In article >,
Dana Carpender > wrote:

> 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?
>

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: