<< When you go down the path of "people shouldn't eat carbs">>

Problem with such mentality is that it doesn't take into account
lifestyle.

I'm young, in great shape, I lift weights and I do a lot of cardio.
"not eating carbs" is just a BIG no-no.

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

"Dana Carpender" > wrote
> Cite?

Eaton suggests that early primate diet was roughly 95% "plant foods". (see
associated citations)

....plant foods such as fruits, leaves, gums, and stalks probably comprised
at least 95% of their dietary intake with insects, eggs, and small animals
making up the remainder (Milton, 1993; Tutin & Fernandez, 1993). The general
nutritional parameters of an eating pattern along these lines can be
estimated with modest confidence, although certainly not with mathematical
exactitude. Protein would have contributed a greater proportion of total
energy than it does for most contemporary humans, but with much more from
vegetable sources than from animal. (Popovich, 1997) Simple carbohydrate
intake would have been strikingly below that now common, and, somewhat
counterintuitively, such diets would have provided only moderate levels of
starch and other complex carbohydrates so that the total carbohydrate
contribution to dietary energy would have been less, not more, than is
typical in contemporary affluent nations. Dietary fiber would have exceeded
current levels by an order of magnitude: 200 grams vs. 20 grams a day
(Milton, 1993): for some ancestral hominoids, colonic fiber fermentation may
have provided over 50% of total dietary energy. (Popovich, 1997) Daily
intake of vitamins and minerals is likely to have been considerably greater
than at present with the likely exception of iodine, consumption of which
would have varied with geographic location according to oceanic proximity,
volcanic activity, prevailing winds and rainfall. As it is for all other
free-living terrestrial mammals, sodium intake would have been only a
fraction of that currently common and would have been substantially less
than that of potassium. (Denton, 1995) Availability of phytochemicals, like
that of vitamins and most minerals would, in all likelihood, have been
substantially greater than for Americans and other Westerners.

Happy to Help.

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 are a most pathetic little worm, Krusty. Really, all this huffing
and pufffing is a sad cry for attention. Or maybe it's not an attempt
at attention seeking at all. Maybe you're just using it as a
smokescreen to cover the fact that you can't back your words up.

Human beings bodies did not develop for grazing and ruminating. They
are primates, not cows. Human beings were never, not at any point in
the history of time, meant to have wheat or any other grass as the main
staple of their diet. Nor were they ever meant to eat much grass at
all, really.

Prove me wrong, I dare you. You will find that you cannot. That's
because you are an uneducated little wretch.

Luna wrote:

> 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.

Certainly I think that high doses of extremely concentrated carbohydrate
damages carbohydrate metabolism, and can set one up for a lifetime of
reacting badly to them. There was a rat study a few years back that
demonstrated that a high-sugar diet for young rats caused cellular level
changes favoring obesity, and that those changes were *heritable*, which
is damned scary.

Dana

"Dana Carpender" > wrote
> 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.

Gluconeogenesis is used by the body when carbohydrates are limited or are
not in sufficient quantities to produce glucose. Producing glucose from
amino acids (glutamine and alanine for instance), glycerol and and lactate
is a response by the body when carbohydrates are *unavailable*.

Hardly an argument for "carbohydrates are inessential".

Google Beta User wrote:

> << When you go down the path of "people shouldn't eat carbs">>
>
> Problem with such mentality is that it doesn't take into account
> lifestyle.
>
> I'm young, in great shape, I lift weights and I do a lot of cardio.
> "not eating carbs" is just a BIG no-no.
>

For heavy lifting, yes. For cardio, no. I eat low carb, and I do
reasonably intense cardio for about 45 minutes most days. Not a
problem. So long as you're aerobic, you can fuel with bodyfat. It's
just anaerobic that requires glucose.

But yeah, the more you exercise, the more carbohydrate you can tolerate.
Though 5 step aerobics classes per week didn't keep my own personal
body from gaining weight on a grain-and-bean heavy diet.

Dana

Krusty 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
>
> What "big mouth". The person who responded to me made up an assertion that I
> never made, then based an entire line of reasoning on it.
>
> I said *nothing* about what people were "meant" to eat. I never made the
> assertion that "human beings were meant to eat grass like wheat and barley".
>
> So, given the above, then yeah, the guy's a ****ing idiot AND wrong.
>
> How's that? Douchebag.

You made a pitiful little statement condemning low carb diets, which
would mean to any sane person that you do indeed endorse high-carb
eating. You DID indeed say something about what people were meant to
eat. You implied that people were meant to eat copious amounts of
carbs.

Do you know where carbs come from, Krusty? Take a guess. They are found
in ... gasp .... wheat and barley. They have lots and lots of carbs in
them, Krusty.

<< For heavy lifting, yes. For cardio, no. >>

Uh, the cardio is exactly why I've increased my carbs. I just eat more
in general. Maybe I'm blessed with good genes, but people micromanage
too much. Just eat what you want and if you're exercising a lot, eat
more. So long as that "more" is not obviously stuff that wont' help
your cause such as oreo cookies, pizza, etc.

<< I eat low carb, and I do reasonably intense cardio for about 45
minutes most days. Not a problem. So long as you're aerobic, you can
fuel with bodyfat. >>

Whats your age/sex and what are your exercise goals? Some people DONT'
want to lose weight.

<< But yeah, the more you exercise, the more carbohydrate you can
tolerate. >>

Not only "can tolerate" but SHOULD have depending on age & lifestyle.

<< Though 5 step aerobics classes per week didn't keep my own personal
body from gaining weight on a grain-and-bean heavy diet. >>

But some people want to and/or need to gain weight.

Shuurai wrote:
> jombithedjinn wrote:
> > Krusty wrote:
> > > "trijcomm" > wrote ...
> > > > >That's really unfair, Janis. Where did you learn all this info....was
> > > > the setup to one of your women's apartment wrestling videos some chick
> > > >>in pantyhose reading an Atkins diet book?
> > > >
> > > > You should really look into that Atkins diet book ...
> > >
> > > Hardly, it's a "diet" for idiots.
> > >
> > > Get a biology degree and *really* learn about food.
> >
> > 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.
>
> 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. In fact, the rise of human
> civilization has been directly correlated with the successful
> cultivation of these grains.

Not eons, unless you count a few thousand years as eons.

Cancer and diabetes have been directly correlated with the successful
cultivation of those grains (and civilization) as well.


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

Green, leafy vegetables. Not grains.


and the fact that we've had them for as long as we've existed
> as a species. All of which indicates that, gee whiz, maybe the idea of
> humans eating grains isn't so far out of left field as you're
> suggesting.

There's a distinct difference between greens and grains.


>
> > Typical diets are inferior to the atkins diet strictly because the
> > conventional diets would have people eat foods that nature never
> > intended for human beings to eat. Humans were meant to eat meat, eggs,
> > green leafy vegetables, and certain berries. They were certainly not
> > meant to eat wheat grass.
>
> If we were not "meant" to be eating grains, we would not have teeth
> specifically designed for chewing them.

We don't.

We wouldn't have enzymes
> specifically designed for digesting them.

We don't.


We wouldn't have survived
> and in fact *thrived* on them for thousands and thousands of years.

We haven't. We've cultivated grain for roughly less than ten thousand
years.



>
> If you agree with the Adkins diet, good for you. If you start asking
> doctors and nutritionists, some of them will agree with you - others
> will not. But your assertion that humans are not "meant" to eat grains
> is utter nonsense. Human anatomy says otherwise - as does human
> history.

We were meant to eat salad vegetables, not grains.zx

Dana Carpender wrote:
> 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.

The body can make proteins. It can make half the amino acids it needs
to make proteins and get the other half from a diet of nothing but
grains and beans. Does that magically make that diet perfect? No. It
just demonstrates - as does gluconeogenesis - how adaptable humans are.

Carmen

"jombithedjinn" > wrote
> You are a most pathetic little worm, Krusty. Really, all this huffing
> and pufffing is a sad cry for attention. Or maybe it's not an attempt
> at attention seeking at all. Maybe you're just using it as a
> smokescreen to cover the fact that you can't back your words up.

Or maybe I just enjoy arguing with idiots like yourself.

1. Early man's diet was mostly vegetables. There's *overwhelming* evidence
of this in the scientific community, in additon to hundreds of published
papers on the subject.

2. Man evolved larger brains and the ability to HUNT food as a result of
slowly starting to consume more meat. Not the other way around. Early man
most likely couldn't even COORDINATE hunting animals with such a small brain
as that requires higher social functions and social coordination that wasn't
available to such small brains. Most contend that early man scavenged what
animals he could eat. Which would certainly limit the amount of meat in a
diet.

3. Atkins is unhealthy and a fad diet. Most people lose short term weight
but encounter long term health problems associated with such a high amount
of meat in the diet. Not to mention the increased rates of colon cancer
among males, and ketosis. The raising of cholesterol levels goes without
saying. Besides, any "all or nothing" diet where someone argues that they
don't even need carbohydrates is inherently stupid. Nobody even needs to
point out just how ****ing stupid it is. Moderation in a diet is what works.
Don't exclusively eat anything. Moderate your intake of protein and your
intake of carbs, and choose *good* carbs over refined sugars and you'll be
fine, unless you have an underlying medical condition, then you should
consult your doctor. However, most *normal* people will do just fine by
moderating both protein and carbs and staying away from the refined shit.
Anything else is just fad and bad advice.

4. Carbohydrates are not "inessential" as I've pointed out, gluconeogenesis
is used by the body when carbohydrates are unavailable as an energy source,
hardly an argument that they're "inessential".

I actually went to college and was lucky enough to land on my feet with dual
degrees in biochemistry and mathematics from USC. I've probably forgotten
more biology than you've learned in your whole existence on earth, soI get
a kick out of watching idiots like yourself flounder around getting their
panties all in a wad when they're told precisely how stupid they are.

Happy to help.

"Carmen" > wrote
> The body can make proteins. It can make half the amino acids it needs
> to make proteins and get the other half from a diet of nothing but
> grains and beans. Does that magically make that diet perfect? No. It
> just demonstrates - as does gluconeogenesis - how adaptable humans are.

Exactly.

Gluconeogenesis is just an evolutionary response in humans to "cover
themselves" in the case that they couldn't find or scavenge an adequate
supply of carbohydrates.

God bless the smart people in this thread.

On Sun, 21 May 2006 15:49:11 -0400, Dana Carpender
> wrote:

>Just out of curiosity: How many of the people in this discussion who
>are referring to Atkins as a "scam" or claim it's unhealthy have
>actually *read* Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution, or any book written by
>Dr. Atkins, for that matter?
>
>Dana

My wife and I did it and I lost 45 pounds, and felt great. Why does
anybody think that giving up sugar, flour, potatoes and "sweet" fruits
are necessarily bad for you. You only give up the fruits for a short
time, then you can eat them sparingly.

My doctor pretty much summed it up when he saw the results and found
out how I did it. His response "I've never had to put anybody in the
hospital from following this diet."

Neal

"jombithedjinn" > wrote
> You made a pitiful little statement condemning low carb diets, which
> would mean to any sane person that you do indeed endorse high-carb
> eating.

Only if they're prone to incredibly ridiculous leaps in logic.

Idiot.

What are you, ****ing retarded?

Krusty wrote:
> "jombithedjinn" > wrote
> > You made a pitiful little statement condemning low carb diets, which
> > would mean to any sane person that you do indeed endorse high-carb
> > eating.
>
> Only if they're prone to incredibly ridiculous leaps in logic.
>
> Idiot.
>
> What are you, ****ing retarded?

Food are either low carb, or they are not low carb. Worm.

"jombithedjinn" > wrote
> Food are either low carb, or they are not low carb. Worm.

Jesus, you are retarded.

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

I would take those 80 pounds back in a heartbeat if I could have my
kidneys back. Your statement typifies what is so wrong with Atkins and
other fad diets.

Krusty wrote:

> "Dana Carpender" > wrote
>
>>Cite?
>
>
> Eaton suggests that early primate diet was roughly 95% "plant foods". (see
> associated citations)

Dunno who Eaton is, but he
>
>

The paradoxical nature of hunter-gatherer diets: meat-based, yet
non-atherogenic.

Cordain L, Eaton SB, Miller JB, Mann N, Hill K.

Department of Health and Exercise Science, Colorado State University,
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.

OBJECTIVE: Field studies of twentieth century hunter-gathers (HG) showed
them to be generally free of the signs and symptoms of cardiovascular
disease (CVD). Consequently, the characterization of HG diets may have
important implications in designing therapeutic diets that reduce the
risk for CVD in Westernized societies. Based upon limited ethnographic
data (n=58 HG societies) and a single quantitative dietary study, it has
been commonly inferred that gathered plant foods provided the dominant
energy source in HG diets. METHOD AND RESULTS: In this review we have
analyzed the 13 known quantitative dietary studies of HG and demonstrate
that animal food actually provided the dominant (65%) energy source,
while gathered plant foods comprised the remainder (35%). This data is
consistent with a more recent, comprehensive review of the entire
ethnographic data (n=229 HG societies) that showed the mean subsistence
dependence upon gathered plant foods was 32%, whereas it was 68% for
animal foods. Other evidence, including isotopic analyses of Paleolithic
hominid collagen tissue, reductions in hominid gut size, low activity
levels of certain enzymes, and optimal foraging data all point toward a
long history of meat-based diets in our species. Because increasing meat
consumption in Western diets is frequently associated with increased
risk for CVD mortality, it is seemingly paradoxical that HG societies,
who consume the majority of their energy from animal food, have been
shown to be relatively free of the signs and symptoms of CVD.
CONCLUSION: The high reliance upon animal-based foods would not have
necessarily elicited unfavorable blood lipid profiles because of the
hypolipidemic effects of high dietary protein (19-35% energy) and the
relatively low level of dietary carbohydrate (22-40% energy). Although
fat intake (28-58% energy) would have been similar to or higher than
that found in Western diets, it is likely that important qualitative
differences in fat intake, including relatively high levels of MUFA and
PUFA and a lower omega-6/omega-3 fatty acid ratio, would have served to
inhibit the development of CVD. Other dietary characteristics including
high intakes of antioxidants, fiber, vitamins and phytochemicals along
with a low salt intake may have operated synergistically with lifestyle
characteristics (more exercise, less stress and no smoking) to further
deter the development of CVD.

Dietary lean red meat and human evolution.

Mann N.

Department of Food Science, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.


Scientific evidence is accumulating that meat itself is not a risk
factor for Western lifestyle diseases such as cardiovascular disease,
but rather the risk stems from the excessive fat and particularly
saturated fat associated with the meat of modern domesticated animals.
In our own studies, we have shown evidence that diets high in lean red
meat can actually lower plasma cholesterol, contribute significantly to
tissue omega-3 fatty acid and provide a good source of iron, zinc and
vitamin B12. A study of human and pre-human diet history shows that for
a period of at least 2 million years the human ancestral line had been
consuming increasing quantities of meat. During that time, evolutionary
selection was in action, adapting our genetic make up and hence our
physiological features to a diet high in lean meat. This meat was wild
game meat, low in total and saturated fat and relatively rich in
polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA). The evidence presented in this
review looks at various lines of study which indicate the reliance on
meat intake as a major energy source by pre-agricultural humans. The
distinct fields briefly reviewed include: fossil isotope studies, human
gut morphology, human encephalisation and energy requirements, optimal
foraging theory, insulin resistance and studies on hunter-gatherer
societies. In conclusion, lean meat is a healthy and beneficial
component of any well-balanced diet as long as it is fat trimmed and
consumed as part of a varied diet.



Plant-animal subsistence ratios and macronutrient energy estimations in
worldwide hunter-gatherer diets.

Cordain L, Miller JB, Eaton SB, Mann N, Holt SH, Speth JD.

Department of Health and Exercise Science, Colorado State University,
Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA.

Both anthropologists and nutritionists have long recognized that the
diets of modern-day hunter-gatherers may represent a reference standard
for modern human nutrition and a model for defense against certain
diseases of affluence. Because the hunter-gatherer way of life is now
probably extinct in its purely un-Westernized form, nutritionists and
anthropologists must rely on indirect procedures to reconstruct the
traditional diet of preagricultural humans. In this analysis, we
incorporate the most recent ethnographic compilation of plant-to-animal
economic subsistence patterns of hunter-gatherers to estimate likely
dietary macronutrient intakes (% of energy) for environmentally diverse
hunter-gatherer populations. Furthermore, we show how differences in the
percentage of body fat in prey animals would alter protein intakes in
hunter-gatherers and how a maximal protein ceiling influences the
selection of other macronutrients. Our analysis showed that whenever and
wherever it was ecologically possible, hunter-gatherers consumed high
amounts (45-65% of energy) of animal food. Most (73%) of the worldwide
hunter-gatherer societies derived >50% (> or =56-65% of energy) of their
subsistence from animal foods, whereas only 14% of these societies
derived >50% (> or =56-65% of energy) of their subsistence from gathered
plant foods. This high reliance on animal-based foods coupled with the
relatively low carbohydrate content of wild plant foods produces
universally characteristic macronutrient consumption ratios in which
protein is elevated (19-35% of energy) at the expense of carbohydrates
(22-40% of energy).

Krusty wrote:

> "Dana Carpender" > wrote
>
>>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.
>
>
> Gluconeogenesis is used by the body when carbohydrates are limited or are
> not in sufficient quantities to produce glucose.

Very good. Making carbohydrates inessential.

Producing glucose from
> amino acids (glutamine and alanine for instance), glycerol and and lactate
> is a response by the body when carbohydrates are *unavailable*.
>
> Hardly an argument for "carbohydrates are inessential".


It's exactly the argument that carbohydrates are inessential.
"Essential" in nutritional terms means something the body *cannot make*.
Vitamin C is essential because we can't make it. Eight amino acids
are essential because the body cannot make them, no matter how many
other amino acids you eat. The others can be made, given sufficient
essential aminos, and therefore are inessential.

If the body can make it, it is considered inessential. That's the
definition. Carbohydrate is inessential.

Dana

"Dana Carpender" > wrote
> OBJECTIVE: Field studies of twentieth century hunter-gathers (HG)

Bzzzt. You lose. "Twentieth Century".

You should read your abstracts better.

That didn't take long.

"Dana Carpender" > wrote
> If the body can make it, it is considered inessential. That's the
> definition. Carbohydrate is inessential.

The body can make protein. By your logic. Protein is "inessential".

Hand.

> > 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.

Not in any quantity? Are you serious? They've been the most
widespread foodsource since the beginning of human civilization; and in
fact are what allowed human civilization as we know it in the first
place.

> 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?

As interesting as it is to watch you dance around and change your
position with every post, it doesn't make for good conversation - why
don't you actually pick one and try sticking with it for a while?

"jombithedjinn" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> Food are either low carb, or they are not low carb. Worm.
>
worm is low-carb, of course. are you slow?

mdginzo wrote:
> >You lost 80 pounds and you're complaining? :-P~~ You must not have
> eaten enough Atkins bars. That'll teach ya ;-)
>
> I would take those 80 pounds back in a heartbeat if I could have my
> kidneys back. Your statement typifies what is so wrong with Atkins and
> other fad diets.

Bungie cords dude! Bungie cords and duct tape are the secret to
keeping your kidneys. Didn't you get the "Secrets of the Order of
Atkins" book? You know, the one you were supposed to send away for
with 100 Atkins bar wrappers and $9.95 P&H?

Carmen

Dana Carpender wrote:
> 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.

Read where? :b

> > 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.

The same way they collected all those veggies, fruits, nuts and seeds.
Grains grow naturally in large patches; collecting the seeds isn't all
that much more of a bother really, especially when you're generally
collecting what you and a few other individuals will eat.

How do you suppose agriculture came about, by the way?

Google Beta User wrote:

> << For heavy lifting, yes. For cardio, no. >>
>
> Uh, the cardio is exactly why I've increased my carbs. I just eat more
> in general. Maybe I'm blessed with good genes, but people micromanage
> too much. Just eat what you want and if you're exercising a lot, eat
> more. So long as that "more" is not obviously stuff that wont' help
> your cause such as oreo cookies, pizza, etc.

Didn't work for me, I'm afraid. Carbs make me hungry -- indeed, they're
like eating hungry pills. And I'm not talking oreos, I'm talking whole
grain bread and brown rice.
>
> << I eat low carb, and I do reasonably intense cardio for about 45
> minutes most days. Not a problem. So long as you're aerobic, you can
> fuel with bodyfat. >>
>
> Whats your age/sex and what are your exercise goals? Some people DONT'
> want to lose weight.

I'm 47, female, and I'm working on getting back into shape after a
winter spent being miserably hypothyroid.

Dana

"Shuurai" > wrote
> The same way they collected all those veggies, fruits, nuts and seeds.
> Grains grow naturally in large patches; collecting the seeds isn't all
> that much more of a bother really, especially when you're generally
> collecting what you and a few other individuals will eat.

And let's not forget, that it's MUCH more "economical" from an energy
standpoint to collect grains rather than expend huge amounts of energy in
the *hopes* of catching a wild animal....all with a brain roughly 1/3 the
size of ours and no communication.

Carmen wrote:

> Dana Carpender wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>
> The body can make proteins.

The body can make some proteins. It cannot make the eight essential
amino acids, making those essential in the diet.

Dana

"Dana Carpender" > wrote ...
> The body can make some proteins. It cannot make the eight essential amino
> acids, making those essential in the diet.

Hey Brain donor. Amino Acids are NOT proteins. They're the building blocks
of proteins.

The human body can make proteins, again, using your logic, proteins are
"inessential".

Quit flip flopping all over the place and changing your answers.

Dana Carpender wrote:
> Carmen wrote:
>
> > Dana Carpender wrote:
> >
> >>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.
> >
> >
> > The body can make proteins.
>
> The body can make some proteins. It cannot make the eight essential
> amino acids, making those essential in the diet.
>
The body can make any proteins it requires, using amino acids. It can
get the ones it cannot make from grains and beans. I said all this in
the post you replied to, except you cut all that out. In order to have
a meaningful discussion you cannot evade inconvenient facts Dana. Here
it is again, so you can reply in a more relevant fashion:

> The body can make proteins. It can make half the amino acids it needs
> to make proteins and get the other half from a diet of nothing but
> grains and beans. Does that magically make that diet perfect? No. It
> just demonstrates - as does gluconeogenesis - how adaptable humans are.

Carmen

Dana Carpender > wrote in
m:

>
>
> 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/profile?enc_user=
5oZGKRAAAADt4HCFwEzR8
>>>hglMMGDfYZl 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
>>
>>
>

shit krusty has supplied plenty of goldplated facts.

--
----------------------------------==
Double T the legally blind referee
----------------------------------==
Like you read the bullshit down here

mWO 4 a long time baby

Lord Hatred wrote:
> In article > ,
> Dana Carpender > 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.
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
>
> So you're saying you approve of using evolution as it pertains to the
> origin of homosapien but against the usage of the evolution of
> homosapien as a creature itself as it pertains to dietary requirements?
> You can't have it both ways.
>
A few thousand years isn't a lot of time in a species that averages
about 20 years from generation to generation, for selective pressures
to change humans such that high impact carbs are preferable.

>
> --
> Stefan:

--Bryan

Krusty wrote:
> "Shuurai" > wrote
> > The same way they collected all those veggies, fruits, nuts and seeds.
> > Grains grow naturally in large patches; collecting the seeds isn't all
> > that much more of a bother really, especially when you're generally
> > collecting what you and a few other individuals will eat.
>
> And let's not forget, that it's MUCH more "economical" from an energy
> standpoint to collect grains rather than expend huge amounts of energy in
> the *hopes* of catching a wild animal....all with a brain roughly 1/3 the
> size of ours and no communication.

True, but there is even more to it than that. The trick is to look at
the beginnings of agriculture - how it all got started in the first
place.

Humans didn't just suddenly decide to start planting things. What
happened is that stuff they were eating - be it fruits, nuts, grains,
or vegetables - tended to find itself on the ground. Seeds are dropped
or discarded, and new plants grow.

Grains are no exception. When you collect grains, you tend to drop
some of them on the ground. When you transport and store them, the
same thing happens. The fact that edible grain populations tended to
absolutely skyrocket (even with intentional cultivation) whenever
humans would show up in an area is a pretty good indicator that people
were in fact collecting them in quantity.

Krusty wrote:

> "Dana Carpender" > wrote
>
>>If the body can make it, it is considered inessential. That's the
>>definition. Carbohydrate is inessential.
>
>
> The body can make protein. By your logic. Protein is "inessential".
>
>

Not my logic. Basic nutrition. The body cannot make all the proteins
it needs without protein from foods. Protein is therefore essential.

OTOH, the body can make the the glucose it needs. Carbs are therefore
inessential.

Of course, we have one example of a population who lived virtually carb
free for much of the year, the Inuit. Want to tell them that carbs were
essential?

Dana

Shuurai wrote:

>>>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.
>
>
> Not in any quantity? Are you serious? They've been the most
> widespread foodsource since the beginning of human civilization; and in
> fact are what allowed human civilization as we know it in the first
> place.

True. But civilization is relatively recent.
>
>
>> 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?
>
>
> As interesting as it is to watch you dance around and change your
> position with every post, it doesn't make for good conversation - why
> don't you actually pick one and try sticking with it for a while?

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.

Dana
>

"Dana Carpender" > wrote
> Of course, we have one example of a population who lived virtually carb
> free for much of the year, the Inuit. Want to tell them that carbs were
> essential?

" In conclusion, even though the carbohydrate intake of the Inuit population
is slightly lower than that of the Quebec population, we do not consider
this intake to be very low."

Dewailly, Blanchet, et al

Aren't you tired of looking stupid?

"Dana Carpender" > wrote
> 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 everyone in this thread has shown you why you're wrong.

We can't help it if you're thick headed.

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.

An overreaction by millions is still an overreaction.

You tell people there is a way for them to do as little as possible
(ie. eat this instead of that) and lose weight - especially in America
- and millions of 'em are gonna do it. Add the idea that they get to
blame someone (in this case, the entire food industry) for the
condition they're in already; and that they get to do something
(anything, seriously anything) that goes against commonly held ideals
(I get to eat what!?) then you have a fad people can really throw
themselves at.

What I find interesting is that people will ignore groups like the AMA,
ADA, the National Academy of Sciences, and so forth in favor of a
non-peer-reviewed, unscientific and largely anecdotal study; all
because it says what they'd like to hear. \

> Problem with diet systems is they're promoted without taking age, sex &
> lifestyle into consideration.

There was a study done recently - I'd have to dig for the link - that
showed pretty strongly that starting just about *any* regimented diet
from nothing would generally show results. There are people out there
who have started eating nothing but fast food and they lost weight.

The reason isn't so much what they're eating but that fact that it's
all of a sudden being controlled. Instead of eating whatever they like
(which, for most people turns out to be more than they realize once
they start keeping track) they actually watch what they eat, and when
they eat it.

Similar thing happens with those "lose weight while you sleep"
suppliments that are often sold in magazines and on television. Most
of them have as a requirement that you not eat for a set number of
hours before going to bed. Studies have shown that it's not the
suppliment that makes you lose the weight - it's the fact that you're
no longer eating junk before going to bed.