Dana Carpender wrote:
> Carmen wrote:
> There's no need to tag on
> > grains or pooh-pooh them as "nonessential".
>
> Except that they are exactly that -- inessential. Carbohydrate is
> inessential. In nutrition-speak, "essential" is defined as something
> the body cannot make for itself. Given protein and fat, the body is
> perfectly capable of making all the glucose it needs. (I'm sure that
> there's *someone* out there whose body doesn't perform gluconeogenesis,
> but they're the tiny exception.)
>
> Doesn't mean that some carbohydrate foods don't supply essential
> elements -- vitamin C in fruits and vegetables comes to mind. But the
> carbohydrate itself is inessential, and I'm unaware of any essential
> nutrient in grains or legumes that's not available in foods with a far
> lower glycemic load.

You're being disingenuous now Dana. I said "grains" (see above), since
you've been claiming since your first post in this thread that grains
and beans - not carbohydrates. You cannot then change up the argument
mid-stream.

You also did not address my contention that your assertion that humans
were "intended" to eat any certain way is a specious argument, opinion
only, one not backed up by the physiological evidence of the species as
it is today or as it was in the past. Since your original argument was
based on that contention it must be successfully addressed in order to
build any further.

If you're wondering why I'm being so tough on you, it's because
lowcarbing is a valuable tool. It gave me back my health, gave me back
goodness knows how many years of useful and productive life and pared
off half my bodyweight to boot. It's far too valuable a medical tool
to watch it be reduced to some sort of cultish object of ridicule by an
overeager adherant. The unadorned facts can stand on their own merit,
without any side-swipes at others.

Carmen