Dana Carpender wrote:
> Carmen wrote:
>
> > Krusty wrote:
> >
> >>"Carmen" > wrote...
> >>
> >>>Dietary protein is not essential. Dietary amino acids are essential.
> >>>
> >>>Please listen this time:
> >>
> >>Hahaha...fat chance. Guy's got carbohydrates for brains.
> >>
> >>Sadly, even though I'm really enjoying your casual bitchslapping, It appears
> >>it's obviously falling on deaf ears.
> >>
> >>I suspect his ears are filled with red meat.
> >
> >
> > Dana Carpender is a "she". She's been writing low carb cookbooks for
> > quite some time, and is well known to low carbers. I haven't been
> > trying to bitch slap her, just trying to get her to stop coming across
> > as some sort of reformed substance abuser or cult follower. No joy
> > thus far.
>
> 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, you started all this baloney by creating a strawman argumaent in
the first place. *You* were the one who said this:

"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."

Nobody had said a thing to the contrary. You just began arguing as if
someone *had*, and we were off to the races. Despite a lack of anyone
saying a thing to the contrary, you reiterated your self-constructed
argument once again, this time ratcheting up the heat in this post:

"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."

To recap, nobody has made this claim! Later in the thread, you claimed
"carbohydrate is inessential" in this post:

"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 pointed out that protein could also be "inessential" given carbs and
fat because the body can make all the protein it needs. Thus far
you've just tap-danced unsucessfully around that one.

In your zeal to cheerlead for lowcarb you've gone overboard. You've
made claims like the ones below:

"My position all along has simply been that grains (and concentrated
carb
foods in general) are not essential in the diet, and are prejudicial to
health in many."

and this one:

(In reference to using Atkins diet)
"And millions of them have lost weight. Improved their health, too."

No proof of the claims' validity offered. There were however multiple
instances offering your own experience as an exemplar. Not valid.
People like you and I do not have normally functioning endocrine
systems - that's why we have to resort to low carb long term, and
probably what helps keep us on the straight and narrow. I know without
it I'd probably still be sick as hell and still weigh twice what I do.

The cultishness lies in the combination of dismissiveness for others'
viewpoints as they pertain to food, the dead certainty that your way is
The Way, and the dogged refusal to bow to reason when confronted with
situations with clearcut parallels - such as the "protein is
inessential" example. I used *your* rules to compose the argument, and
then you refused to acknowledge the end result. When onlookers see
that sort of behavior they just *might* end up with the take-away
message that "those Atkins people are brainwashed culties".

Carmen