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.

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.

In fact, the rise of human
> civilization has been directly correlated with the successful
> cultivation of these grains.

True.

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

Or vegetables and nuts. Cows have molars, they evolved to eat grass.
That they can use those molars to eat grains doesn't change that.


>
>>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. See above.

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.

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

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.

>
> 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.

Beg to differ, except in that the word "meant" is meaningless. But we
did not evolve to eat a diet of grains and beans.

Dana