Dana Carpender wrote:
> Carmen wrote:
>
> > Dana Carpender wrote:
> >
> >>Krusty wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"jombithedjinn" > 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 ****ing 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.

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

> 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.