Lord Hatred wrote:

> In article > ,
> Dana Carpender > wrote:
>
>
>>Lord Hatred wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> Dana Carpender > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Krusty wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Dana Carpender" > 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 ****ing 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.
>>
>>
>>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.
>>
>
>
>
> 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.


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