> > 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.