On Mon, 22 May 2006 19:53:12 -0400, Dana Carpender
> wrote:

>What have I said that's cultish? I haven't said that no one should
>grains. I haven't advocated zero carbs, or suggested that everyone
>should eat the same way. I haven't said that no one should ever eat
>grains. I haven't said that everyone needs to eat a low carb diet. I've
>asserted that grains -- and concentrated carbs in general -- are
>unnecessary foods, and that carbohydrate is inessential.
>
>I stand by that. If that bothers you, there's not much I can do about it.
>
>Dana

Hi Dana. Thanks for some interesting posts. I have to agree here that
you have in no way advocated anything cultish... or even anything that
is incorrect. I'm not sure how this thread got started, or why it's
crossposted to the apparently off-topic groups... ah, well... the
mysteries of usenet.

Your position, actually, seems congruent with the majority opinion in
asdl-c over the years. There's been a minority holding out for lengthy
induction-level carb intake, but those who have done best usually seem
to end up with a diet that includes a fair amount of carbs - usually
between 50 and 100 g on average and sometimes containing small
amounts of grain products. Some, however, have had to pretty much
eliminate grains, or certain grains, because they seem to trigger
cravings and thus hinder weight loss/maintenance.

So the "grain thing" is really up to the user. As you have correctly
stated, there is *zero* requirement for grains in the human diet. Some
people tolerate them better than others, clearly, and that's largely
genetic. But there is abundant research demonstrating that
overconsumption of grains is harmful to the health of many folks.
Lower carb-higher nutrient density vegetables are better foods for
most of us anyway.

As to Carmen's argument about whether proteins are essential or not -
well, all I can say is that she is doing a great job of demonstrating
that she's reached the sophomoric stage in her education. Here's
hoping she finds her way out of it. Switching back and forth between
colloquial and technical term usage, to support whichever side of an
argument you're favoring, isn't exactly useful here on usenet. Nor is
using that technique to set up straw man arguments. And she was doing
both.

Anyway, I think we can all agree that humans must obtain some
necessary amino acids (the essential ones) from food sources, as they
cannot be manufactured by the body. These amino acids will be taken in
as proteins from foods. The foods - like all foods - will probably be
a mixture of macronutrients (protein, fat, carbohydrate). They can
come from animal foods (meat, etc.), from non-starchy vegetables
(which have a relatively high proportion of amino acids on a
per-calorie, but not on a per-weight basis), or from grains and other
starchy vegetables. Carmen's argument that grains, as well as meats,
contain all the essential amino acids comes as no surprise to most of
us. It's just that for many of us the large carbohydrate load that
comes along with grain protein can be harmful. The take-away point,
however, is that we are going to have to get those essential amino
acids from some outside food source, in the form of protein contained
in food, 'cause our bodies cannot manufacture them. From that
standpoint, protein is sometimes colloquially termed an "essential
macronutrient."

Likewise, there are certain essential fatty acids that our bodies
cannot manufacture, and that we'll have to get from outside food
sources - in the form of fats contained in some kind of food. From
that standpoint, fats are sometimes colloquially termed an "essential
macronutrient."

Carbohydrates are a bit different, however. Humans tend to like them,
and utilize them quite handily. They are an efficient source of
energy. However, when they are unavailable or otherwise absent from
the diet, there is an alternative pathway - gluconeogenesis - by which
humans can manufacture glucose from proteins. This means that dietary
carbohydrate intake is not necessary in humans. On that basis it is
sometimes colloquially termed a "nonessential macronutrient."

We're never going to settle all the evolutionary conjectures here on
Usenet. Nor what the implications are for carbohydrates being
"nonessential." But empirically, it's probably safe to say that many
humans in Western societies, where food is abundant, are healthier
when they limit concentrated carb intake. There's a growing body of
research backing up that position. It's hardly cultish.

This may be as good a place as any to reiterate the point that Dr.
Atkins never recommended an extremely low intake of
carbohydrate-containing foods, except for a few weeks, essentially to
reduce insulin levels and appetite. He was always in favor of eating
as many low-starch veggies as you could, along with some low-sugar
fruits and even limited amounts of whole grains... if the person
wanted them and was able to tolerate them. But... the myth of Atkins
as a high meat - low vegetable diet persists, because people who write
about it too often haven't read the book, or only the first couple
chapters.

Thanks again to Dana and Susan for persevering in the face of a lot of
the usual usenet idiocy.

HG