"Krusty" > wrote in message .. .
> "Carmen" > wrote
>> 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.
>>
>> Carmen
>
> What a fantastic post.
>
>


IAWTP. Before I read your reply Krusty, I was thinking "that's the most succinct and logical post I've seen in RSPW for awhile."

In article > ,
"Squad" > wrote:

> "Krusty" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > "Carmen" > wrote
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> Carmen
> >
> > What a fantastic post.
> >
> >
>
>
> IAWTP. Before I read your reply Krusty, I was thinking "that's the most
> succinct and logical post I've seen in RSPW for awhile."


That was my sock.

--
Stefan:

"Lord Hatred" > wrote in message ...
> In article > ,
> "Squad" > wrote:
>
>> "Krusty" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>> > "Carmen" > wrote
>> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >> Carmen
>> >
>> > What a fantastic post.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> IAWTP. Before I read your reply Krusty, I was thinking "that's the most
>> succinct and logical post I've seen in RSPW for awhile."
>
>
> That was my sock.
>
> --
> Stefan:


Everyone knows I'm your sock so why keep posting it?

> "Squad" wrote...
>> "Lord Hatred" wrote...
>>> "Squad" wrote:
>>> IAWTP. Before I read your reply Krusty, I was thinking "that's the most
>>> succinct and logical post I've seen in RSPW for awhile."
>> That was my sock.
> Everyone knows I'm your sock so why keep posting it?

Why do you keep talking to yourself?

In article >,
"Krusty" > wrote:

> > "Squad" wrote...
> >> "Lord Hatred" wrote...
> >>> "Squad" wrote:
> >>> IAWTP. Before I read your reply Krusty, I was thinking "that's the most
> >>> succinct and logical post I've seen in RSPW for awhile."
> >> That was my sock.
> > Everyone knows I'm your sock so why keep posting it?
>
> Why do you keep talking to yourself?

Shut up me and leave I alone!

--
Stefan:

I lost about 80 pounds and all kidney function on The Atkins diet. The
dialysis is helping me keep the weight off though.

Dana Carpender wrote:


> Actually, skeletal evidence shows that when hunter-gatherers became
> farmers, they got shorter, with weak bones and bad teeth, probably due
> to the fact that grain phytates bind up minerals. Doesn't sound like
> thriving, really.


People today are much taller on average than people were just a couple
hundred years ago. If people are shorter because of grains, then why we
are taller now, as we eat more grains than ever before?

I suspect the people getting shorter in the past was for a different
reason.



Also, I would point out that we evolution isn't as slow as you think.
Just considering the short time that we have been homo sapien, we have
adapted to various conditions. Take a look around you. While the world
has become a smaller place and people are now migrated and spread out
everywhere, you can still tell where a person's ancestors came from
because of some characteristics.

People from colder climates tend to have smaller noses with with small
nostrils to keep out the cold. Skin color - we got all these diffferent
skin tones from various levels of exposure to the sun. Some people
needed more natural protection than others.

We may all be mixed up now. But back when people were sequestered in
various groupings, the people adapted as a group to their particular
evironment. It didn't take 50,000 years to produce people of various
skin tones or different styles of noses.

You can also see "evolution" in domestic animals as we intentionally
(and sometimes accidentally) breed changes in the pets. It doesn't take
1,000 years to take one breed and get a new breed. For example, the
Siamese cat has been around for while, and sometimes there would be a
mutation of one gene to produce long hair. It didn't take long to
create a new breed called a Balinese that is exactly the same as a
siamese except it has long hair. And it breeds true. All you had to do
was breed the carriers of the mutated gene or those with the mutated
gene, and you got more of them. I actually have a Balinese that came
from two siamese. We owned both parents with short hair and were quite
surprised to have a kitten with long hair. Once a gene mutates like
this and reproduces, you have a change in the genes and that is
basically what evolution is.

Characteristics like size, nose, facial shape, ears, etc can change
very quickly. I read an article awhile back showing 4 breeds and how
they have changed in 40 years. The author obviously like the
"improvements" in the breed. I didn't. They had photos of champion cats
today and champion cats of the same breeds 40 years ago, and I liked
the older photos much better. But the point was obvious. The breeds
have changed a LOT in 40 years.

> wrote in message oups.com...
>
> Dana Carpender wrote:
>
>
>> Actually, skeletal evidence shows that when hunter-gatherers became
>> farmers, they got shorter, with weak bones and bad teeth, probably due
>> to the fact that grain phytates bind up minerals. Doesn't sound like
>> thriving, really.
>
>
> People today are much taller on average than people were just a couple
> hundred years ago. If people are shorter because of grains, then why we
> are taller now, as we eat more grains than ever before?
>
> I suspect the people getting shorter in the past was for a different
> reason.
>
>
>
> Also, I would point out that we evolution isn't as slow as you think.
> Just considering the short time that we have been homo sapien, we have
> adapted to various conditions. Take a look around you. While the world
> has become a smaller place and people are now migrated and spread out
> everywhere, you can still tell where a person's ancestors came from
> because of some characteristics.
>
> People from colder climates tend to have smaller noses with with small
> nostrils to keep out the cold. Skin color - we got all these diffferent
> skin tones from various levels of exposure to the sun. Some people
> needed more natural protection than others.
>
> We may all be mixed up now. But back when people were sequestered in
> various groupings, the people adapted as a group to their particular
> evironment. It didn't take 50,000 years to produce people of various
> skin tones or different styles of noses.
>
> You can also see "evolution" in domestic animals as we intentionally
> (and sometimes accidentally) breed changes in the pets. It doesn't take
> 1,000 years to take one breed and get a new breed. For example, the
> Siamese cat has been around for while, and sometimes there would be a
> mutation of one gene to produce long hair. It didn't take long to
> create a new breed called a Balinese that is exactly the same as a
> siamese except it has long hair. And it breeds true. All you had to do
> was breed the carriers of the mutated gene or those with the mutated
> gene, and you got more of them. I actually have a Balinese that came
> from two siamese. We owned both parents with short hair and were quite
> surprised to have a kitten with long hair. Once a gene mutates like
> this and reproduces, you have a change in the genes and that is
> basically what evolution is.
>
> Characteristics like size, nose, facial shape, ears, etc can change
> very quickly. I read an article awhile back showing 4 breeds and how
> they have changed in 40 years. The author obviously like the
> "improvements" in the breed. I didn't. They had photos of champion cats
> today and champion cats of the same breeds 40 years ago, and I liked
> the older photos much better. But the point was obvious. The breeds
> have changed a LOT in 40 years.
>


heck, it only took a few generations to get rid of sickle cell anemia (protective against malaria) in Africans transplanted to Europe.

Lord Hatred wrote:
> In article > ,
> "Squad" > wrote:
>
> > "Krusty" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > > "Carmen" > wrote
> > >> 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.
> > >>
> > >> Carmen
> > >
> > > What a fantastic post.
> >
> > IAWTP. Before I read your reply Krusty, I was thinking "that's the most
> > succinct and logical post I've seen in RSPW for awhile."
>
> That was my sock.

I've forgotten what our MasterCard number is, and it's time to stock up
on some Yemen Mocha Sanani coffee. Kindly refresh my memory. <EG>

Carmen

>Variety is the spice of life. Humans are carnivores. It means that we are
adaptable. We cane at different foods, depending on the season.

But as for the thread.... Pizza for crying out loud. It is a way to use
up
leftovers, a little bread dough, some tomato sauce , bits and pieces of

>veggies, meats and cheese. It sure as heck isn't fine dining.

A.) Pizza has nothing to do with being a carnivore. B.) This isn't "a
little dough" we are talking about.

>Variety is the spice of life. Humans are carnivores. It means that we are
adaptable. We cane at different foods, depending on the season.

But as for the thread.... Pizza for crying out loud. It is a way to use
up
leftovers, a little bread dough, some tomato sauce , bits and pieces of

>veggies, meats and cheese. It sure as heck isn't fine dining.

A.) Pizza has nothing to do with being a carnivore. B.) This isn't "a
little dough" we are talking about.

Shuurai wrote:
> > > Well, regardless of what you think humans are "meant" to be eating, the
> > > fact of the matter is that wheat, barley, and so forth have been
> > > staples of human consumption for eons.
> >
> > Um, no. From dictionary.com, a definition of "eon"
> >
> > 1. An indefinitely long period of time; an age.
> > 2. The longest division of geologic time, containing two or more eras.
> >
> > 10,000 years doesn't fit the definition.

Four eons so far: Hadean, Archean, Proterozoic, and Phanerozoic.
>
> Well, gee whiz you got me on the "eon" thing... now how in the hell is
> that relevant to the point of the discussion?

Points out that you were wrong by roughly four orders of magnitude.
Seems relevant, given that evolution takes time.
>
> But just to make you happy:
> Well, regardless of what you think humans are "meant" to be eating, the
> fact of the matter is that wheat, barley, and so forth have been
> staples of human consumption for a really, really gosh darn long time.

Roughly ten thousand years, sure.


> > > You might consider the fact that we humans have molars - teeth
> > > specifically designed for grinding fiberous materials like *gasp*
> > > grains;
> >
> > Or vegetables and nuts.

> Molars are more specialized towards grains than veggies - though nuts
> are certainly a possibility.
>
> > >>Humans were meant to eat meat, eggs,
> > >>green leafy vegetables, and certain berries. They were certainly not
> > >>meant to eat wheat grass.

> > We wouldn't have enzymes
> > > specifically designed for digesting them.
> >
> > We don't. We do have carbohydrate digesting enzymes, but they're
> > equally applicable to fruits and vegetables.

More. Uncooked grains aren't particularly digestible.

> wrote
> Roughly ten thousand years, sure.

I've always read that we were vegetarians for roughly MOST of our existence
on earth prior to evolving larger brains.

The only reason we evolved larger brains that allowed tool building and
communications was that suddenly, not so very far back, we started to eat
meats. Proteins.

So I'm inclined to believe that most of our time on earth was in fact,
eating vegetables and grains. Meat's "new", relatively speaking, and most
scientists credit *it* with our leap in evolution.

"trijcomm" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> >Variety is the spice of life. Humans are carnivores. It means that we are
> adaptable. We cane at different foods, depending on the season.
>
> But as for the thread.... Pizza for crying out loud. It is a way to use
> up
> leftovers, a little bread dough, some tomato sauce , bits and pieces of
>
>>veggies, meats and cheese. It sure as heck isn't fine dining.
>
> A.) Pizza has nothing to do with being a carnivore. B.) This isn't "a
> little dough" we are talking about.

Pizza is all about being a carnivore the way I like it.

Fraser

mdginzo wrote:
> I lost about 80 pounds and all kidney function on The Atkins diet. The
> dialysis is helping me keep the weight off though.

You lost 80 pounds and you're complaining? :-P~~ You must not have
eaten enough Atkins bars. That'll teach ya ;-)

Carmen

On Mon, 22 May 2006, Squad wrote:

>
> > wrote in message oups.com...
>>
>> Dana Carpender wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Actually, skeletal evidence shows that when hunter-gatherers became
>>> farmers, they got shorter, with weak bones and bad teeth, probably due
>>> to the fact that grain phytates bind up minerals. Doesn't sound like
>>> thriving, really.

bad teeth are from sugar. gingivitis, i can see. but toothrot is
something from the 1700's. cite yer sources.

>> People today are much taller on average than people were just a couple
>> hundred years ago. If people are shorter because of grains, then why we
>> are taller now, as we eat more grains than ever before?
>>
>> I suspect the people getting shorter in the past was for a different
>> reason.

poor nutrition, mostly.

>> People from colder climates tend to have smaller noses with with small
>> nostrils to keep out the cold. Skin color - we got all these diffferent
>> skin tones from various levels of exposure to the sun. Some people
>> needed more natural protection than others.

can we please stop this? you obviously have forgotten that "dark" is
natural -- lighter skins allow more efficient vitamin E production from
sunlight.

>> We may all be mixed up now. But back when people were sequestered in
>> various groupings, the people adapted as a group to their particular
>> evironment. It didn't take 50,000 years to produce people of various
>> skin tones or different styles of noses.

mutations are mutations. they dont' spread across a population evenly.
We know what the "constellation" of genes for mathematical aptitude is.
Doesn't mean everyone's got it.

Lena

"Lord Hatred" > wrote in message
...
> In article .com>,
> 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.
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Stefan:
>>
>> No, she's right. (In the correct sense, not the poltical spectrum.) The
>> scientific community views Ergaster, Habilis, Neanderthalis and others
>> of the Homo genus as human, and counts them as human beings.
>
> Some scientists will also argue that chimpanzees and gorillas should
> be included in the Homo class due to the genetic similarities. I
> wouldn't call them humans at all.

Thank you.
--
--- "Damn dirty fleas..."
--- Proud loser of TWO 2004 RSPW Poster Awards and several in 2005.
--- 3rd Highest Vote-Getter in KORSPW 2005
--- In the Final Four of the 2006 RSPW Rumble
--- Ranked 4th on Lvubun's Top 127 RSPW Posters of 2005

wrote:
> Shuurai wrote:
> > > > Well, regardless of what you think humans are "meant" to be eating, the
> > > > fact of the matter is that wheat, barley, and so forth have been
> > > > staples of human consumption for eons.
> > >
> > > Um, no. From dictionary.com, a definition of "eon"
> > >
> > > 1. An indefinitely long period of time; an age.
> > > 2. The longest division of geologic time, containing two or more eras.
> > >
> > > 10,000 years doesn't fit the definition.
>
> Four eons so far: Hadean, Archean, Proterozoic, and Phanerozoic.
> >
> > Well, gee whiz you got me on the "eon" thing... now how in the hell is
> > that relevant to the point of the discussion?
>
> Points out that you were wrong by roughly four orders of magnitude.
> Seems relevant, given that evolution takes time.

I used the word "eons" because it's commonly used to denote a really
long time. I don't frankly care about the accuracy. The fact of the
matter is, humans have been eating grains for most of our history as a
species. The systematic cultivation and collection of grains can be
traced anywhere from 10,000 to 23,000 years ago, depending on who you
ask. However, humans were eating grains long before that.

> > But just to make you happy:
> > Well, regardless of what you think humans are "meant" to be eating, the
> > fact of the matter is that wheat, barley, and so forth have been
> > staples of human consumption for a really, really gosh darn long time.
>
> Roughly ten thousand years, sure.

We've been deliberately *growing* them for 10,000 to 23,000 years. We
were most certainly eating them before we decided to go through the
trouble.

> > > > You might consider the fact that we humans have molars - teeth
> > > > specifically designed for grinding fiberous materials like *gasp*
> > > > grains;
> > >
> > > Or vegetables and nuts.
>
> > Molars are more specialized towards grains than veggies - though nuts
> > are certainly a possibility.
> >
> > > >>Humans were meant to eat meat, eggs,
> > > >>green leafy vegetables, and certain berries. They were certainly not
> > > >>meant to eat wheat grass.
>
> > > We wouldn't have enzymes
> > > > specifically designed for digesting them.
> > >
> > > We don't. We do have carbohydrate digesting enzymes, but they're
> > > equally applicable to fruits and vegetables.
>
> More. Uncooked grains aren't particularly digestible.

Fallacy. They're more easily digestable when cooked, and release more
nutrients, but they're not undigestable raw. And actually, some
biologists have suggested that the relatively long length of the human
digestive tract is intended to accomodate grain consumption. Meat
eating animals tend to have shorter digestive tracts and much more
powerful digestive fluids. Herbivores tend to have longer tracts and
less powerful fluids.

Lord Hatred wrote:


> You seem to think this is an "Either/Or" argument.


I am arguing with the various statements that Atkins (and, I assume, low
carbohydrate nutrition in general) is a "scam", and that people are
"idiots" to think it works.

Dana

Krusty wrote:

> "Dave Smith" > wrote
> > Humans are carnivores.
>
> Incorrect. Technically "omnivores".

A big OOPs here. Omnivore is what was in my mind. Carnivore
is what was accidentally typed. SpellCheck let it pass but
ThoughtCheck should have caught it.

Krusty wrote:

> "Pushmi-Pullyu" > wrote
>
>>Dana Carpender wrote:
>>
>>>Krusty wrote:
>>>
>>>>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
>>
>>
>>Oops, someone accidentally wandered in here from the pro-wrestling
>>group.
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/groups/prof...zR8hglMMGDfYZl
>>http://tinyurl.com/mym2n
>
>
> I started the thread, Captain Scientician.
>
> Hey, next time the clue-bus stops by, get on board.

Oh, look. Still not a Krusty-supplied fact in sight.

Dana
>
>

Krusty wrote:

> "Dana Carpender" > wrote
>
>>we've been homo sapiens for an estimated 200,000 years.
>
>
> First sane thing you've said this entire thread.
>

One more than you, pal.

Dana
>

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.

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.

Dana

Dana Carpender wrote:
> Lord Hatred wrote:
>
>
> > You seem to think this is an "Either/Or" argument.
>
>
> I am arguing with the various statements that Atkins (and, I assume, low
> carbohydrate nutrition in general) is a "scam", and that people are
> "idiots" to think it works.

Not a scam - just an overreaction.

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.

Lena B Katz wrote:


> mutations are mutations. they dont' spread across a population evenly.
> We know what the "constellation" of genes for mathematical aptitude is.
> Doesn't mean everyone's got it.

And you know all about "mutations" and "aptitude" dontcha, Lena?

(Sorry folks, couldn't help it)

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

"Dana Carpender" > wrote
> I've said that a diet based on grains and beans is radically different
> from the evolutionary diet of the species,

And you're wrong.

Krusty wrote:

> > wrote
>
>>Roughly ten thousand years, sure.
>
>
> I've always read that we were vegetarians for roughly MOST of our existence
> on earth prior to evolving larger brains.

Read where? Vegetarian websites? Because I've read repeatedly that the
hunter-gatherer diet generally consisted of roughly 45-65% of calories
from animal food, with the rest coming from vegetables, fruit in season,
nuts and seeds, and the like.

>
> The only reason we evolved larger brains that allowed tool building and
> communications was that suddenly, not so very far back, we started to eat
> meats. Proteins.
>
> So I'm inclined to believe that most of our time on earth was in fact,
> eating vegetables and grains.

How did people eat grain in any quantity before agriculture? A real
bitch to collect all those little seeds.

Dana

In article >,
says...

This entire thread is a perfect example of the stupidity and ignorance
to be found on the newsgroups. Dozens of people who know less than
nothing about biology or evolution are making all sorts of hair-brained
claims. The most egregious error that everyone is making is the weird
and totally wrong notion that what humans ate in the past has the
slightest relevance to what we should eat now.

Why don't you blithering nitwits shut up and stop embarrassing
yourselves? Really, the humor value is not that great.

--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths pages at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

On Mon, 22 May 2006 09:18:02 -0700, Carmen wrote:
> 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. ^^^^^^^^

You put an extra 'r' in there

--
Karim <remove SPAMFREE: karimSrPaAsMhFaRdEE at gmail dot com>

Shuurai wrote:

> wrote:
>
>>Shuurai wrote:
>>
>>>>>Well, regardless of what you think humans are "meant" to be eating, the
>>>>>fact of the matter is that wheat, barley, and so forth have been
>>>>>staples of human consumption for eons.
>>>>
>>>>Um, no. From dictionary.com, a definition of "eon"
>>>>
>>>> 1. An indefinitely long period of time; an age.
>>>> 2. The longest division of geologic time, containing two or more eras.
>>>>
>>>>10,000 years doesn't fit the definition.
>>
>>Four eons so far: Hadean, Archean, Proterozoic, and Phanerozoic.
>>
>>>Well, gee whiz you got me on the "eon" thing... now how in the hell is
>>>that relevant to the point of the discussion?
>>
>>Points out that you were wrong by roughly four orders of magnitude.
>>Seems relevant, given that evolution takes time.
>
>
> I used the word "eons" because it's commonly used to denote a really
> long time. I don't frankly care about the accuracy. The fact of the
> matter is, humans have been eating grains for most of our history as a
> species.

No, not in any quantity. Not as a staple food.

The systematic cultivation and collection of grains can be
> traced anywhere from 10,000 to 23,000 years ago, depending on who you
> ask. However, humans were eating grains long before that.

Really? As a staple food? Or a handful now and then?

Dana

"Dana Carpender" > wrote
> Really? As a staple food? Or a handful now and then?

I mark for overt stupidity. You rule.

Shuurai wrote:
> Dana Carpender wrote:
>
>>Lord Hatred wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> You seem to think this is an "Either/Or" argument.
>>
>>
>>I am arguing with the various statements that Atkins (and, I assume, low
>>carbohydrate nutrition in general) is a "scam", and that people are
>>"idiots" to think it works.
>
>
> Not a scam - just an overreaction.

Trust me, it was a big, big shock to discover that my body runs far
better on red meat than it ever did on brown rice. A strong reaction to
that sort of revelation, multiplied by millions, was inevitable.

Dana
>

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.

Dana

"Dana Carpender" > wrote
> Except that they are exactly that -- inessential.

Cite?

This I gotta see.

In article >,
Dana Carpender > wrote:

> Shuurai wrote:
> > Dana Carpender wrote:
> >
> >>Lord Hatred wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> You seem to think this is an "Either/Or" argument.
> >>
> >>
> >>I am arguing with the various statements that Atkins (and, I assume, low
> >>carbohydrate nutrition in general) is a "scam", and that people are
> >>"idiots" to think it works.
> >
> >
> > Not a scam - just an overreaction.
>
> Trust me, it was a big, big shock to discover that my body runs far
> better on red meat than it ever did on brown rice. A strong reaction to
> that sort of revelation, multiplied by millions, was inevitable.
>
> Dana
> >

My take on the whole reason why low-carb works (and an explanation for
why some cultures don't have an obesity epidemic, despite eating carbs)
is that it is not that humans aren't adapted to carbs, it's that an
overdose of any substance can cause an allergic reaction, and there is a
connection between allergy and addiction. Rice, pasta, bread in
moderate portions (like Italy, China, France)= usually no weight
problem. Lots of HFC's, fruit juices, candy, twinkies, junkfood etc
(Like America and Great Britain)= overdose of carbs and a potentially
lifelong addiction to them.

Krusty wrote:

> "Dana Carpender" > wrote
>
>>I've said that a diet based on grains and beans is radically different
>>from the evolutionary diet of the species,
>
>
> And you're wrong.

Cite?

Dana
>
>

Uh, people? How 'bout you all eat what you want and leave it at that??!?

Spitz
--
Mind the runner beans!

Krusty wrote:

> "Dana Carpender" > wrote
>
>>Really? As a staple food? Or a handful now and then?
>
>
> I mark for overt stupidity. You rule.
>
>

Want to answer the question?

Dana

Krusty wrote:

> "Dana Carpender" > wrote
>
>>Except that they are exactly that -- inessential.
>
>
> Cite?
>
> This I gotta see.
>
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis

http://web.indstate.edu/thcme/mwking...eogenesis.html

The body is perfectly capable of making glucose with no dietary
carbohydrate whatsoever. That makes carbohydrates inessential by
definition.

Dana