Lord Hatred wrote:

> In article >,
> Dana Carpender > wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
>
> 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.

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