Doug Freyburger wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> Hackmatack wrote:
> > ImStillMags > wrote:
> >
> >> it seems that there are more
> >> and more people who are finding out that when they eliminate wheat
> and >> most other grains from their diets, their health improves
> greatly.
> >
> > It's hard to argue with success if a grain-free diet is working for
> > you.
>
> Not to some people. There is a constant stream of denial that eating
> grain can possibly be damaging to anyone. There is a constant stream
> of assertion that going grain freee is a fad choice that has zero
> benefit to anyone. Mnay do argue with success. Note the people in
> this thread who react to statements with "False" when the statements
> made are irritating and to many-but-not all irrelevant but not
> incorrect.

This is because you are making it out like it is true to all, and
anyone who doesnt believe in your low carb paleo ethic diet is wrong.

> Switching from ranching herds of grass eaters to farming grain that
> started civilization aroun 10-15K years ago saw to it that grain was
> and is an economic necessity.

Umm, they didnt ranch herds before agriculture. Granted they
domesticated dogs and a few other things before then, but largely the
true ranching happens simulataneously as they gain both skills.



--

Doug Freyburger wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> Steve Pope wrote:
> > Doug Freyburger > wrote:
> >
> > > Not to some people. There is a constant stream of denial that
> > > eating grain can possibly be damaging to anyone. There is a
> > > constant stream of assertion that going grain freee is a fad
> > > choice that has zero benefit to anyone. Mnay do argue with
> > > success.
> >
> > The evidence points to there are a few percent of the public to
> > whom grains are toxic in some form or another. The rest of
> > everyone can eat grain and have no ill effects. I do not think the
> > evidence supports subclinical bad effects of grain in the larger
> > population.
> >
> > This is not "denial" it is merely skepticism.
>
> So you are not one of those who categorically deny that anyone ever
> gets symptoms from eating grain. Nor are you one of those who say
> that when the folks who experience the symptoms say so they are
> making it up.

I havent seen anyone say that here. Even i said some have it but that
it can be easily confused with another issue.

--

cshenk > wrote:

>Doug Freyburger wrote in rec.food.cooking:

>> Steve Pope wrote:

>> > The evidence points to there are a few percent of the public to
>> > whom grains are toxic in some form or another. The rest of
>> > everyone can eat grain and have no ill effects. I do not think the
>> > evidence supports subclinical bad effects of grain in the larger
>> > population.

>> > This is not "denial" it is merely skepticism.

>> So you are not one of those who categorically deny that anyone ever
>> gets symptoms from eating grain. Nor are you one of those who say
>> that when the folks who experience the symptoms say so they are
>> making it up.

>I havent seen anyone say that here. Even i said some have it but that
>it can be easily confused with another issue.

Well, no informed person would deny the existence of celiac
disorder or wheat allergies. Nor will I randomly allege that
someone is "making up" their symptoms. What I am skeptical of is
claims that there is a widespread wheat problem unknowingly affecting
a great many people when there is no science pointing to this.
For a claim to scientific it must be backed by experiments leading
to a measurable metric, ideally representable by numerical numbers,
that could not be subjective, faked, or placebo-effect. The experiments
must be repeatable and the hypothesis, falsifiable. Some of
these really broad claims about wheat problems do not seem to
fall under what I would choose to call science. I would say that
a lot of this constitutes arguments that are persuasive but from a
non-science perspective.


Steve

Steve Pope wrote:
> Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>
>>So I encounter people who exhibit what I consider obvious mild
>>intolerance symptoms who assert they have no problems with any food.
>
> What symptoms exactly?

Symptoms that could as easily be dairy intolerance as grain intolerance.
Sniffles, indigestion, a spouse that complains of snoring, compulsive
eating that starts when they eat a specific food, a change in body
temperature after eating a specific ingredient. Thing is it's not an
exact list because food intolerances come from many sources and have
many mechanisms. Inexact does not equal not obvious in my experience.

>>And I encounter people who say they are allergic to wheat yet when I ask
>>them the process they used to decide that they say they feel better
>>going wheat free. Neither has a basis in useable personal data.
>
>>Go off wheat for at least two weeks, but do it at the same total carb
>>grams. See if you can tell any difference in your health. Even if
>>there was an improvement you likely won't be able to tell.
>
> Yep.
>
>>See if
>>anyone else mentions your health improves. Outside perspective works
>>best at this step.
>
> That seems pretty dicey.

See it work at least once and I think you'll find it works very well.
It's the frog-in-a-pot concept. A frog in a heating pot does not notice
it, nor does a frog in a cooling pot. Intolerance symptoms tend to drop
off slowly over a period of a couple of weeks so they can easily be too
slow for the person involved to notice.

>>Add wheat back again. See if you can tell any
>>difference in your health. If a problem comes back, you won't need an
>>outside perspective at this step.

But add the intolerance food back in and the symptoms come back fast
enough they are easily noticed.

Before the intolerance food was eaten regularly and not even noticed,
like a part of the background. Not suspected because it had always been
there. Not suspected because it is not a problem for the majority.

An elimination and challenge pattern does have a justification for
reasons other than searching for a previously unknown mild intolerance -
It is a sysmtematic way for a foodie to expand food horizons. If you
were to go two weeks without dairy how could you get creative to make it
an enjoyable experience? If you were to go two weeks without eggs how
could you get creative to make it an enjoyable experience? Same thing
for grain, for nightshade family vegitables, for legumes, for red meat.
Any specific ingredient that you probably have several times per week
could be done this way. Any specific ingredient you don't have in a
typical week you've already done an eliminate and challenge without a
deliberate plan.

I know that few have any one specific food intolerance. I also know
there are a lot of different food intolerances. Folks react to dairy or
eggs without knowing it just like they react to grain without knowing
it. So maybe 10-20% of the population has a mild food intolerance.
It's eacy to find articles that suggest very roughly 1 in 7 have such an
intolerance without knowing it. It remains a guess but at least it's a
slightly educated guess. Their life would be somewhat better with
avoiding that ingredient.

On the one hand given those chances it makes sense to offer a foodie
motivation for doing an eliminate and challenge. Make it fun. On the
other hand knowing those chances when I encounter folks who assert they
have no food intolerances and that they know that for certain, I know
plenty of folks who make such assertions are incorrect for lack of data.

>>The reason I specified at the same total carb grams is in our world that
>>stresses low fat, plenty of people who do better on low carb than on low
>>fat will free better simply because they switched to a diet that works
>>for them. I felt better when I switched to low carb but after
>>experimentation I can eat plenty without ill effects. I had to wait
>>months before adding wheat back in. I had to be used to my new stable
>>health level and only add wheat back in at the expense of other carb
>>sources. But when I tried wheat, bam specific symptoms returned.
>
>>The reason it seems like a fad is people think they are wheat intolerant
>>when what they actually discovered is they do better on low carb than on
>>low fat.
>
> Okay, that's another possibility, and one I alluded to -- a conflation
> of wheat intolerance with high-carb diets in general.

I do think this is why discussion of gluten intolerance appears to be a
fad. With the pressure to go low fat when that only works for a large
minority of the population has led few to try low carb which also works
for a large minority of the population. If someone cuts out grain and
feels better that could mean they have a mild gluten intolerance
(likelyhood 5% or under) or that they do well on low carb (likelyhood
40% or under). It's not hard to compare those numbers and figure
there's a conflation. The 5% number is from this thread and other
sources and is probably higher than the real percentage. The 40% is my
(somewhere between educated and wild) guess of how many people in the
general population will do well when trying low carb. Low carb isn't
for everyone but it is for slightly more than low fat. Slightly more.

meh wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 16:28:05 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags >
> wrote:
>
>> So.....let's discuss the way the American public has been advertised,
>> browbeaten and 'advised' into eating a low fat, high carb, cholesterol
>> is scary diet for the past 30 years.
>
> Thankfully, *I* never listened to that mantra!
>
> Having finally had my cholesterol checked last year, it was
> under 200, but 'out of balance' according to the doctors.
>
> Using only red yeast rice and niacin, I brought it down to 130,
> and a ratio of 2/1 from 5/1 (bad to good).
>
> I LOVE things that are supposed to be VERY bad for me,
> but they DO NOT affect me adversely, so I still eat them,
> just is smaller quantities.
>
>
Be careful with that red rice yeast extract. In the past, some
formulae were found to contain the prescription
cholesterol-lowering agent too. I went the RRYE route and believe
that is one reason why I now have liver damage.
--
Jean B.

cshenk wrote:
>
> If that seems odd to you, you should be able to see plenty of threads
> where I have posted very similar meals since 2007.

It just means you do well on low fat. A large minority of the
population does well on low fat. Not a majority and not everone but a
large minority. The problem isn't thinking low fat is good. The
problem is thinking it works for everyone.

ImStillMags wrote:
> On Aug 16, 9:50 am, Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>
>> Low carb does not equal paleo but there is a lot of overlap.- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> Well, I've stopped listening to all the so called 'experts',
> nutritionists and doctors who still tout the low fat high carb food
> pyramid myth.
>
> My health was going slowly downhill and my weight was going up and I
> was eating a supposedly healthy diet.... after I decided to quit
> wheat and see what happened I started poking around for wheat free
> recipes and ideas and then I discovered all the paleo and primal and
> ancestral diet sites and boards and information. I really resonated
> with Mark Sisson's Primal Blueprint approach.
>
> A little light bulb went off in my head. I now eat pretty much only
> fresh vegetables, some fruit mostly berries, meats, nuts and nut
> butters, almost no grains at all except for quinoa and some wild or
> black rice, only full fat dairy products like cheese and yogurt and
> a little cream for the coffee. I make my own flax meal 'bread'/
> muffins and those 'Oopsie' roll/bread thingies when I am craving a
> sandwich or need a bun for a hamburger.
>
> BTW if you guys haven't discovered the Oopsie rolls, they are a hoot
> to make and actually really good, they are quite bread like and hold
> up exceptionally well to sandwich making. Of course I came up with
> my own version which I like MUCH better than the original recipe. I
> will share both recipes if anyone is interested.
>
> yada yada, etc.etc........on the food lies......the bottom line for me
> is that I have lost over 50 pounds and still dropping, I eat GREAT, I
> have no more joint pain, back pain, I sleep like a baby, I feel really
> good, younger, more sprightly, etc.
>
> I still enjoy a glass of wine and a square of dark chocolate as well !
>

I have LC'd--even thought I was on it for good. Then tipped off.
More recently was doing well, but then some eating with my
daughter tipped me off it again. I will say that when I am into
the groove, it is great. And paleo makes a lot of sense to
me--both the content and perhaps grazing rather than having meals.

Yes, most nutritionists are just into the same old mantra--fat is
bad, carbs are good.

Btw, the old Suzanne Somers boards were great for
recipes--obviously not paleo. "Her" diet is actually Montignac's,
IIRC. For that type of approach, you can just pick the LC side of
the diet.

--
Jean B.

Ophelia wrote:
>
> "Doug Freyburger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> ImStillMags wrote:
>>>
>>> So.....let's discuss the way the American public has been advertised,
>>> browbeaten and 'advised' into eating a low fat, high carb, cholesterol
>>> is scary diet for the past 30 years......and that correlation to the
>>> obesity epidemic and accompanying health problems.
>>>
>>> Real food, meat, veggies, fruits, and little or no grains ....in other
>>> words a primal or ancestral diet is way better for the human animal
>>> than the convenience proccessed stuff people eat today.
>>>
>>>
>>> I know there are people on both sides of the fence here, but in MY
>>> life the primal-paleo-ancestral diet is
>>> doing amazing things for me weight wise and health wise.
>>>
>>> chime in....
>>
>> The fat-is-bad system works by sympathetic magic. You get salt by
>> burning poison metal with poison gas, therefore you get fat by eating
>> fat. All of the other statements start at that point. Fat is calorie
>> dense - Sure but it also keeps new hunger from coming back longer
>> calorie for calorie. Bulky veggies make you feel full - Sure but low
>> carb diets focus on bulky veggies so there's no point to the statement.
>> Studies show fat is bad - Only if you don't also control for carb intake
>> and start with the assumption that fat is bad in the first place.
>>
>> The carb-is-bad system works by setting the clock to 1960 and seeing
>> who's fat. It's the people who ate starchy diets before almost anyone
>> heard of the low fat mantra. Then start trying it.
>>
>> There's also the assumption that eating grain is good. Because no one
>> who gets symptoms from eating grain is to be believed. The actual
>> situation of bad-for-some does not equal bad-for-all but it absolutely
>> does not equal good-for-all which was the statement for very many years.
>>
>> Low carb does not equal paleo but there is a lot of overlap.
>
> For many years in UK the ptb have been advocating high carb for
> diabetics Recently that has changed and they are saying now that low
> carb is best! Heh who woulda thunk it? They now say that the reason
> for allowing high carb and low fat was that it kept the calories down
> and the insulin took care of that.
>
> I wonder how many people went blind or lost limbs because of that?
>
>
Gack! I have seen that sooooo many times. And there have been
fights about this on other NGs. It makes NO sense to advocate
higher carbs for diabetics.

--
Jean B.

Serene Vannoy wrote:
> On 08/17/2011 11:18 AM, ImStillMags wrote:
>> On Aug 17, 10:40 am, Serene > wrote:
>>
>>> And we died by the time we were 40. :-)
>>
>>
>> That is the usual argument. The reason people died at a younger age
>> was this.......medicine and the advances in medical practice.
>>
>> Life was a bit harder. We were still hunter gatherers. If someone
>> was injured while hunting, or got a cut infected, or broke a bone or a
>> tooth, too bad. Only so much the medicine man or witch doctor or
>> wise woman could do.
>>
>> Longevity increased as medicine progressed.
>>
>
> Sure, and it's still meaningless to say that we should eat what we ate
> way back then, when life was completely different and our bodies did
> completely different things.
>
> Serene
>
>
I don't think human nutritional needs change that rapidly. Nor do
I think our bodies need the junky prepared foods that abound today.

--
Jean B.

Hackmatack wrote:
>
> I think you've fairly summarized the part of Diamond's argument I was
> paraphrasing and, no doubt, oversimplifying. Diamond certainly has his
> critics, but I've found his books stimulating.

Diamond objects to dairy much like how I object to wheat. I figure he
personally is dairy intolerant in one form or another so he takes his
stance for the same reasons. He's on a campaign that dairy is
problematic for some. I'm on a campaign that wheat is problematic for
some.

I get his point. I tried an eliminate and challenge process to see if I
have dairy issues. Not in my case. But I understood that just
asserting I don't have dairy issues without an eliminate and challenge
issue was rolling the dice.

Actually I have slight trouble digesting sheep milk cheese. That is a
very low likleyhood situation. But once I learned that my experimenting
on myself I also learned that it does not trigger any other symptoms in
me. So if I want sheep milk cheese I can have it and chew gum to help
it through my stomach. Issue solved for me.

ImStillMags wrote:
> Helpful person > wrote:
>> ImStillMags > wrote:
>
>> > True. * You can eat less and exercise, which is wonderful. * *But if
>> > the food you are eating less of is still causing dis-ease in the body
>> > you have accomplished little.
>
>> That's a little harsh. *Which particular diseases are you concerned
>> about?
>
> I'm not talking about disease.....dis-ease.....joint pain, headaches,
> back pain, edema, inflammation, etc.

One of the many ways that mild food intolerances can express themselves.
Those are autoimmune symptoms that might or might not have dietary
sources. If you have them there's no downside to trying an eliminate
and challenge system on all of the ingredients you eat most days.
There's almost no down side. If you find the source you can practice
avoidance and the symptoms gradually go away without medication. If you
don't it was fun for a foodie and you learned it does not have a dietary
trigger.

Steve Pope wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> cshenk > wrote:
>
> > Doug Freyburger wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
> >> Steve Pope wrote:
>
> >> > The evidence points to there are a few percent of the public to
> >> > whom grains are toxic in some form or another. The rest of
> >> > everyone can eat grain and have no ill effects. I do not think
> the >> > evidence supports subclinical bad effects of grain in the
> larger >> > population.
>
> >> > This is not "denial" it is merely skepticism.
>
> >> So you are not one of those who categorically deny that anyone ever
> >> gets symptoms from eating grain. Nor are you one of those who say
> >> that when the folks who experience the symptoms say so they are
> >> making it up.
>
> > I havent seen anyone say that here. Even i said some have it but
> > that it can be easily confused with another issue.
>
> Well, no informed person would deny the existence of celiac
> disorder or wheat allergies. Nor will I randomly allege that
> someone is "making up" their symptoms. What I am skeptical of is
> claims that there is a widespread wheat problem unknowingly affecting
> a great many people when there is no science pointing to this.
> For a claim to scientific it must be backed by experiments leading
> to a measurable metric, ideally representable by numerical numbers,
> that could not be subjective, faked, or placebo-effect. The
> experiments must be repeatable and the hypothesis, falsifiable. Some
> of these really broad claims about wheat problems do not seem to
> fall under what I would choose to call science. I would say that
> a lot of this constitutes arguments that are persuasive but from a
> non-science perspective.

Correct Steve, and that's a very good definition of scientific method
for research. Needs a pretty big random base of testers as well with
multiple ethnic backgrounds (or the test will only be valid for the one
ethnic group used).

Would I be suprised if a particular ethnic group had a higher wheat
intolerance value? Not at all. Look for any area where some other
grain was the mainstay for a very LONG time, and you are apt to be
looking at a possible case of that. Japan would be a good pick likely?
South America maybe as i think they used mostly corn?

Conversely if you tested for allergies to iodine, I'd expect the
Japanese to run lower than the average of a long term land locked
population.

We already know some asian communities run a much higher lactose
intolerance level as they get older, losing the childhood ability to
assimulate it. Not all, but enough to be statistically interesting.
Asians aren't alone in this as you'll see in the below article.

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



--

Jean B. wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> meh wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 16:28:05 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > So.....let's discuss the way the American public has been
> > > advertised, browbeaten and 'advised' into eating a low fat, high
> > > carb, cholesterol is scary diet for the past 30 years.
> >
> > Thankfully, I never listened to that mantra!
> >
> > Having finally had my cholesterol checked last year, it was under
> > 200, but 'out of balance' according to the doctors.
> >
> > Using only red yeast rice and niacin, I brought it down to 130,
> > and a ratio of 2/1 from 5/1 (bad to good).
> >
> > I LOVE things that are supposed to be VERY bad for me,
> > but they DO NOT affect me adversely, so I still eat them, just is
> > smaller quantities.
> >
> >
> Be careful with that red rice yeast extract. In the past, some
> formulae were found to contain the prescription cholesterol-lowering
> agent too. I went the RRYE route and believe that is one reason why
> I now have liver damage.

Interesting. I don't do any suppliments or meds. I happen to be diet
reactive cholestrol. This in my case is clear. For others though, it
may not matter so much. Studies today are showing that but I'm a
little sckeptical that all the folks went as far into the diet change
as needed.

It could be mine is just the right sort where diet 'can do it' because
we've not had the same success with Don. Some success, but not as
much. Mostly we fixed his blood pressure with diet.



--

Doug Freyburger wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> cshenk wrote:
> >
> > If that seems odd to you, you should be able to see plenty of
> > threads where I have posted very similar meals since 2007.
>
> It just means you do well on low fat. A large minority of the
> population does well on low fat. Not a majority and not everone but a
> large minority. The problem isn't thinking low fat is good. The
> problem is thinking it works for everyone.

Yes, I have to be careful on what fats due to cholestrol. I don't even
try to advise all to do the same. I'm not extreme low fat either. I'm
just careful how much of the 'less good sorts' I take in over a week.
I'll balance it out over several days to an even keel.

Today for example is fresh bread (multi-grain, mostly whole but not
all) with real butter (used sparingly) and I'm going to try the
buttermilk chicken bit posted recently (chicken defrosting). I also
need to use up the last of the early season gobo (burdock root) and
about 1 cup of sliced of daikon. Havent decided dinner totally other
than the chicken.

Breakfast:
Fresh homemade multigrain bread (with butter)
Cucumber slices and russian dressing dip
dashi with spinach, shemenji (mushroom type), and tofu
Sliced peaches

Lunch:
Fresh homemade multigrain bread (buttered with thin layer of promite)
'sauteed' onions, eggplant, bell peppers, daikon and tofu
raw chinese broccoli stems with mustard dipping sauce
Fresh cherries (about to freeze the rest)

'sauteed' above is more of an asian trick. Little oil (I use olive
commonly), 2-3 tb dashi or broth and cook until almost no liquid left.

Dinner? Still developing. Probably no bread though unless it's flour
for the chicken. Apt to be rice flour if so as it crisps up nicer.
Eyeballing the last of the daikon, the last of the gobo, pickled beets,
ripe olives, purple cabbage and other oddiments.


--

Doug Freyburger > wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote:

>> Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>>
>>>So I encounter people who exhibit what I consider obvious mild
>>>intolerance symptoms who assert they have no problems with any food.
>>
>> What symptoms exactly?
>
>Symptoms that could as easily be dairy intolerance as grain intolerance.

Now that you mention it, I have done elimination diets twice (not once):
sodium, and dairy. Both were informative. Both were "conclusive"
in that they pointed me towards a course of action, but I would not
bet the farm on the results being definite or certainly proven.
In fact, the dairy elimination diet suggested I had a dairy intolerance,
and further treatment experiments with lactase suggested I had
lactose intolerance, but a few years later the intolerance went away.
So did I ever have lactose intolerance? It's unknown. The point
is these elimination diets can point to a valid course of action
without actually proving anything. And they certainly can't be
extrapolated to larger populations (e.g. "if it worked for me it
will work for other people".)

>>>See if
>>>anyone else mentions your health improves. Outside perspective works
>>>best at this step.
>>
>> That seems pretty dicey.

>See it work at least once and I think you'll find it works very well.

Wow. I'd have to see it work far more than once to conclude it
"works very well". Just once or even several times could be a fluke,
placebo effect, etc.

If the elimination diets are being done blindly, that improves the
quality of evidence, but I suspect in the instances you are discussing,
they are not.

So you're extrapolating from a very small number of non-blind
experiments. You do realize that is not scientific, I hope.


Steve

Doug Freyburger wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> ImStillMags wrote:
> > Helpful person > wrote:
> >> ImStillMags > wrote:
> >
> >> > True. * You can eat less and exercise, which is wonderful. *
> *But if >> > the food you are eating less of is still causing
> dis-ease in the body >> > you have accomplished little.
> >
> >> That's a little harsh. *Which particular diseases are you concerned
> >> about?
> >
> > I'm not talking about disease.....dis-ease.....joint pain,
> > headaches, back pain, edema, inflammation, etc.
>
> One of the many ways that mild food intolerances can express
> themselves. Those are autoimmune symptoms that might or might not
> have dietary sources. If you have them there's no downside to trying
> an eliminate and challenge system on all of the ingredients you eat
> most days. There's almost no down side. If you find the source you
> can practice avoidance and the symptoms gradually go away without
> medication. If you don't it was fun for a foodie and you learned it
> does not have a dietary trigger.

Now that you've milded up on the 'wheat is bad' I'm not having a
problem agreeing with you. There's nothing at all wrong with trying
different diets to see if some element to your health is related.

Since we eat almost as much rice as a Japanese person historically did,
we have often not had any wheat for 2 weeks or more when we lived
there. The only thing it did to us 3 was make everyone want 'mommy
home from her ship to to make bread'. (The Japanese are a wonderful
people but i never found a bread there that was even as good as 3 month
old frozen shipped wonderbread you could get at the commisary as one of
it's meager offerings).

Conversely a lot of people are mildly lactose intolerant but do not
realize it. The problem for them, is if they cook mostly from premade
items, 'milk by products' are almost as common as added salt.


--

Doug Freyburger > wrote:
> Hackmatack wrote:
>>
>> I think you've fairly summarized the part of Diamond's argument I was
>> paraphrasing and, no doubt, oversimplifying. Diamond certainly has his
>> critics, but I've found his books stimulating.
>
> Diamond objects to dairy much like how I object to wheat. I figure he
> personally is dairy intolerant in one form or another so he takes his
> stance for the same reasons. He's on a campaign that dairy is
> problematic for some. I'm on a campaign that wheat is problematic for
> some.
>
> I get his point. I tried an eliminate and challenge process to see if I
> have dairy issues. Not in my case. But I understood that just
> asserting I don't have dairy issues without an eliminate and challenge
> issue was rolling the dice.
>
> Actually I have slight trouble digesting sheep milk cheese. That is a
> very low likleyhood situation. But once I learned that my experimenting
> on myself I also learned that it does not trigger any other symptoms in
> me. So if I want sheep milk cheese I can have it and chew gum to help
> it through my stomach. Issue solved for me.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same Diamond. "Guns, Germs and Steel"
is not about nutrition at all, except indirectly. The question he starts
with is why a tiny band of Spaniards managed to defeat a sophisticated army
of thousands of Inca in South America. To his great credit, he has no truck
with the "because European civilization was inherently superior" argument,
and its many variants. Basically the Europeans arrived in Peru well-equiped
with the three items in his title because of a series of geographical
accidents. How that happened is what the book is about.

In article >, "Jean B." >
wrote:


> Yes, most nutritionists are just into the same old mantra--fat is
> bad, carbs are good.

As a diabetic, that hasn't been my experience. The mantra is:

Fat bad. Protein bad. Carbs bad.

But if you don't eat any of those, you'll die, so I guess I'll let you
have a little bit of each. They are mostly into carb restriction,
though.

Again, I'm a diabetic, so that's what I'm being told.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Dan Abel > wrote:

>In article >, "Jean B." >

>> Yes, most nutritionists are just into the same old mantra--fat is
>> bad, carbs are good.

>As a diabetic, that hasn't been my experience. The mantra is:

>Fat bad. Protein bad. Carbs bad.

I actually have yet to hear a nutritionist say "carbs are good".

At a minimum there is a concept of good carbs and bad carbs, but
the exact notion of good and bad depends on who you talk to.

>But if you don't eat any of those, you'll die, so I guess I'll let you
>have a little bit of each. They are mostly into carb restriction,
>though.

>Again, I'm a diabetic, so that's what I'm being told.

Michael Pollan says to "Eat food, not very much, and mostly plants".


Steve

cshenk wrote:
>
> Conversely a lot of people are mildly lactose intolerant but do not
> realize it. The problem for them, is if they cook mostly from premade
> items, 'milk by products' are almost as common as added salt.

There are plenty of people with mild intolerance to milk proteins as
well. Likely in the 1-2% range as with mild wheat intolerances. There
will not be humans who have problems with the proteins in human milks
because of evolution, but drinking cow/sheep/goat milk is every bit as
new on an evolutionary time scale as eating wheat/rice/corn is. There's
every bit as much reason to say that "cow's milks is bad" as there is to
say "wheat is bad". Same type of context, same basic reasons, roughly
the same percentage of the population.

With wheat I can substitute rye. Others who are gluten tolerant need to
go to corn. Others who are celiac should avoid grains in general though
I don't know if that's cereal grains or if it includes
buckwheat/quinao/amaranth as well. It is worth trying an eliminate and
challenge drill on grains to see if you have problem with them and if
you do experiment with which ones. Just stating you don't have any
intolerances without doing so is a guess not based on data.

It's parallel with milk and dairy products. Some people need to
substitute goat milk in place of cow milk. Others need to stick to
fermented products like yogurt or cheese to avoid the lactose. Others
still need to avoid dairy in general. Same comment about trying an
eliminate and challenge at some point.

Doug Freyburger > wrote:

>There are plenty of people with mild intolerance to milk proteins as
>well. Likely in the 1-2% range as with mild wheat intolerances.
>[..] It's parallel with milk and dairy products. Some people need to
>substitute goat milk in place of cow milk.

Goat milk has less lactose, less protein, and way more fat than
bovine milk. What I haven't figured out is whether this different
component balance by itself explains some individual's better tolerance
for it, as opposed to their being intolerant to the bovine components
specifically.

Steve

"Doug Freyburger" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Pope wrote:
>> Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>>
>>>So I encounter people who exhibit what I consider obvious mild
>>>intolerance symptoms who assert they have no problems with any food.
>>
>> What symptoms exactly?
>
> Symptoms that could as easily be dairy intolerance as grain intolerance.
> Sniffles, indigestion, a spouse that complains of snoring, compulsive
> eating that starts when they eat a specific food, a change in body
> temperature after eating a specific ingredient. Thing is it's not an
> exact list because food intolerances come from many sources and have
> many mechanisms. Inexact does not equal not obvious in my experience.

And it can vary from person to person. My mom reports being unable to stop
eating that which she shouldn't have. My daughter and I are just the
opposite. If we know a food makes us sick we don't ever want to risk eating
it. My mom claims that she craves the foods she souldn't have.

And in many cases the symptoms are much delayed so the person has a hard
time connecting the offending food to the symptoms. For me, if I eat eggs
all the time I am just sick all the time. I grew up thinking that was just
the way I was. Then when my daughter was diagnosed with an egg allergy, I
quit eating them. I was still sick all the time because I had other
allergies I didn't know of.

But then after a couple of years I ate egg salad from a salad bar. I became
sick about 16 hours later. Thought it was food poisoning. But then
stupidly I ate the rest of the egg salad. Was sick about 2 hours later.

So then some time went by and I made egg salad out of some eggs that I
bought for my husband but he didn't eat. Same exact set of symptoms so then
I knew it was the eggs! This was later confirmed by a blood test.

But really how many people are going to lay off of the eggs if they don't
see a reason to? I only did to try to make it easier on my daughter. I
felt if I wasn't eating the things she couldn't eat, it would be easier for
her.

<snip>



> I know that few have any one specific food intolerance. I also know
> there are a lot of different food intolerances. Folks react to dairy or
> eggs without knowing it just like they react to grain without knowing
> it. So maybe 10-20% of the population has a mild food intolerance.
> It's eacy to find articles that suggest very roughly 1 in 7 have such an
> intolerance without knowing it. It remains a guess but at least it's a
> slightly educated guess. Their life would be somewhat better with
> avoiding that ingredient.

I agree with that. And if you have multiple intolerances it can make it
very difficult to sort it out on your own.
>
> On the one hand given those chances it makes sense to offer a foodie
> motivation for doing an eliminate and challenge. Make it fun. On the
> other hand knowing those chances when I encounter folks who assert they
> have no food intolerances and that they know that for certain, I know
> plenty of folks who make such assertions are incorrect for lack of data.
>
>>>The reason I specified at the same total carb grams is in our world that
>>>stresses low fat, plenty of people who do better on low carb than on low
>>>fat will free better simply because they switched to a diet that works
>>>for them. I felt better when I switched to low carb but after
>>>experimentation I can eat plenty without ill effects. I had to wait
>>>months before adding wheat back in. I had to be used to my new stable
>>>health level and only add wheat back in at the expense of other carb
>>>sources. But when I tried wheat, bam specific symptoms returned.
>>
>>>The reason it seems like a fad is people think they are wheat intolerant
>>>when what they actually discovered is they do better on low carb than on
>>>low fat.
>>
>> Okay, that's another possibility, and one I alluded to -- a conflation
>> of wheat intolerance with high-carb diets in general.
>
> I do think this is why discussion of gluten intolerance appears to be a
> fad. With the pressure to go low fat when that only works for a large
> minority of the population has led few to try low carb which also works
> for a large minority of the population. If someone cuts out grain and
> feels better that could mean they have a mild gluten intolerance
> (likelyhood 5% or under) or that they do well on low carb (likelyhood
> 40% or under). It's not hard to compare those numbers and figure
> there's a conflation. The 5% number is from this thread and other
> sources and is probably higher than the real percentage. The 40% is my
> (somewhere between educated and wild) guess of how many people in the
> general population will do well when trying low carb. Low carb isn't
> for everyone but it is for slightly more than low fat. Slightly more.

I don't know how many people have a problem with wheat. I don't. I did
give it up totally for a couple of years. And I don't eat a lot of it now.
I have to be super careful with bread and I don't dare eat it in a
restaurant unless they can for sure tell me what is in it. They usually
can't. Most bread has milk in it. And if purchased from a bakery there is
often cross contamination with milk, eggs or nuts.

Just the other day I picked up a loaf of potato bread that I have been
buying for years. It was always safe. But then when we were putting the
groceries away my daughter noticed the "may contain" statement. So
apparently they are now baking or packaging it in a different place and it
is no longer safe for me to eat.

"Doug Freyburger" > wrote in message
...
> cshenk wrote:
>>
>> If that seems odd to you, you should be able to see plenty of threads
>> where I have posted very similar meals since 2007.
>
> It just means you do well on low fat. A large minority of the
> population does well on low fat. Not a majority and not everone but a
> large minority. The problem isn't thinking low fat is good. The
> problem is thinking it works for everyone.

I eat a low fat diet because that is what I prefer to eat. I still have
cholesterol problems. Mine isn't high but the LDL, HDL and Triglycerides
aren't where they should be.

"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Jean B." >
> wrote:
>
>
>> Yes, most nutritionists are just into the same old mantra--fat is
>> bad, carbs are good.
>
> As a diabetic, that hasn't been my experience. The mantra is:
>
> Fat bad. Protein bad. Carbs bad.
>
> But if you don't eat any of those, you'll die, so I guess I'll let you
> have a little bit of each. They are mostly into carb restriction,
> though.
>
> Again, I'm a diabetic, so that's what I'm being told.

My daughter is not diabetic (yet) but was just diagnosed with producing
waaaay too much insulin and is insulin resistant. The Dr. told her to eat
low carb.

I am diabetic too. I do not believe there is one diet that will work for
all of us. I too produce waaaay too much insulin and am insulin resistant
but... I have gastroparesis so don't digest most of the foods that would be
on a low carb diet. So I do eat carbs and the fast acting kind like white
rice, white bread and mashed potatoes. Because I can digest them. When you
have more than one medical condition you just have to do the best that you
can when it comes to diet.

"Jean B." > wrote in message
...
> Ophelia wrote:
>>
>> "Doug Freyburger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> ImStillMags wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So.....let's discuss the way the American public has been advertised,
>>>> browbeaten and 'advised' into eating a low fat, high carb, cholesterol
>>>> is scary diet for the past 30 years......and that correlation to the
>>>> obesity epidemic and accompanying health problems.
>>>>
>>>> Real food, meat, veggies, fruits, and little or no grains ....in other
>>>> words a primal or ancestral diet is way better for the human animal
>>>> than the convenience proccessed stuff people eat today.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I know there are people on both sides of the fence here, but in MY
>>>> life the primal-paleo-ancestral diet is
>>>> doing amazing things for me weight wise and health wise.
>>>>
>>>> chime in....
>>>
>>> The fat-is-bad system works by sympathetic magic. You get salt by
>>> burning poison metal with poison gas, therefore you get fat by eating
>>> fat. All of the other statements start at that point. Fat is calorie
>>> dense - Sure but it also keeps new hunger from coming back longer
>>> calorie for calorie. Bulky veggies make you feel full - Sure but low
>>> carb diets focus on bulky veggies so there's no point to the statement.
>>> Studies show fat is bad - Only if you don't also control for carb intake
>>> and start with the assumption that fat is bad in the first place.
>>>
>>> The carb-is-bad system works by setting the clock to 1960 and seeing
>>> who's fat. It's the people who ate starchy diets before almost anyone
>>> heard of the low fat mantra. Then start trying it.
>>>
>>> There's also the assumption that eating grain is good. Because no one
>>> who gets symptoms from eating grain is to be believed. The actual
>>> situation of bad-for-some does not equal bad-for-all but it absolutely
>>> does not equal good-for-all which was the statement for very many years.
>>>
>>> Low carb does not equal paleo but there is a lot of overlap.
>>
>> For many years in UK the ptb have been advocating high carb for
>> diabetics Recently that has changed and they are saying now that low
>> carb is best! Heh who woulda thunk it? They now say that the reason for
>> allowing high carb and low fat was that it kept the calories down and the
>> insulin took care of that.
>>
>> I wonder how many people went blind or lost limbs because of that?
>>
>>
> Gack! I have seen that sooooo many times. And there have been fights
> about this on other NGs. It makes NO sense to advocate higher carbs for
> diabetics.

Have you read this link?

http://www.cardiologytoday.com/view.aspx?rid=86449

I do not think it applies to the majority. But I think I am one of them.
My blood sugar does better when I eat more carbs. But not too many carbs.
And there is the fine line.

Steve Pope wrote:
> Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>
>>There are plenty of people with mild intolerance to milk proteins as
>>well. Likely in the 1-2% range as with mild wheat intolerances.
>>[..] It's parallel with milk and dairy products. Some people need to
>>substitute goat milk in place of cow milk.
>
> Goat milk has less lactose, less protein, and way more fat than
> bovine milk. What I haven't figured out is whether this different
> component balance by itself explains some individual's better tolerance
> for it, as opposed to their being intolerant to the bovine components
> specifically.

My thought is that a minority of people have issues with cow milk.
Since issues with one don't imply issues with the other, switching has a
high chance of success. The balance could explain some - lower lactose.
The different protein chemist could explain others - my thought above.

On Aug 19, 2:42*pm, Doug Freyburger > wrote:

I know antecdotal stories don't mean much in the scientific world.
But the people who have published their life stories and health
problems and wonderful results by going 'primal' is pretty
inspiring. Each person is different and everyone had their own
unique way of dealing with going primal....but they might be of
inspiration and information to some.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/categ...s/?submit=view

Doug Freyburger > wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote:

>> Goat milk has less lactose, less protein, and way more fat than
>> bovine milk. What I haven't figured out is whether this different
>> component balance by itself explains some individual's better tolerance
>> for it, as opposed to their being intolerant to the bovine components
>> specifically.
>
>My thought is that a minority of people have issues with cow milk.
>Since issues with one don't imply issues with the other, switching has a
>high chance of success. The balance could explain some - lower lactose.
>The different protein chemist could explain others - my thought above.

This seems reasonable.

Steve

On Aug 19, 5:32*pm, meh > wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 15:25:44 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags >
> wrote:
>
> >On Aug 19, 2:42*pm, Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>
> >I know antecdotal stories don't mean much in the scientific world.
> >But the people who have published their life stories and health
> >problems and wonderful results by going 'primal' is pretty
> >inspiring.
>
> Ever heard of the placebo effect? *OR the prayer effect??

Yes. I don't think it applies here however. Read the examples.

Doug Freyburger wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> cshenk wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I have to be careful on what fats due to cholestrol. I don't
> > even try to advise all to do the same. I'm not extreme low fat
> > either. I'm just careful how much of the 'less good sorts' I take
> > in over a week. I'll balance it out over several days to an even
> > keel.
>
> Low carbers see controlling types of fatty acids as a secondary goal.
> We often avoid transfats. Low carbers don't need to avoid saturated
> fats but there are studies that suggest that calorie for calorie
> polyunsaturates tend to give better weight loss than saturates.
> There's no apparent down side to skimming off fat from a dish that
> contains meat and replacing with a vegitable fat if the skimming
> makes the dish not rich.
>
> There are suggestions that cholesterol is triggered by eating high
> glycemic load foods more than by either low gylcemic load carbs or by
> fat. You apprach the issue by eating "slow" carbs. I approach the
> issue by eating "low" carbs. Both work.

Yup. 'slow carbs'. I like that term! Anyways, it works for me. If
another wanted to try it, I'd explain it but I see no need to unless
another asks to try it out.


--

Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:

>
> "Doug Freyburger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > cshenk wrote:
> > >
> > > If that seems odd to you, you should be able to see plenty of
> > > threads where I have posted very similar meals since 2007.
> >
> > It just means you do well on low fat. A large minority of the
> > population does well on low fat. Not a majority and not everone
> > but a large minority. The problem isn't thinking low fat is good.
> > The problem is thinking it works for everyone.
>
> I eat a low fat diet because that is what I prefer to eat. I still
> have cholesterol problems. Mine isn't high but the LDL, HDL and
> Triglycerides aren't where they should be.

Thats usually related to the type of fats taken in but can also be a
genetic predisposition. Diet and cholestrol are not always that
directly related they have found out.

Mine does yield to diet but Don's not so much so.

--

Dan Abel wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> In article >, "Jean B."
> > wrote:
>
>
> > Yes, most nutritionists are just into the same old mantra--fat is
> > bad, carbs are good.
>
> As a diabetic, that hasn't been my experience. The mantra is:
>
> Fat bad. Protein bad. Carbs bad.
>
> But if you don't eat any of those, you'll die, so I guess I'll let
> you have a little bit of each. They are mostly into carb
> restriction, though.
>
> Again, I'm a diabetic, so that's what I'm being told.

Depends but yes, generally the most current information is a balance
with a bit of all and exercise. The faster processing to glucose carbs
are generally the ones to watch for from what I have read.

I have sugar imbalances too but they are confirmed genetic and not
diabetes. I run too low sugar very easily and have to watch it. 'Slow
carbs' as Doug put it work for me in balance. Used right, I get a sort
of time delayed release (grin).


--

Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:

>
> "Dan Abel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Jean B."
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Yes, most nutritionists are just into the same old mantra--fat is
> > > bad, carbs are good.
> >
> > As a diabetic, that hasn't been my experience. The mantra is:
> >
> > Fat bad. Protein bad. Carbs bad.
> >
> > But if you don't eat any of those, you'll die, so I guess I'll let
> > you have a little bit of each. They are mostly into carb
> > restriction, though.
> >
> > Again, I'm a diabetic, so that's what I'm being told.
>
> My daughter is not diabetic (yet) but was just diagnosed with
> producing waaaay too much insulin and is insulin resistant. The Dr.
> told her to eat low carb.
>
> I am diabetic too. I do not believe there is one diet that will work
> for all of us. I too produce waaaay too much insulin and am insulin
> resistant but... I have gastroparesis so don't digest most of the
> foods that would be on a low carb diet. So I do eat carbs and the
> fast acting kind like white rice, white bread and mashed potatoes.
> Because I can digest them. When you have more than one medical
> condition you just have to do the best that you can when it comes to
> diet.

Yup. BTW, I think of those items as slow carbs. Fast ones are candy
bars and cakes etc which give me problems.

Agreed, do the best you can with what you have.


--

Doug Freyburger wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> cshenk wrote:
> >
> > Conversely a lot of people are mildly lactose intolerant but do not
> > realize it. The problem for them, is if they cook mostly from
> > premade items, 'milk by products' are almost as common as added
> > salt.
>
> There are plenty of people with mild intolerance to milk proteins as
> well. Likely in the 1-2% range as with mild wheat intolerances.

Nope, can range to 90% in some ethnic groups. I posted a link on it by
ethnic areas. If there are any grain studies like it, I was not able
to find them.

> There will not be humans who have problems with the proteins in human
> milks because of evolution, but drinking cow/sheep/goat milk is every
> bit as new on an evolutionary time scale as eating wheat/rice/corn
> is. There's every bit as much reason to say that "cow's milks is
> bad" as there is to say "wheat is bad". Same type of context, same
> basic reasons, roughly the same percentage of the population.

Nope, sorry but lactose intolerance is way more common. Few
populations run as low as 1-2% by age 40 or so. Also there are
children born with even human milk allergies. In the distant past,
they simply died if it was too bad.

Cows milk (or any other milk) is not 'bad' but some folks lose
tolerance for it as they get older. In Mammals, it's commonly a lost
ability that has a genetic advantage as the older offspring don't push
their littler younger sibs out of the way to get free milk from mommie
(grin).

> With wheat I can substitute rye. Others who are gluten tolerant need
> to go to corn. Others who are celiac should avoid grains in general
> though I don't know if that's cereal grains or if it includes
> buckwheat/quinao/amaranth as well. It is worth trying an eliminate
> and challenge drill on grains to see if you have problem with them
> and if you do experiment with which ones. Just stating you don't
> have any intolerances without doing so is a guess not based on data.

Just stating any of must have an intolerance because we haven't done
your elimination diet is as fallacious. You are 'assuming' there must
be one to something. It may be true in your case that wheat is an
issue that you feel better with out and i am happy for you that you
found this out and can now know what to reduce.

> It's parallel with milk and dairy products. Some people need to
> substitute goat milk in place of cow milk. Others need to stick to
> fermented products like yogurt or cheese to avoid the lactose. Others
> still need to avoid dairy in general. Same comment about trying an
> eliminate and challenge at some point.

Generally lactose intolerance is fairly obvious. It's the age onset
part of that one that causes most of the confusion. Because that one
has a trackable pattern by ethnic community including age of likely
onset, it's well documented.

I know of no other food 'allergies' so well tracked.

--

cshenk > wrote:

>Doug Freyburger wrote in rec.food.cooking:

>> There are plenty of people with mild intolerance to milk proteins as
>> well. Likely in the 1-2% range as with mild wheat intolerances.

>Nope, can range to 90% in some ethnic groups. I posted a link on it by
>ethnic areas. If there are any grain studies like it, I was not able
>to find them.

Are you sure that is true for dairy protein intolerances, as opposed to
lactose intolerances?

Steve

Steve Pope wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> cshenk > wrote:
>
> > Doug Freyburger wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
> >> There are plenty of people with mild intolerance to milk proteins
> as >> well. Likely in the 1-2% range as with mild wheat intolerances.
>
> > Nope, can range to 90% in some ethnic groups. I posted a link on
> > it by ethnic areas. If there are any grain studies like it, I was
> > not able to find them.
>
> Are you sure that is true for dairy protein intolerances, as opposed
> to lactose intolerances?
>
> Steve

'People often confuse milk allergy with lactose intolerance because
people can have the same kinds of things happening to them (like
stomach pains or bloating, for example) with both conditions. But the
conditions are not related. Milk allergy is a problem involving the
immune system, but lactose intolerance involves the digestive system.
For someone who is lactose intolerant, the digestive system doesn't
produce enough of the enzyme needed to break down the sugar in milk.'

My statement was related to lactose intolerance but Doug's trimming
tends to leave that off. The full thread will show it clearly however.


--

cshenk > wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote in rec.food.cooking:

>> cshenk > wrote:

>> > Doug Freyburger wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>
>> >> There are plenty of people with mild intolerance to milk proteins
>> >> as well. Likely in the 1-2% range as with mild wheat intolerances.
>>
>> > Nope, can range to 90% in some ethnic groups. I posted a link on
>> > it by ethnic areas. If there are any grain studies like it, I was
>> > not able to find them.
>>
>> Are you sure that is true for dairy protein intolerances, as opposed
>> to lactose intolerances?
>>
>> Steve
>
>'People often confuse milk allergy with lactose intolerance because
>people can have the same kinds of things happening to them (like
>stomach pains or bloating, for example) with both conditions. But the
>conditions are not related. Milk allergy is a problem involving the
>immune system, but lactose intolerance involves the digestive system.
>For someone who is lactose intolerant, the digestive system doesn't
>produce enough of the enzyme needed to break down the sugar in milk.'
>
>My statement was related to lactose intolerance but Doug's trimming
>tends to leave that off. The full thread will show it clearly however.

Sure, I can see that, however Doug's statement (to which you replied
"Nope") was restricted to allergies to dairy proteins. This is
why I was asking. I think his 1% to 2% number is about right.

Steve

Dan Abel wrote:
> In article >, "Jean B." >
> wrote:
>
>
>> Yes, most nutritionists are just into the same old mantra--fat is
>> bad, carbs are good.
>
> As a diabetic, that hasn't been my experience. The mantra is:
>
> Fat bad. Protein bad. Carbs bad.
>
> But if you don't eat any of those, you'll die, so I guess I'll let you
> have a little bit of each. They are mostly into carb restriction,
> though.
>
> Again, I'm a diabetic, so that's what I'm being told.
>
Wow! I was gonna ask what that left. If whatever you are doing
works for you, it is obviously the right answer for you.

--
Jean B.

Julie Bove wrote:
> "Jean B." > wrote in message
> ...
>> Ophelia wrote:
>>> "Doug Freyburger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> ImStillMags wrote:
>>>>> So.....let's discuss the way the American public has been advertised,
>>>>> browbeaten and 'advised' into eating a low fat, high carb, cholesterol
>>>>> is scary diet for the past 30 years......and that correlation to the
>>>>> obesity epidemic and accompanying health problems.
>>>>>
>>>>> Real food, meat, veggies, fruits, and little or no grains ....in other
>>>>> words a primal or ancestral diet is way better for the human animal
>>>>> than the convenience proccessed stuff people eat today.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I know there are people on both sides of the fence here, but in MY
>>>>> life the primal-paleo-ancestral diet is
>>>>> doing amazing things for me weight wise and health wise.
>>>>>
>>>>> chime in....
>>>> The fat-is-bad system works by sympathetic magic. You get salt by
>>>> burning poison metal with poison gas, therefore you get fat by eating
>>>> fat. All of the other statements start at that point. Fat is calorie
>>>> dense - Sure but it also keeps new hunger from coming back longer
>>>> calorie for calorie. Bulky veggies make you feel full - Sure but low
>>>> carb diets focus on bulky veggies so there's no point to the statement.
>>>> Studies show fat is bad - Only if you don't also control for carb intake
>>>> and start with the assumption that fat is bad in the first place.
>>>>
>>>> The carb-is-bad system works by setting the clock to 1960 and seeing
>>>> who's fat. It's the people who ate starchy diets before almost anyone
>>>> heard of the low fat mantra. Then start trying it.
>>>>
>>>> There's also the assumption that eating grain is good. Because no one
>>>> who gets symptoms from eating grain is to be believed. The actual
>>>> situation of bad-for-some does not equal bad-for-all but it absolutely
>>>> does not equal good-for-all which was the statement for very many years.
>>>>
>>>> Low carb does not equal paleo but there is a lot of overlap.
>>> For many years in UK the ptb have been advocating high carb for
>>> diabetics Recently that has changed and they are saying now that low
>>> carb is best! Heh who woulda thunk it? They now say that the reason for
>>> allowing high carb and low fat was that it kept the calories down and the
>>> insulin took care of that.
>>>
>>> I wonder how many people went blind or lost limbs because of that?
>>>
>>>
>> Gack! I have seen that sooooo many times. And there have been fights
>> about this on other NGs. It makes NO sense to advocate higher carbs for
>> diabetics.
>
> Have you read this link?
>
> http://www.cardiologytoday.com/view.aspx?rid=86449
>
> I do not think it applies to the majority. But I think I am one of them.
> My blood sugar does better when I eat more carbs. But not too many carbs.
> And there is the fine line.
>
>
More proof that there is no one answer that fits all people. If a
person finds what works for him/her that's what matters.

--
Jean B.

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:57:22 +0000 (UTC) in rec.food.cooking,
(Steve Pope) wrote,
>ImStillMags > wrote:
>
>>On Aug 18, 10:59*am, "cshenk" > wrote:
>>>
>>> Sure Steve, over vaccination can be an issue. *This OP though doesnt
>>> believe in *any* *ever*.
>>>
>>Where in the world did you see me say that? I've never advocated no
>>vaccinations at all.
>
>Carol meant "other person" (someone she knows from elsewhere), not
>"original poster".

No, she wrote "OP". OP = Original Poster, not other person.
But, when in doubt spell it out.