wouldn't be
bale to eat that diet. Why? Because we've learned to process our foods
for consumption. Our bodies adapted to and for that change. Hell, you
even admitted that we have an enzyme used to consume grains. Your
attempt at deflecting the point falls flat because it simply ignores
what it can do. You are cherry picking simply so you can guard your
territory (ie, in this case, your chosen diet). That is intellectually
fraudulent.
--
Stefan:
Veronique
Evolutionarily speaking, it seems like adapting to a grain diet would
create a pretty strong selection pressure if grain is the main
foodstuff available. Also, even if a human generation is 20-25 years,
the evolution of gut flora is a lot faster.
Lord Hatred
Dana Carpender <dcar...@kivanospam.net> wrote:
Nothing on hand. Science texts and articles I have read.
> We should
> > too! It's healthy with out current lifestyles to not eat everyday. So
> > here's what you do. Go to the local wooded lands, pick a few random
> > berries. Bring them home. Feast on them for a good day or two. Then go
> > out and kill yourself a deer. Drag it back home. Use a sharp rock to cut
> > it open. Don't use knives. Early man didn't use them. They used rocks.
> > We weren't meant to use knives. Use the sharp rock to ct open that deer.
> > Cut off a slab and eat it. Yum. Feel those all natural life giving
> > juices fill your mouth! Feel them dribbling down your chin. This is what
> > man was meant to do! Be covered in blood. Eat nothing but that deer
> > until it goes rancid.
>
> Funny you should mention it. I have venison in the fridge right now.
> Also grass-fed beef.
>
The fridge? Early man didn't use freon to cool their meat. That is
poisonous.
> >>Furthermore, I see evidence that a diet based on concentrated
> >>carbohydrate foods is a good idea. Do a quick pubmed search on
> >>"glycemic load," and see what turns up.
> >
> >
> > Bah Gawd! Eating too many carbs is bad for you! Somebody alert the
> > media! This might cause widespread obesity and other health disorders!
> > I'm glad you saved me! I almost ate this entire bag of sugar and drank
> > this nice thick glass of flour and water!
>
> Probably not. But have you eaten a plate of pasta recently? Same
> thing, nutritionally speaking.
>
> But if you agree that eating a high glycemic load is a bad idea, what
> the hell are you arguing about?
>
You seem to think this is an "Either/Or" argument.
--
Stefan:
Dave Smith
>
> You obviously know nothing about nutrition. Do you REALLY think human
> beings were truly meant to eat grass like wheat and barley? I'm sure
> that you do, you're just the type to be so undereducated.
>
> Typical diets are inferior to the atkins diet strictly because the
> conventional diets would have people eat foods that nature never
> intended for human beings to eat. Humans were meant to eat meat, eggs,
> green leafy vegetables, and certain berries. They were certainly not
> meant to eat wheat grass.
Variety is the spice of life. Humans are carnivores. It means that we are
adaptable. We cane at different foods, depending on the season.
But as for the thread.... Pizza for crying out loud. It is a way to use up
leftovers, a little bread dough, some tomato sauce , bits and pieces of
veggies, meats and cheese. It sure as heck isn't fine dining.
Dave Smith
> j
>
> Variety is the spice of life. Humans are carnivores. It means that we are
> adaptable. We cane at different foods, depending on the season.
>
> But as for the thread.... Pizza for crying out loud. It is a way to use up
> leftovers, a little bread dough, some tomato sauce , bits and pieces of
> veggies, meats and cheese. It sure as heck isn't fine dining.
Oops..... in response to the topic. I am allergic to a lot of the things in
pizza and always thought the perfect beverage to accompany it was beer, but am
also allergic to hops, malt and yeast. I can tolerate beer or pizza but not
both together. I don't order pizzas. I rarely eat it. There is a Pizza Hut
next to the grocery store where I do a lot of my shopping, and it always seems
to be busy.
Krusty
> Dana Carpender wrote:
>> Krusty wrote:
>> > You're a fucking idiot.
>> > Seriously.
>> > And you're totally wrong.
>> > Wrong, AND an idiot.
>> > Happy to Help.
>>
>> You're long on vitriol and short on facts. Care to back up your big
>> mouth?
>>
>> Dana
>
>
> Oops, someone accidentally wandered in here from the pro-wrestling
> group.
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=5oZGKRAAAADt4HCFwEzR8hglMMGDfYZl
> http://tinyurl.com/mym2n
I started the thread, Captain Scientician.
Hey, next time the clue-bus stops by, get on board.
Krusty
> we've been homo sapiens for an estimated 200,000 years.
First sane thing you've said this entire thread.
Krusty
> Krusty wrote:
>> "jombithedjinn" <jombi...@excite.com> wrote
>>
>>>You obviously know nothing about nutrition. Do you REALLY think human
>>>beings were truly meant to eat grass like wheat and barley? I'm sure
>>>that you do, you're just the type to be so undereducated.
>>
>>
>>
>> Seriously.
>>
>> And you're totally wrong.
>>
>> Wrong, AND an idiot.
>>
>> Happy to Help.
>
> You're long on vitriol and short on facts. Care to back up your big
> mouth?
>
> Dana
What "big mouth". The person who responded to me made up an assertion that I
never made, then based an entire line of reasoning on it.
I said *nothing* about what people were "meant" to eat. I never made the
assertion that "human beings were meant to eat grass like wheat and barley".
So, given the above, then yeah, the guy's a fucking idiot AND wrong.
How's that? Douchebag.
Krusty
> Humans are carnivores.
Incorrect. Technically "omnivores".
Carmen
Dana Carpender wrote:
> Krusty wrote:
>
> > "jombithedjinn" <jombi...@excite.com> wrote
> >
> >>You obviously know nothing about nutrition. Do you REALLY think human
> >>beings were truly meant to eat grass like wheat and barley? I'm sure
> >>that you do, you're just the type to be so undereducated.
> >
> >
> > You're a fucking idiot.
> >
> > Seriously.
> >
> > And you're totally wrong.
> >
> > Wrong, AND an idiot.
> >
> > Happy to Help.
> >
> >
>
> You're long on vitriol and short on facts. Care to back up your big mouth?
>
> Dana
Hi Dana. Carmen here, one of the old-timers in ASDL-C. Wanted to take
a moment to say that this sort of quasi-cultist "all-or-nothing" thread
is what helped get Atkins tagged as a fad. It helped it appeal to the
"quick fix" crowd, and we saw them swell this newsgroup to amazing
traffic flow stats. As you can see now, ASDL-C is getting a mere
trickle of posts nowadays, and most old-timers have quietly faded away.
I pop my head in every once in a while, but it gets old seeing the
same rigidity exhibiting itself. For those of us who've adapted to a
low carb diet for the longterm it's usually for health reasons, and we
end up learning that the "carbs are evil" mantra that got us started
isn't quite true. For people with functional endocrine systems, who
live healthy lifestyles and eat an overall healthy diet carbs are no
big deal, just more fuel for the furnace. For diabetics carbs are a
firewalk, you find out what your body likes and functions well on - for
me it's things like lentils and AllBran w/Extra Fiber - and let it have
those carbs.
When you go down the path of "people shouldn't eat carbs" and then
start trying to justify it by cherry-picking data (and you have been,
I've been watching the thread) it doesn't help legitimize low-carb as
an option for those who need it. It just makes low carb (and by
extension low carbers) look whacked-out.
Carmen
Krusty
> Hi Dana. Carmen here, one of the old-timers in ASDL-C. Wanted to take
> a moment to say that this sort of quasi-cultist "all-or-nothing" thread
> is what helped get Atkins tagged as a fad. It helped it appeal to the
> "quick fix" crowd, and we saw them swell this newsgroup to amazing
> traffic flow stats. As you can see now, ASDL-C is getting a mere
> trickle of posts nowadays, and most old-timers have quietly faded away.
> I pop my head in every once in a while, but it gets old seeing the
> same rigidity exhibiting itself. For those of us who've adapted to a
> low carb diet for the longterm it's usually for health reasons, and we
> end up learning that the "carbs are evil" mantra that got us started
> isn't quite true. For people with functional endocrine systems, who
> live healthy lifestyles and eat an overall healthy diet carbs are no
> big deal, just more fuel for the furnace. For diabetics carbs are a
> firewalk, you find out what your body likes and functions well on - for
> me it's things like lentils and AllBran w/Extra Fiber - and let it have
> those carbs.
>
> When you go down the path of "people shouldn't eat carbs" and then
> start trying to justify it by cherry-picking data (and you have been,
> I've been watching the thread) it doesn't help legitimize low-carb as
> an option for those who need it. It just makes low carb (and by
> extension low carbers) look whacked-out.
>
> Carmen
What a fantastic post.
Squad
"Krusty" <kru...@sc.rr.com> wrote in message news:Bd8cg.3449$Qg....@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
IAWTP. Before I read your reply Krusty, I was thinking "that's the most succinct and logical post I've seen in RSPW for awhile."
Lord Hatred
"Squad" <Your.Mom's.H...@Smells.Nice> wrote:
That was my sock.
--
Stefan:
Squad
"Lord Hatred" <lordh...@stopthespamminggmail.com> wrote in message news:lordhatred-B79AD...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
Everyone knows I'm your sock so why keep posting it?
Krusty
>> "Lord Hatred" wrote...
>>> "Squad" wrote:
>>> IAWTP. Before I read your reply Krusty, I was thinking "that's the most
>>> succinct and logical post I've seen in RSPW for awhile."
>> That was my sock.
Why do you keep talking to yourself?
Chad Larson
<dcar...@kivanospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>Krusty wrote:
>
>> "jombithedjinn" <jombi...@excite.com> wrote
>>
>>>You obviously know nothing about nutrition. Do you REALLY think human
>>>beings were truly meant to eat grass like wheat and barley? I'm sure
>>>that you do, you're just the type to be so undereducated.
>>
>>
>> You're a fucking idiot.
>>
>> Seriously.
>>
>> And you're totally wrong.
>>
>> Wrong, AND an idiot.
>>
>> Happy to Help.
>>
>>
>
>You're long on vitriol and short on facts. Care to back up your big mouth?
>
>Dana
Makes the jerks who post to AFCA seem pretty nice by comparison.
Lord Hatred
"Krusty" <kru...@sc.rr.com> wrote:
Shut up me and leave I alone!
--
Stefan:
mdginzo
dialysis is helping me keep the weight off though.
mdginzo
essential, and foods that were staples become dangerous? Cite?
Any organism can befit from a food they never ate before or be harmed
by the same. Just because humans subsisted on meats for 10,000 years
does not mean that our bodies would not benefit from one day
discovering wheat. There might be a reason why we live longer and
longer. A food that we subsist on for 10,000 might not neccessarily be
the best food for us.
mdginzo
>that "Atkins is a diet for idiots," that it puts you into a "disease"
>state, that it's a "scam" and a "fad", as if those of us who have had
>overwhelming success with low carb diets somehow were mistaken about the
>immensely positive changes in our bodies.
A fad dit can make you lose wieght. BUt there are many who have
sufferred adverse effects from Atkins. In any diet, balance is the key.
frie...@zoocrewphoto.com
Dana Carpender wrote:
> Actually, skeletal evidence shows that when hunter-gatherers became
> farmers, they got shorter, with weak bones and bad teeth, probably due
> to the fact that grain phytates bind up minerals. Doesn't sound like
> thriving, really.
People today are much taller on average than people were just a couple
hundred years ago. If people are shorter because of grains, then why we
are taller now, as we eat more grains than ever before?
I suspect the people getting shorter in the past was for a different
reason.
Also, I would point out that we evolution isn't as slow as you think.
Just considering the short time that we have been homo sapien, we have
adapted to various conditions. Take a look around you. While the world
has become a smaller place and people are now migrated and spread out
everywhere, you can still tell where a person's ancestors came from
because of some characteristics.
People from colder climates tend to have smaller noses with with small
nostrils to keep out the cold. Skin color - we got all these diffferent
skin tones from various levels of exposure to the sun. Some people
needed more natural protection than others.
We may all be mixed up now. But back when people were sequestered in
various groupings, the people adapted as a group to their particular
evironment. It didn't take 50,000 years to produce people of various
skin tones or different styles of noses.
You can also see "evolution" in domestic animals as we intentionally
(and sometimes accidentally) breed changes in the pets. It doesn't take
1,000 years to take one breed and get a new breed. For example, the
Siamese cat has been around for while, and sometimes there would be a
mutation of one gene to produce long hair. It didn't take long to
create a new breed called a Balinese that is exactly the same as a
siamese except it has long hair. And it breeds true. All you had to do
was breed the carriers of the mutated gene or those with the mutated
gene, and you got more of them. I actually have a Balinese that came
from two siamese. We owned both parents with short hair and were quite
surprised to have a kitten with long hair. Once a gene mutates like
this and reproduces, you have a change in the genes and that is
basically what evolution is.
Characteristics like size, nose, facial shape, ears, etc can change
very quickly. I read an article awhile back showing 4 breeds and how
they have changed in 40 years. The author obviously like the
"improvements" in the breed. I didn't. They had photos of champion cats
today and champion cats of the same breeds 40 years ago, and I liked
the older photos much better. But the point was obvious. The breeds
have changed a LOT in 40 years.
Squad
<frie...@zoocrewphoto.com> wrote in message news:1148285562.3...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
heck, it only took a few generations to get rid of sickle cell anemia (protective against malaria) in Africans transplanted to Europe.
Carmen
I've forgotten what our MasterCard number is, and it's time to stock up
on some Yemen Mocha Sanani coffee. Kindly refresh my memory. <EG>
Carmen
trijcomm
adaptable. We cane at different foods, depending on the season.
But as for the thread.... Pizza for crying out loud. It is a way to use
up
leftovers, a little bread dough, some tomato sauce , bits and pieces of
>veggies, meats and cheese. It sure as heck isn't fine dining.
A.) Pizza has nothing to do with being a carnivore. B.) This isn't "a
little dough" we are talking about.
trijcomm
adaptable. We cane at different foods, depending on the season.
But as for the thread.... Pizza for crying out loud. It is a way to use
up
leftovers, a little bread dough, some tomato sauce , bits and pieces of
>veggies, meats and cheese. It sure as heck isn't fine dining.
A.) Pizza has nothing to do with being a carnivore. B.) This isn't "a
T.the.Ma...@gmail.com
Shuurai wrote:
> > > Well, regardless of what you think humans are "meant" to be eating, the
> > > fact of the matter is that wheat, barley, and so forth have been
> > > staples of human consumption for eons.
> >
> > Um, no. From dictionary.com, a definition of "eon"
> >
> > 1. An indefinitely long period of time; an age.
> > 2. The longest division of geologic time, containing two or more eras.
> >
> > 10,000 years doesn't fit the definition.
Four eons so far: Hadean, Archean, Proterozoic, and Phanerozoic.
>
> Well, gee whiz you got me on the "eon" thing... now how in the hell is
> that relevant to the point of the discussion?
Points out that you were wrong by roughly four orders of magnitude.
Seems relevant, given that evolution takes time.
>
> But just to make you happy:
> Well, regardless of what you think humans are "meant" to be eating, the
> fact of the matter is that wheat, barley, and so forth have been
> staples of human consumption for a really, really gosh darn long time.
Roughly ten thousand years, sure.
> > > You might consider the fact that we humans have molars - teeth
> > > specifically designed for grinding fiberous materials like *gasp*
> > > grains;
> >
> > Or vegetables and nuts.
> Molars are more specialized towards grains than veggies - though nuts
> are certainly a possibility.
>
> > >>Humans were meant to eat meat, eggs,
> > >>green leafy vegetables, and certain berries. They were certainly not
> > >>meant to eat wheat grass.
> > We wouldn't have enzymes
> > > specifically designed for digesting them.
> >
> > We don't. We do have carbohydrate digesting enzymes, but they're
> > equally applicable to fruits and vegetables.
More. Uncooked grains aren't particularly digestible.
Bob Geary
How many? I'm not looking for an exact number, but is it 10, or 1000, or
1,000,000? Many people mean many different things by "many."
> In any diet, balance is the
> key.
How many Twinkies are part of a balanced diet? How much crystal meth?
Krusty
> Roughly ten thousand years, sure.
I've always read that we were vegetarians for roughly MOST of our existence
on earth prior to evolving larger brains.
The only reason we evolved larger brains that allowed tool building and
communications was that suddenly, not so very far back, we started to eat
meats. Proteins.
So I'm inclined to believe that most of our time on earth was in fact,
eating vegetables and grains. Meat's "new", relatively speaking, and most
scientists credit *it* with our leap in evolution.
Fraser Johnston
"trijcomm" <trij...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1148303226.4...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Pizza is all about being a carnivore the way I like it.
Fraser
Carmen
mdginzo wrote:
> I lost about 80 pounds and all kidney function on The Atkins diet. The
> dialysis is helping me keep the weight off though.
You lost 80 pounds and you're complaining? :-P~~ You must not have
eaten enough Atkins bars. That'll teach ya ;-)
Carmen
Shuurai
T.the.Ma...@gmail.com wrote:
> Shuurai wrote:
> > > > Well, regardless of what you think humans are "meant" to be eating, the
> > > > fact of the matter is that wheat, barley, and so forth have been
> > > > staples of human consumption for eons.
> > >
> > > Um, no. From dictionary.com, a definition of "eon"
> > >
> > > 1. An indefinitely long period of time; an age.
> > > 2. The longest division of geologic time, containing two or more eras.
> > >
> > > 10,000 years doesn't fit the definition.
>
> Four eons so far: Hadean, Archean, Proterozoic, and Phanerozoic.
> >
> > Well, gee whiz you got me on the "eon" thing... now how in the hell is
> > that relevant to the point of the discussion?
>
> Points out that you were wrong by roughly four orders of magnitude.
> Seems relevant, given that evolution takes time.
I used the word "eons" because it's commonly used to denote a really
long time. I don't frankly care about the accuracy. The fact of the
matter is, humans have been eating grains for most of our history as a
species. The systematic cultivation and collection of grains can be
traced anywhere from 10,000 to 23,000 years ago, depending on who you
ask. However, humans were eating grains long before that.
> > But just to make you happy:
> > Well, regardless of what you think humans are "meant" to be eating, the
> > fact of the matter is that wheat, barley, and so forth have been
> > staples of human consumption for a really, really gosh darn long time.
>
> Roughly ten thousand years, sure.
We've been deliberately *growing* them for 10,000 to 23,000 years. We
were most certainly eating them before we decided to go through the
trouble.
> > > > You might consider the fact that we humans have molars - teeth
> > > > specifically designed for grinding fiberous materials like *gasp*
> > > > grains;
> > >
> > > Or vegetables and nuts.
>
> > Molars are more specialized towards grains than veggies - though nuts
> > are certainly a possibility.
> >
> > > >>Humans were meant to eat meat, eggs,
> > > >>green leafy vegetables, and certain berries. They were certainly not
> > > >>meant to eat wheat grass.
>
> > > We wouldn't have enzymes
> > > > specifically designed for digesting them.
> > >
> > > We don't. We do have carbohydrate digesting enzymes, but they're
> > > equally applicable to fruits and vegetables.
>
> More. Uncooked grains aren't particularly digestible.
Fallacy. They're more easily digestable when cooked, and release more
nutrients, but they're not undigestable raw. And actually, some
biologists have suggested that the relatively long length of the human
digestive tract is intended to accomodate grain consumption. Meat
eating animals tend to have shorter digestive tracts and much more
powerful digestive fluids. Herbivores tend to have longer tracts and
less powerful fluids.
Smart Ape - ECW is 4 nerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrdz!
> In article <1148247750.7...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,>> > In article <i-6dncTutux...@insightbb.com>,>> > > > "Dana Carpender" <dcar...@kivanospam.net> wrote
>> > > >
>> > > >>Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>>Dana Carpender wrote:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>>And yeah, since grains and beans in any quantity have only been
>> > > >>>>part
>> > > >>>>of
>> > > >>>>the human diet for 10,000 of the 2 million or more years we've
>> > > >>>>been
>> > > >>>>around, it's really hard to see how they're essential. Research
>> > > >>>>indicates that the hunter/gatherer diet generally consisted of
>> > > >>>>roughly
>> > > >>>>50%-60% animal food, and the rest vegetables, wild (very low
>> > > >>>>sugar)
>> > > >>>>fruit in season, and nuts and seeds. Sounds about like my diet.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>You know nothing about evolution, either.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>Nice assertion. Care to back it up?
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Yeah you fucking idiot. Human Beings haven't been around for 2
>> > > > million
>> > > > years.
>> > > >
>> > > > What else do you want to know.
>> > >
>> > > Cite?
>> > >
>> > > This suggests roots 3 million years back:
>> > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/231442.stm
>> > >
>> > > And we've been homo sapiens for an estimated 200,000 years. If you
>> > > want
>> > > to go by that, we were still hunter-gatherers for 80% of our
>> > > existance.
>> > >
>> > > Or do you believe the world was created in 4004 BC? Because if you
>> > > do,
>> > > we can talk about who's the idiot.
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > So you are calling Krusty an idiot by agreeing that you made an
>> > ignorant statement? Good job. I think that's a new one on UseNet.
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Stefan:
>>
>> No, she's right. (In the correct sense, not the poltical spectrum.) The
>> scientific community views Ergaster, Habilis, Neanderthalis and others
>> of the Homo genus as human, and counts them as human beings.
>
> Some scientists will also argue that chimpanzees and gorillas should
> be included in the Homo class due to the genetic similarities. I
> wouldn't call them humans at all.
Thank you.
--
--- "Damn dirty fleas..."
--- Proud loser of TWO 2004 RSPW Poster Awards and several in 2005.
--- 3rd Highest Vote-Getter in KORSPW 2005
--- In the Final Four of the 2006 RSPW Rumble
--- Ranked 4th on Lvubun's Top 127 RSPW Posters of 2005
Dana Carpender
Lord Hatred wrote:
> You seem to think this is an "Either/Or" argument.
I am arguing with the various statements that Atkins (and, I assume, low
carbohydrate nutrition in general) is a "scam", and that people are
"idiots" to think it works.
Dana
Dana Carpender
Krusty wrote:
> "Pushmi-Pullyu" <sandsto...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>>Dana Carpender wrote:
>>
>>>Krusty wrote:
>>>
>>>>You're a fucking idiot.
>>>>Seriously.
>>>>And you're totally wrong.
>>>>Wrong, AND an idiot.
>>>>Happy to Help.
>>>
>>>You're long on vitriol and short on facts. Care to back up your big
>>>mouth?
>>>
>>>Dana
>>
>>
>>Oops, someone accidentally wandered in here from the pro-wrestling
>>group.
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=5oZGKRAAAADt4HCFwEzR8hglMMGDfYZl
>>http://tinyurl.com/mym2n
>
>
> I started the thread, Captain Scientician.
>
> Hey, next time the clue-bus stops by, get on board.
Oh, look. Still not a Krusty-supplied fact in sight.
Dana
>
>
Dana Carpender
Krusty wrote:
> "Dana Carpender" <dcar...@kivanospam.net> wrote
>
>>we've been homo sapiens for an estimated 200,000 years.
>
>
> First sane thing you've said this entire thread.
>
One more than you, pal.
Dana
>
Dana Carpender
Carmen wrote:
> Dana Carpender wrote:
>
>>Krusty wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"jombithedjinn" <jombi...@excite.com> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>You obviously know nothing about nutrition. Do you REALLY think human
>>>>beings were truly meant to eat grass like wheat and barley? I'm sure
>>>>that you do, you're just the type to be so undereducated.
>>>
>>>
>>>You're a fucking idiot.
>>>
>>>Seriously.
>>>
>>>And you're totally wrong.
>>>
>>>Wrong, AND an idiot.
>>>
>>>Happy to Help.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>You're long on vitriol and short on facts. Care to back up your big mouth?
>>
>>Dana
>
>
> Hi Dana. Carmen here, one of the old-timers in ASDL-C. Wanted to take
> a moment to say that this sort of quasi-cultist "all-or-nothing" thread
> is what helped get Atkins tagged as a fad. It helped it appeal to the
> "quick fix" crowd, and we saw them swell this newsgroup to amazing
> traffic flow stats. As you can see now, ASDL-C is getting a mere
> trickle of posts nowadays, and most old-timers have quietly faded away.
> I pop my head in every once in a while, but it gets old seeing the
> same rigidity exhibiting itself. For those of us who've adapted to a
> low carb diet for the longterm it's usually for health reasons, and we
> end up learning that the "carbs are evil" mantra that got us started
> isn't quite true. For people with functional endocrine systems, who
> live healthy lifestyles and eat an overall healthy diet carbs are no
> big deal, just more fuel for the furnace. For diabetics carbs are a
> firewalk, you find out what your body likes and functions well on - for
> me it's things like lentils and AllBran w/Extra Fiber - and let it have
> those carbs.
>
> When you go down the path of "people shouldn't eat carbs" and then
> start trying to justify it by cherry-picking data (and you have been,
> I've been watching the thread) it doesn't help legitimize low-carb as
> an option for those who need it. It just makes low carb (and by
> extension low carbers) look whacked-out.
>
I've never said "people shouldn't eat carbs." I've said that a diet
based on grains and beans is radically different from the evolutionary
diet of the species, and that it's difficult to make a case for those
foodstuffs being essential to human nutrition.
Indeed, I have long said that different people can tolerate differing
carb loads, that people have to tweak their diet to see what works for
them, and that interpreting "low carb" to mean "no carb" -- ie, eggs,
meat, and cheese, and virtually nothing else -- is a very bad idea.
Dana
Shuurai
Not a scam - just an overreaction.
Dave Smith
> "Dave Smith" <adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> > Humans are carnivores.
>
> Incorrect. Technically "omnivores".
A big OOPs here. Omnivore is what was in my mind. Carnivore
is what was accidentally typed. SpellCheck let it pass but
ThoughtCheck should have caught it.
Carmen
There really is no definitive proof for an "evolutionary diet of the
species". We know early man ate animals and fish because we have bone
evidence and tools they left behind. Vegetables and grain are more
fragile, not as likely to leave evidence. In a few cases we have been
lucky enough to find a well-preserved frozen speciman with stomach
contents though, and lo and behold, they contained grains. Both our
dentition and alimentary tract are designed to make use of whatever the
environment has to offer - we're an opportunistic species, omnivorous
in nature. It's when someone begins to make claims that any one diet
isn't what humans were "intended" to eat (keeping strictly to naturally
occuring foods for the purposes of this discussion) that the friction
comes in. That's what others in this thread are taking issue with.
Myself included, truth be known. For folks with well-functioning
systems in good health a diet based on legumes and grains would be
fine. The fact that humans *can* exist and thrive on such a diet makes
them no more "essential" to human nutrition than meat or poultry or
fish. Do you see what my thrust is here? There's no need to tag on
grains or pooh-pooh them as "nonessential".
Carmen
Dana Carpender
Bob Geary wrote:
Excellent question.
When people find out that I really don't eat sugar, they sometimes say,
"Well, *I* believe in moderation in all things." I generally reply, "So
do I. Now, define moderation." If you ate half the sugar of the
average American, you'd still be eating somewhere between 5 and 10 times
the sugar people ate around 1800. So what's "moderation?"
I've eaten three sugar sweetened desserts in the past 5 years, two of
which I split with my husband. I consider that moderate, actually.
Dana
Krusty
> I've said that a diet based on grains and beans is radically different
> from the evolutionary diet of the species,
And you're wrong.
Dana Carpender
Krusty wrote:
> <T.the.Ma...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>Roughly ten thousand years, sure.
>
>
> I've always read that we were vegetarians for roughly MOST of our existence
> on earth prior to evolving larger brains.
Read where? Vegetarian websites? Because I've read repeatedly that the
hunter-gatherer diet generally consisted of roughly 45-65% of calories
from animal food, with the rest coming from vegetables, fruit in season,
nuts and seeds, and the like.
>
> The only reason we evolved larger brains that allowed tool building and
> communications was that suddenly, not so very far back, we started to eat
> meats. Proteins.
>
> So I'm inclined to believe that most of our time on earth was in fact,
> eating vegetables and grains.
How did people eat grain in any quantity before agriculture? A real
bitch to collect all those little seeds.
Dana
Peter A
dcar...@kivanospam.net says...
This entire thread is a perfect example of the stupidity and ignorance
to be found on the newsgroups. Dozens of people who know less than
nothing about biology or evolution are making all sorts of hair-brained
claims. The most egregious error that everyone is making is the weird
and totally wrong notion that what humans ate in the past has the
slightest relevance to what we should eat now.
Why don't you blithering nitwits shut up and stop embarrassing
yourselves? Really, the humor value is not that great.
--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths pages at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm
Karim
> It's when someone begins to make claims that any one diet
> isn't what humans were "intended" to eat (keeping strictly to naturally
> occuring foods for the purposes of this discussion) that the friction
You put an extra 'r' in there :)
--
Karim <remove SPAMFREE: karimSrPaAsMhFaRdEE at gmail dot com>
Dana Carpender
Shuurai wrote:
> T.the.Ma...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>Shuurai wrote:
>>
>>>>>Well, regardless of what you think humans are "meant" to be eating, the
>>>>>fact of the matter is that wheat, barley, and so forth have been
>>>>>staples of human consumption for eons.
>>>>
>>>>Um, no. From dictionary.com, a definition of "eon"
>>>>
>>>> 1. An indefinitely long period of time; an age.
>>>> 2. The longest division of geologic time, containing two or more eras.
>>>>
>>>>10,000 years doesn't fit the definition.
>>
>>Four eons so far: Hadean, Archean, Proterozoic, and Phanerozoic.
>>
>>>Well, gee whiz you got me on the "eon" thing... now how in the hell is
>>>that relevant to the point of the discussion?
>>
>>Points out that you were wrong by roughly four orders of magnitude.
>>Seems relevant, given that evolution takes time.
>
>
> I used the word "eons" because it's commonly used to denote a really
> long time. I don't frankly care about the accuracy. The fact of the
> matter is, humans have been eating grains for most of our history as a
> species.
No, not in any quantity. Not as a staple food.
The systematic cultivation and collection of grains can be
> traced anywhere from 10,000 to 23,000 years ago, depending on who you
> ask. However, humans were eating grains long before that.
Really? As a staple food? Or a handful now and then?
Dana
Krusty
> Really? As a staple food? Or a handful now and then?
I mark for overt stupidity. You rule.
Dana Carpender
Trust me, it was a big, big shock to discover that my body runs far
better on red meat than it ever did on brown rice. A strong reaction to
that sort of revelation, multiplied by millions, was inevitable.
Dana
>
Dana Carpender
Carmen wrote:
There's no need to tag on
> grains or pooh-pooh them as "nonessential".
>
Except that they are exactly that -- inessential. Carbohydrate is
inessential. In nutrition-speak, "essential" is defined as something
the body cannot make for itself. Given protein and fat, the body is
perfectly capable of making all the glucose it needs. (I'm sure that
there's *someone* out there whose body doesn't perform gluconeogenesis,
but they're the tiny exception.)
Doesn't mean that some carbohydrate foods don't supply essential
elements -- vitamin C in fruits and vegetables comes to mind. But the
carbohydrate itself is inessential, and I'm unaware of any essential
nutrient in grains or legumes that's not available in foods with a far
lower glycemic load.
Dana
Krusty
> Except that they are exactly that -- inessential.
Cite?
This I gotta see.
Luna
Dana Carpender <dcar...@kivanospam.net> wrote:
My take on the whole reason why low-carb works (and an explanation for
why some cultures don't have an obesity epidemic, despite eating carbs)
is that it is not that humans aren't adapted to carbs, it's that an
overdose of any substance can cause an allergic reaction, and there is a
connection between allergy and addiction. Rice, pasta, bread in
moderate portions (like Italy, China, France)= usually no weight
problem. Lots of HFC's, fruit juices, candy, twinkies, junkfood etc
(Like America and Great Britain)= overdose of carbs and a potentially
lifelong addiction to them.
Dana Carpender
Krusty wrote:
Cite?
Dana
>
>
Spitzmaus
Spitz
--
Mind the runner beans!
Dana Carpender
Krusty wrote:
Want to answer the question?
Dana
Dana Carpender
Krusty wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis
http://web.indstate.edu/thcme/mwking/gluconeogenesis.html
The body is perfectly capable of making glucose with no dietary
carbohydrate whatsoever. That makes carbohydrates inessential by
definition.
Dana
Google Beta User
Problem with such mentality is that it doesn't take into account
lifestyle.
I'm young, in great shape, I lift weights and I do a lot of cardio.
"not eating carbs" is just a BIG no-no.
Carmen
You're being disingenuous now Dana. I said "grains" (see above), since
you've been claiming since your first post in this thread that grains
and beans - not carbohydrates. You cannot then change up the argument
mid-stream.
You also did not address my contention that your assertion that humans
were "intended" to eat any certain way is a specious argument, opinion
only, one not backed up by the physiological evidence of the species as
it is today or as it was in the past. Since your original argument was
based on that contention it must be successfully addressed in order to
build any further.
If you're wondering why I'm being so tough on you, it's because
lowcarbing is a valuable tool. It gave me back my health, gave me back
goodness knows how many years of useful and productive life and pared
off half my bodyweight to boot. It's far too valuable a medical tool
to watch it be reduced to some sort of cultish object of ridicule by an
overeager adherant. The unadorned facts can stand on their own merit,
without any side-swipes at others.
Carmen
Krusty
> Cite?
Eaton suggests that early primate diet was roughly 95% "plant foods". (see
associated citations)
...plant foods such as fruits, leaves, gums, and stalks probably comprised
at least 95% of their dietary intake with insects, eggs, and small animals
making up the remainder (Milton, 1993; Tutin & Fernandez, 1993). The general
nutritional parameters of an eating pattern along these lines can be
estimated with modest confidence, although certainly not with mathematical
exactitude. Protein would have contributed a greater proportion of total
energy than it does for most contemporary humans, but with much more from
vegetable sources than from animal. (Popovich, 1997) Simple carbohydrate
intake would have been strikingly below that now common, and, somewhat
counterintuitively, such diets would have provided only moderate levels of
starch and other complex carbohydrates so that the total carbohydrate
contribution to dietary energy would have been less, not more, than is
typical in contemporary affluent nations. Dietary fiber would have exceeded
current levels by an order of magnitude: 200 grams vs. 20 grams a day
(Milton, 1993): for some ancestral hominoids, colonic fiber fermentation may
have provided over 50% of total dietary energy. (Popovich, 1997) Daily
intake of vitamins and minerals is likely to have been considerably greater
than at present with the likely exception of iodine, consumption of which
would have varied with geographic location according to oceanic proximity,
volcanic activity, prevailing winds and rainfall. As it is for all other
free-living terrestrial mammals, sodium intake would have been only a
fraction of that currently common and would have been substantially less
than that of potassium. (Denton, 1995) Availability of phytochemicals, like
that of vitamins and most minerals would, in all likelihood, have been
substantially greater than for Americans and other Westerners.
Happy to Help.
jombithedjinn
Krusty wrote:
> "jombithedjinn" <jombi...@excite.com> wrote
> > You obviously know nothing about nutrition. Do you REALLY think human
> > beings were truly meant to eat grass like wheat and barley? I'm sure
> > that you do, you're just the type to be so undereducated.
>
> You're a fucking idiot.
>
> Seriously.
>
> And you're totally wrong.
>
> Wrong, AND an idiot.
>
> Happy to Help.
You are a most pathetic little worm, Krusty. Really, all this huffing
and pufffing is a sad cry for attention. Or maybe it's not an attempt
at attention seeking at all. Maybe you're just using it as a
smokescreen to cover the fact that you can't back your words up.
Human beings bodies did not develop for grazing and ruminating. They
are primates, not cows. Human beings were never, not at any point in
the history of time, meant to have wheat or any other grass as the main
staple of their diet. Nor were they ever meant to eat much grass at
all, really.
Prove me wrong, I dare you. You will find that you cannot. That's
because you are an uneducated little wretch.
Dana Carpender
Luna wrote:
Certainly I think that high doses of extremely concentrated carbohydrate
damages carbohydrate metabolism, and can set one up for a lifetime of
reacting badly to them. There was a rat study a few years back that
demonstrated that a high-sugar diet for young rats caused cellular level
changes favoring obesity, and that those changes were *heritable*, which
is damned scary.
Dana
Krusty
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis
>
> http://web.indstate.edu/thcme/mwking/gluconeogenesis.html
>
> The body is perfectly capable of making glucose with no dietary
> carbohydrate whatsoever. That makes carbohydrates inessential by
> definition.
Gluconeogenesis is used by the body when carbohydrates are limited or are
not in sufficient quantities to produce glucose. Producing glucose from
amino acids (glutamine and alanine for instance), glycerol and and lactate
is a response by the body when carbohydrates are *unavailable*.
Hardly an argument for "carbohydrates are inessential".
Dana Carpender
Google Beta User wrote:
For heavy lifting, yes. For cardio, no. I eat low carb, and I do
reasonably intense cardio for about 45 minutes most days. Not a
problem. So long as you're aerobic, you can fuel with bodyfat. It's
just anaerobic that requires glucose.
But yeah, the more you exercise, the more carbohydrate you can tolerate.
Though 5 step aerobics classes per week didn't keep my own personal
body from gaining weight on a grain-and-bean heavy diet.
Dana
jombithedjinn
Krusty wrote:
> "Dana Carpender" <dcar...@kivanospam.net> wrote...
> > Krusty wrote:
> >> "jombithedjinn" <jombi...@excite.com> wrote
> >>
> >>>You obviously know nothing about nutrition. Do you REALLY think human
> >>>beings were truly meant to eat grass like wheat and barley? I'm sure
> >>>that you do, you're just the type to be so undereducated.
> >>
> >>
> >> You're a fucking idiot.
> >>
> >> Seriously.
> >>
> >> And you're totally wrong.
> >>
> >> Wrong, AND an idiot.
> >>
> >> Happy to Help.
> >
> > mouth?
> >
> > Dana
>
> never made, then based an entire line of reasoning on it.
>
> I said *nothing* about what people were "meant" to eat. I never made the
> assertion that "human beings were meant to eat grass like wheat and barley".
>
> So, given the above, then yeah, the guy's a fucking idiot AND wrong.
>
> How's that? Douchebag.
You made a pitiful little statement condemning low carb diets, which
would mean to any sane person that you do indeed endorse high-carb
eating. You DID indeed say something about what people were meant to
eat. You implied that people were meant to eat copious amounts of
carbs.
Do you know where carbs come from, Krusty? Take a guess. They are found
in ... gasp .... wheat and barley. They have lots and lots of carbs in
them, Krusty.