|
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
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. 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. |
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
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. > > 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. Data Point: I've been eating a low carb diet for going on eleven years now. I am very healthy; all the tests confirm it. Have kept 40 pounds off (with the occasional bump upward after a nasty car wreck, when I couldn't exercise; and when I've gone hypothyroid.) Drastically improved my energy level. Enjoy the food tremendously, and really don't miss anything. 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. Dana |
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
jombithedjinn wrote: > You obviously know nothing about nutrition. You shouldn't say things like that when you are just about to say things like this: > Typical diets are inferior to the atkins diet A diet that forces you into an illness in order to create a particular look for a purely subjective reason is inferior to almost any other diet in almost every way. Atkins was a scam, then a fad, now it's just an old joke. --Blair |
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
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. --Blair |
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
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. > > --Blair Could you elaborate? Thanks! P |
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
Blair P. Houghton wrote: > jombithedjinn wrote: > >>You obviously know nothing about nutrition. > > > You shouldn't say things like that when you are just about to say > things like this: > > >>Typical diets are inferior to the atkins diet > > > A diet that forces you into an illness in order to create a particular > look for a purely subjective reason is inferior to almost any other > diet in almost every way. > People who think ketosis is an illness are misinformed. It's very likely that our hunter/gatherer ancestors spent much of their lives in ketosis. > Atkins was a scam, then a fad, now it's just an old joke. Atkins works, has been around for over 30 years, and has quite a lot of independant clinical research backing it up. Dana |
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
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? Dana |
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
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 |
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
"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. |
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
"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. |
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
"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? Me. It's a scam. It's unhealthy, and you're a ****ing moron if you buy into "fad" diets. But hey, since this all started with an offhanded comment by Trijcomm, I'm not surprised it drew other hopelessly clueless rubes. |
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
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? > [ All the cross - addresses deleted ] I read the first Atkins book through about the first 60 pages. It was such nonsense I kept waiting for the punch line. When it hadn't appeared by then, I tossed it. Then to my surprise it didn't go away and developed a whole generation of True Believers. So I read whichever was the latest book about a year and a half ago. Once again it's premises were ludicrous but now there was a lot of pseudo-science arrayed around it. All the same fallacies and omissions and lack of rigor of all the other fads that Americans surround themselves with. Not that my reading experience means anything, but: you asked. -aem |
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
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. Dana > > |
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
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 |
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
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 P |
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
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: |
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
In article .com>,
"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...FwEzR8hglMMGDf > YZl > http://tinyurl.com/mym2n > You should also use Google to find out where this thread originated. And to find out who the OP was. HTH. -- Stefan: |
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
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. Dana |
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
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. -- Stefan: |
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
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. |
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
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. 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. Dana |
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
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. You might consider the fact that we humans have molars - teeth specifically designed for grinding fiberous materials like *gasp* 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. > 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 wouldn't have enzymes specifically designed for digesting them. We wouldn't have survived and in fact *thrived* on them for thousands and thousands of 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. |
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
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. > > To add a quick cite; from a PBS site re evolution: 1. How long does evolution take? Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime. There are cases in quickly reproducing life forms like bacteria and fruit flies, however, where evolution can be seen happening in a matter of weeks for the bacteria and many months for the flies. In these cases the relatively large number of generations in a given period of time is key, since evolutionary change occurs incrementally from one generation to the next. All else being equal, the more generations you have, the more quickly evolution happens. Since human beings are not bacteria nor fruit flies, and tend to roughly 20 year generations, I'm leaning toward that thousands-to-hundreds-of-thousands figure. Makes 10,000 years seem damned puny. Dana |
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
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 |
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
Lord Hatred wrote: > 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. As I stated before, you can't accept > evolution of a species without evolution within the species. > I do. Now, compare 2-3 million years with 10,000 years. Dana |
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
> > Just a note: trimming all the cross posting out of the headers may > lead to a more reasoned discussion. > > Susan <just sayinzall> > Bite me -- ----------------------------------== Double T the legally blind referee ----------------------------------== Like you read the bullshit down here mWO 4 a long time baby |
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
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. 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! They went days without eating. 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. Then wait a few days. Start over. > 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! -- Stefan: |
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
> > 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. Well, gee whiz you got me on the "eon" thing... now how in the hell is that relevant to the point of the discussion? 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. > 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. Molars are more specialized towards grains than veggies - though nuts are certainly a possibility. > >>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. Even if we take what you wrote above as a given, all we could conclude is that they're designed for veggies, nuts, grains - or some combination of all. > 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. So given that we have teeth and digestive systems that work with fruits, veggies, AND grains, how do you conclude that we are not meant to eat grains? > 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. Human populations absolutely skyrocketed around grains - that's what "thriving" means. And the decrease in height, weakened bones and so forth have *also* been explained by population conditions. > > 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. We evolved to eat a widely varied diet that included grains and beans. |
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
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 |
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
In article >,
Dana Carpender > wrote: > Lord Hatred wrote: > > > 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. As I stated before, you can't accept > > evolution of a species without evolution within the species. > > > > I do. Now, compare 2-3 million years with 10,000 years. > Ok. Now add in rapidly advanced species migration and the environment adaptations necessary, the ability to reason, religion, bacterial evolution (which you admitted can be rapid), and evolution within the species on a basic level to combat the bacterial evolution. Today's modern man simply would NOT be able to digest the foods from the diet of early man. Even going back so far as the middle ages. We wouldn't be bale to eat that diet. Why? Because we've learned to process our foods for consumption. Our bodies adapted to and for that change. Hell, you even admitted that we have an enzyme used to consume grains. Your attempt at deflecting the point falls flat because it simply ignores what it can do. You are cherry picking simply so you can guard your territory (ie, in this case, your chosen diet). That is intellectually fraudulent. -- Stefan: |
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
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: |
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
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. > > 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. 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. |
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
Dave Smith wrote:
> j > > 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. Oops..... in response to the topic. I am allergic to a lot of the things in pizza and always thought the perfect beverage to accompany it was beer, but am also allergic to hops, malt and yeast. I can tolerate beer or pizza but not both together. I don't order pizzas. I rarely eat it. There is a Pizza Hut next to the grocery store where I do a lot of my shopping, and it always seems to be busy. |
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
"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. |
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
"Dana Carpender" > wrote
> we've been homo sapiens for an estimated 200,000 years. First sane thing you've said this entire thread. |
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
"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. |
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
"Dave Smith" > wrote
> Humans are carnivores. Incorrect. Technically "omnivores". |
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
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. Carmen |
Seriously...do people eat Pizza Hut in real life?
"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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:58 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter