Lord Hatred wrote:

> In article >,
> Dana Carpender > wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>>
>>
>>No, I'm unconvinced that 10,000 years -- maybe 500 generations -- is
>>long enough for evolution to have completely altered our nutritional
>>requirements. If grains and beans weren't essential for the first
>>190,000 years (and our forerunners for roughly 2 million years previous
>>to that), there's no reason why they should be essential now. If a diet
>>based on animal foods, vegetables, fruit (keeping in mind that modern
>>fruit is candy compared to wild fruit), nuts and seeds, and the like,
>>nourished our ancestors well for 190,000 years (and again, their
>>forebears for another 2 million years), there's no reason why it
>>shouldn't do so now.
>
>
>
> What about cooking meat? If you're going to go this route then you
> should go all the way with your argument. Early man did not cook meat.
> Thus, it is unnecessary for us to do so now.

True enough. And I rather like carpaccio.

It's actually unhealthy to
> do so! The human body wasn't designed to eat cooked meat. Also. hell,
> why eat every day? They didn't!

I don't know that we know that. Indeed, I've read studies indicating
that the average hunter-gatherer ate a diet that compared pretty well,
calorically speaking, with the average non-impoverished citizen of a
third world country, and higher in calories than your average
impoverished member of first-world countries.

They went days without eating.

Cite?

We should
> too! It's healthy with out current lifestyles to not eat everyday. So
> here's what you do. Go to the local wooded lands, pick a few random
> berries. Bring them home. Feast on them for a good day or two. Then go
> out and kill yourself a deer. Drag it back home. Use a sharp rock to cut
> it open. Don't use knives. Early man didn't use them. They used rocks.
> We weren't meant to use knives. Use the sharp rock to ct open that deer.
> Cut off a slab and eat it. Yum. Feel those all natural life giving
> juices fill your mouth! Feel them dribbling down your chin. This is what
> man was meant to do! Be covered in blood. Eat nothing but that deer
> until it goes rancid.

Funny you should mention it. I have venison in the fridge right now.
Also grass-fed beef.

>>Furthermore, I see evidence that a diet based on concentrated
>>carbohydrate foods is a good idea. Do a quick pubmed search on
>>"glycemic load," and see what turns up.
>
>
> Bah Gawd! Eating too many carbs is bad for you! Somebody alert the
> media! This might cause widespread obesity and other health disorders!
> I'm glad you saved me! I almost ate this entire bag of sugar and drank
> this nice thick glass of flour and water!

Probably not. But have you eaten a plate of pasta recently? Same
thing, nutritionally speaking.

But if you agree that eating a high glycemic load is a bad idea, what
the hell are you arguing about?

Dana

In article >,
Dana Carpender > wrote:

> Lord Hatred wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Dana Carpender > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>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.
> >>
> >>
> >>No, I'm unconvinced that 10,000 years -- maybe 500 generations -- is
> >>long enough for evolution to have completely altered our nutritional
> >>requirements. If grains and beans weren't essential for the first
> >>190,000 years (and our forerunners for roughly 2 million years previous
> >>to that), there's no reason why they should be essential now. If a diet
> >>based on animal foods, vegetables, fruit (keeping in mind that modern
> >>fruit is candy compared to wild fruit), nuts and seeds, and the like,
> >>nourished our ancestors well for 190,000 years (and again, their
> >>forebears for another 2 million years), there's no reason why it
> >>shouldn't do so now.
> >
> >
> >
> > What about cooking meat? If you're going to go this route then you
> > should go all the way with your argument. Early man did not cook meat.
> > Thus, it is unnecessary for us to do so now.
>
> True enough. And I rather like carpaccio.
>
> It's actually unhealthy to
> > do so! The human body wasn't designed to eat cooked meat. Also. hell,
> > why eat every day? They didn't!
>
> I don't know that we know that. Indeed, I've read studies indicating
> that the average hunter-gatherer ate a diet that compared pretty well,
> calorically speaking, with the average non-impoverished citizen of a
> third world country, and higher in calories than your average
> impoverished member of first-world countries.
>
> They went days without eating.
>
> Cite?
>

Nothing on hand. Science texts and articles I have read.

> We should
> > too! It's healthy with out current lifestyles to not eat everyday. So
> > here's what you do. Go to the local wooded lands, pick a few random
> > berries. Bring them home. Feast on them for a good day or two. Then go
> > out and kill yourself a deer. Drag it back home. Use a sharp rock to cut
> > it open. Don't use knives. Early man didn't use them. They used rocks.
> > We weren't meant to use knives. Use the sharp rock to ct open that deer.
> > Cut off a slab and eat it. Yum. Feel those all natural life giving
> > juices fill your mouth! Feel them dribbling down your chin. This is what
> > man was meant to do! Be covered in blood. Eat nothing but that deer
> > until it goes rancid.
>
> Funny you should mention it. I have venison in the fridge right now.
> Also grass-fed beef.
>

The fridge? Early man didn't use freon to cool their meat. That is
poisonous.

> >>Furthermore, I see evidence that a diet based on concentrated
> >>carbohydrate foods is a good idea. Do a quick pubmed search on
> >>"glycemic load," and see what turns up.
> >
> >
> > Bah Gawd! Eating too many carbs is bad for you! Somebody alert the
> > media! This might cause widespread obesity and other health disorders!
> > I'm glad you saved me! I almost ate this entire bag of sugar and drank
> > this nice thick glass of flour and water!
>
> Probably not. But have you eaten a plate of pasta recently? Same
> thing, nutritionally speaking.
>
> But if you agree that eating a high glycemic load is a bad idea, what
> the hell are you arguing about?
>


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



--
Stefan:

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

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.

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
>

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.

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:
> 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. \

Shuurai wrote:

> 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.

And millions of them have lost weight. Improved their health, too.

Add the idea that they get to
> blame someone (in this case, the entire food industry)

What you eat is your choice.

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;

You're aware that there are a lot of studies of low carb diets in
peer-reviewed journals? You're aware, too, that there are studies
showing that recommendations of a low fat diet based on complex carbs
turned out to be valueless?

all
> because it says what they'd like to hear. \


I ate a low fat diet high in whole grains and legumes for *years*. I
was not eating junk. I hadn't bought a loaf of white bread in over 15
years. I didn't drink soda. I exercised vigorously. I was *GAINING*
weight, I was hungry all the time, my energy swings were nasty, and I
had borderline high blood pressure. I *did* what the authorities told
me to do. It didn't work for me. Low carb did, and does.

That's not "what I'd like to hear." It's what happened to me.

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