Carmen wrote:

> Dana Carpender wrote:
>
>>Krusty wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"jombithedjinn" > wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>You obviously know nothing about nutrition. Do you REALLY think human
>>>>beings were truly meant to eat grass like wheat and barley? I'm sure
>>>>that you do, you're just the type to be so undereducated.
>>>
>>>
>>>You're a ****ing idiot.
>>>
>>>Seriously.
>>>
>>>And you're totally wrong.
>>>
>>>Wrong, AND an idiot.
>>>
>>>Happy to Help.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>You're long on vitriol and short on facts. Care to back up your big mouth?
>>
>>Dana
>
>
> 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.
>


I've never said "people shouldn't eat carbs." I've said that a diet
based on grains and beans is radically different from the evolutionary
diet of the species, and that it's difficult to make a case for those
foodstuffs being essential to human nutrition.

Indeed, I have long said that different people can tolerate differing
carb loads, that people have to tweak their diet to see what works for
them, and that interpreting "low carb" to mean "no carb" -- ie, eggs,
meat, and cheese, and virtually nothing else -- is a very bad idea.

Dana

Dana Carpender wrote:
> Carmen wrote:
>
> > Dana Carpender wrote:
> >
> >>Krusty wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"jombithedjinn" > wrote
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>You obviously know nothing about nutrition. Do you REALLY think human
> >>>>beings were truly meant to eat grass like wheat and barley? I'm sure
> >>>>that you do, you're just the type to be so undereducated.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You're a ****ing idiot.
> >>>
> >>>Seriously.
> >>>
> >>>And you're totally wrong.
> >>>
> >>>Wrong, AND an idiot.
> >>>
> >>>Happy to Help.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>You're long on vitriol and short on facts. Care to back up your big mouth?
> >>
> >>Dana
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
>
> I've never said "people shouldn't eat carbs." I've said that a diet
> based on grains and beans is radically different from the evolutionary
> diet of the species, and that it's difficult to make a case for those
> foodstuffs being essential to human nutrition.

There really is no definitive proof for an "evolutionary diet of the
species". We know early man ate animals and fish because we have bone
evidence and tools they left behind. Vegetables and grain are more
fragile, not as likely to leave evidence. In a few cases we have been
lucky enough to find a well-preserved frozen speciman with stomach
contents though, and lo and behold, they contained grains. Both our
dentition and alimentary tract are designed to make use of whatever the
environment has to offer - we're an opportunistic species, omnivorous
in nature. It's when someone begins to make claims that any one diet
isn't what humans were "intended" to eat (keeping strictly to naturally
occuring foods for the purposes of this discussion) that the friction
comes in. That's what others in this thread are taking issue with.
Myself included, truth be known. For folks with well-functioning
systems in good health a diet based on legumes and grains would be
fine. The fact that humans *can* exist and thrive on such a diet makes
them no more "essential" to human nutrition than meat or poultry or
fish. Do you see what my thrust is here? There's no need to tag on
grains or pooh-pooh them as "nonessential".

Carmen

> Indeed, I have long said that different people can tolerate differing
> carb loads, that people have to tweak their diet to see what works for
> them, and that interpreting "low carb" to mean "no carb" -- ie, eggs,
> meat, and cheese, and virtually nothing else -- is a very bad idea.

"Dana Carpender" > wrote
> I've said that a diet based on grains and beans is radically different
> from the evolutionary diet of the species,

And you're wrong.

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

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

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

Google Beta User wrote:

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

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

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

Dana

Krusty wrote:
> "jombithedjinn" > wrote
> > You obviously know nothing about nutrition. Do you REALLY think human
> > beings were truly meant to eat grass like wheat and barley? I'm sure
> > that you do, you're just the type to be so undereducated.
>
> You're a ****ing idiot.
>
> Seriously.
>
> And you're totally wrong.
>
> Wrong, AND an idiot.
>
> Happy to Help.

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

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

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

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

Or maybe I just enjoy arguing with idiots like yourself.

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

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

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

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

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

Happy to help.

"Krusty" > wrote:

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

The discussion was about grains, and you're suddenly talking about
vegetables. Low carb advisors LIKE vegetables and tell people to eat
them. So there is no argument about vegetables. Can we resume
talking about grains, where there does seem to be a dispute?
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27

Greg Goss wrote:

> "Krusty" > wrote:
>
>
>>1. Early man's diet was mostly vegetables. There's *overwhelming* evidence
>>of this in the scientific community, in additon to hundreds of published
>>papers on the subject.
>
>
> The discussion was about grains, and you're suddenly talking about
> vegetables. Low carb advisors LIKE vegetables and tell people to eat
> them. So there is no argument about vegetables. Can we resume
> talking about grains, where there does seem to be a dispute?

Well, and are we talking "mostly vegetables" by weight? By volume? By
percentage of calories? Because I've been reading that 50-65% of
calories came from animal foods, and the rest from vegetables, fruits,
and other plant foods. Since animal foods are far more calorically
dense than plant foods, the volume of vegetables would have been far
greater. Still doesn't make it a high carbohydrate diet.

Dana

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.

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

> > 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.

Shuurai wrote:
> > > 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.

Four eons so far: Hadean, Archean, Proterozoic, and Phanerozoic.
>
> Well, gee whiz you got me on the "eon" thing... now how in the hell is
> that relevant to the point of the discussion?

Points out that you were wrong by roughly four orders of magnitude.
Seems relevant, given that evolution takes time.
>
> 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.

Roughly ten thousand years, sure.


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

> Molars are more specialized towards grains than veggies - though nuts
> are certainly a possibility.
>
> > >>Humans were meant to eat meat, eggs,
> > >>green leafy vegetables, and certain berries. They were certainly not
> > >>meant to eat wheat grass.

> > 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.

More. Uncooked grains aren't particularly digestible.

> wrote
> Roughly ten thousand years, sure.

I've always read that we were vegetarians for roughly MOST of our existence
on earth prior to evolving larger brains.

The only reason we evolved larger brains that allowed tool building and
communications was that suddenly, not so very far back, we started to eat
meats. Proteins.

So I'm inclined to believe that most of our time on earth was in fact,
eating vegetables and grains. Meat's "new", relatively speaking, and most
scientists credit *it* with our leap in evolution.

wrote:
> Shuurai wrote:
> > > > 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.
>
> Four eons so far: Hadean, Archean, Proterozoic, and Phanerozoic.
> >
> > Well, gee whiz you got me on the "eon" thing... now how in the hell is
> > that relevant to the point of the discussion?
>
> Points out that you were wrong by roughly four orders of magnitude.
> Seems relevant, given that evolution takes time.

I used the word "eons" because it's commonly used to denote a really
long time. I don't frankly care about the accuracy. The fact of the
matter is, humans have been eating grains for most of our history as a
species. The systematic cultivation and collection of grains can be
traced anywhere from 10,000 to 23,000 years ago, depending on who you
ask. However, humans were eating grains long before that.

> > 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.
>
> Roughly ten thousand years, sure.

We've been deliberately *growing* them for 10,000 to 23,000 years. We
were most certainly eating them before we decided to go through the
trouble.

> > > > You might consider the fact that we humans have molars - teeth
> > > > specifically designed for grinding fiberous materials like *gasp*
> > > > grains;
> > >
> > > Or vegetables and nuts.
>
> > Molars are more specialized towards grains than veggies - though nuts
> > are certainly a possibility.
> >
> > > >>Humans were meant to eat meat, eggs,
> > > >>green leafy vegetables, and certain berries. They were certainly not
> > > >>meant to eat wheat grass.
>
> > > 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.
>
> More. Uncooked grains aren't particularly digestible.

Fallacy. They're more easily digestable when cooked, and release more
nutrients, but they're not undigestable raw. And actually, some
biologists have suggested that the relatively long length of the human
digestive tract is intended to accomodate grain consumption. Meat
eating animals tend to have shorter digestive tracts and much more
powerful digestive fluids. Herbivores tend to have longer tracts and
less powerful fluids.

" > writes:


>Shuurai wrote:

>> > 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.

>More. Uncooked grains aren't particularly digestible.

The invention of weapons allowed early humans to hunt animals they
wouldn't otherwise have been able to hunt. The discovery of fire
enabled them to eat things they couldn't otherwise have eaten.



--
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of sXXXch, Joe
... or the right of the people peaceably to XXXemble, and to Bay
peXXXion the government for a redress of grievances." Stanford
-- from the First Amendment to the US ConsXXXution University

Dana Carpender wrote:


> 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.


People today are much taller on average than people were just a couple
hundred years ago. If people are shorter because of grains, then why we
are taller now, as we eat more grains than ever before?

I suspect the people getting shorter in the past was for a different
reason.



Also, I would point out that we evolution isn't as slow as you think.
Just considering the short time that we have been homo sapien, we have
adapted to various conditions. Take a look around you. While the world
has become a smaller place and people are now migrated and spread out
everywhere, you can still tell where a person's ancestors came from
because of some characteristics.

People from colder climates tend to have smaller noses with with small
nostrils to keep out the cold. Skin color - we got all these diffferent
skin tones from various levels of exposure to the sun. Some people
needed more natural protection than others.

We may all be mixed up now. But back when people were sequestered in
various groupings, the people adapted as a group to their particular
evironment. It didn't take 50,000 years to produce people of various
skin tones or different styles of noses.

You can also see "evolution" in domestic animals as we intentionally
(and sometimes accidentally) breed changes in the pets. It doesn't take
1,000 years to take one breed and get a new breed. For example, the
Siamese cat has been around for while, and sometimes there would be a
mutation of one gene to produce long hair. It didn't take long to
create a new breed called a Balinese that is exactly the same as a
siamese except it has long hair. And it breeds true. All you had to do
was breed the carriers of the mutated gene or those with the mutated
gene, and you got more of them. I actually have a Balinese that came
from two siamese. We owned both parents with short hair and were quite
surprised to have a kitten with long hair. Once a gene mutates like
this and reproduces, you have a change in the genes and that is
basically what evolution is.

Characteristics like size, nose, facial shape, ears, etc can change
very quickly. I read an article awhile back showing 4 breeds and how
they have changed in 40 years. The author obviously like the
"improvements" in the breed. I didn't. They had photos of champion cats
today and champion cats of the same breeds 40 years ago, and I liked
the older photos much better. But the point was obvious. The breeds
have changed a LOT in 40 years.

> wrote in message oups.com...
>
> Dana Carpender wrote:
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
> People today are much taller on average than people were just a couple
> hundred years ago. If people are shorter because of grains, then why we
> are taller now, as we eat more grains than ever before?
>
> I suspect the people getting shorter in the past was for a different
> reason.
>
>
>
> Also, I would point out that we evolution isn't as slow as you think.
> Just considering the short time that we have been homo sapien, we have
> adapted to various conditions. Take a look around you. While the world
> has become a smaller place and people are now migrated and spread out
> everywhere, you can still tell where a person's ancestors came from
> because of some characteristics.
>
> People from colder climates tend to have smaller noses with with small
> nostrils to keep out the cold. Skin color - we got all these diffferent
> skin tones from various levels of exposure to the sun. Some people
> needed more natural protection than others.
>
> We may all be mixed up now. But back when people were sequestered in
> various groupings, the people adapted as a group to their particular
> evironment. It didn't take 50,000 years to produce people of various
> skin tones or different styles of noses.
>
> You can also see "evolution" in domestic animals as we intentionally
> (and sometimes accidentally) breed changes in the pets. It doesn't take
> 1,000 years to take one breed and get a new breed. For example, the
> Siamese cat has been around for while, and sometimes there would be a
> mutation of one gene to produce long hair. It didn't take long to
> create a new breed called a Balinese that is exactly the same as a
> siamese except it has long hair. And it breeds true. All you had to do
> was breed the carriers of the mutated gene or those with the mutated
> gene, and you got more of them. I actually have a Balinese that came
> from two siamese. We owned both parents with short hair and were quite
> surprised to have a kitten with long hair. Once a gene mutates like
> this and reproduces, you have a change in the genes and that is
> basically what evolution is.
>
> Characteristics like size, nose, facial shape, ears, etc can change
> very quickly. I read an article awhile back showing 4 breeds and how
> they have changed in 40 years. The author obviously like the
> "improvements" in the breed. I didn't. They had photos of champion cats
> today and champion cats of the same breeds 40 years ago, and I liked
> the older photos much better. But the point was obvious. The breeds
> have changed a LOT in 40 years.
>


heck, it only took a few generations to get rid of sickle cell anemia (protective against malaria) in Africans transplanted to Europe.

On Mon, 22 May 2006, Squad wrote:

>
> > wrote in message oups.com...
>>
>> Dana Carpender wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 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.

bad teeth are from sugar. gingivitis, i can see. but toothrot is
something from the 1700's. cite yer sources.

>> People today are much taller on average than people were just a couple
>> hundred years ago. If people are shorter because of grains, then why we
>> are taller now, as we eat more grains than ever before?
>>
>> I suspect the people getting shorter in the past was for a different
>> reason.

poor nutrition, mostly.

>> People from colder climates tend to have smaller noses with with small
>> nostrils to keep out the cold. Skin color - we got all these diffferent
>> skin tones from various levels of exposure to the sun. Some people
>> needed more natural protection than others.

can we please stop this? you obviously have forgotten that "dark" is
natural -- lighter skins allow more efficient vitamin E production from
sunlight.

>> We may all be mixed up now. But back when people were sequestered in
>> various groupings, the people adapted as a group to their particular
>> evironment. It didn't take 50,000 years to produce people of various
>> skin tones or different styles of noses.

mutations are mutations. they dont' spread across a population evenly.
We know what the "constellation" of genes for mathematical aptitude is.
Doesn't mean everyone's got it.

Lena

wrote:
> Dana Carpender wrote:
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
> People today are much taller on average than people were just a couple
> hundred years ago. If people are shorter because of grains, then why we
> are taller now, as we eat more grains than ever before?
>
Well, greater availability and sophistication of health care, better
nutrition (a broad understanding of body chemistry and all body
functions that did not exist a couple hundred years ago), and more of
everything because of the advantages of civilization.

> I suspect the people getting shorter in the past was for a different
> reason.
>
> Also, I would point out that we evolution isn't as slow as you think.
> Just considering the short time that we have been homo sapien, we have
> adapted to various conditions. Take a look around you. While the world
> has become a smaller place and people are now migrated and spread out
> everywhere, you can still tell where a person's ancestors came from
> because of some characteristics.
>
How is that supposed to show that evolution is fast? If anything, it
shows that some traits at least are slow to "evolve away". Which is
the opposite of your point, I think.

> People from colder climates tend to have smaller noses with with small
> nostrils to keep out the cold. Skin color - we got all these diffferent
> skin tones from various levels of exposure to the sun. Some people
> needed more natural protection than others.
>
> We may all be mixed up now. But back when people were sequestered in
> various groupings, the people adapted as a group to their particular
> evironment. It didn't take 50,000 years to produce people of various
> skin tones or different styles of noses.
>
Wanna take that back?

> You can also see "evolution" in domestic animals as we intentionally
> (and sometimes accidentally) breed changes in the pets. It doesn't take
> 1,000 years to take one breed and get a new breed. For example, the
> Siamese cat has been around for while, and sometimes there would be a
> mutation of one gene to produce long hair. It didn't take long to
> create a new breed called a Balinese that is exactly the same as a
> siamese except it has long hair. And it breeds true. All you had to do
> was breed the carriers of the mutated gene or those with the mutated
> gene, and you got more of them. I actually have a Balinese that came
> from two siamese. We owned both parents with short hair and were quite
> surprised to have a kitten with long hair. Once a gene mutates like
> this and reproduces, you have a change in the genes and that is
> basically what evolution is.
>
Right, assuming you understand the difference between natural selection
and enforced selection, and the compressed time frame of generations
that brings with it. Which still supports the exact opposite point
than you are arguing.

> Characteristics like size, nose, facial shape, ears, etc can change
> very quickly. I read an article awhile back showing 4 breeds and how
> they have changed in 40 years. The author obviously like the
> "improvements" in the breed. I didn't. They had photos of champion cats
> today and champion cats of the same breeds 40 years ago, and I liked
> the older photos much better. But the point was obvious. The breeds
> have changed a LOT in 40 years.

And that's about 60 enforced generations, or 12,000 human years for
cats, a little less for dogs. Though I'd like to see the photos and
info on the species, since I doubt the specs for breeds have changed
much, when it comes to the whole pet beauty contest gig.

And anyway, if breeders are able to have such dramatic impact on a
breed (not even a species), and a mongrel remains a mongrel no matter
the place or time, doesn't that further erode your argument of rapid
*natural* selection?


Mr C

Shuurai wrote:
> jombithedjinn wrote:
> > Krusty wrote:
> > > "trijcomm" > wrote ...
> > > > >That's really unfair, Janis. Where did you learn all this info....was
> > > > the setup to one of your women's apartment wrestling videos some chick
> > > >>in pantyhose reading an Atkins diet book?
> > > >
> > > > You should really look into that Atkins diet book ...
> > >
> > > Hardly, it's a "diet" for idiots.
> > >
> > > Get a biology degree and *really* learn about food.
> >
> > You obviously know nothing about nutrition. Do you REALLY think human
> > beings were truly meant to eat grass like wheat and barley? I'm sure
> > that you do, you're just the type to be so undereducated.
>
> Well, regardless of what you think humans are "meant" to be eating, the
> fact of the matter is that wheat, barley, and so forth have been
> staples of human consumption for eons. In fact, the rise of human
> civilization has been directly correlated with the successful
> cultivation of these grains.

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

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


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

Green, leafy vegetables. Not grains.


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

There's a distinct difference between greens and grains.


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

We don't.

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

We don't.


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

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



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

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

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.

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.

"Dave Smith" > wrote
> Humans are carnivores.

Incorrect. Technically "omnivores".

Krusty wrote:

> "Dave Smith" > wrote
> > Humans are carnivores.
>
> Incorrect. Technically "omnivores".

A big OOPs here. Omnivore is what was in my mind. Carnivore
is what was accidentally typed. SpellCheck let it pass but
ThoughtCheck should have caught it.

Uh, people? How 'bout you all eat what you want and leave it at that??!?

Spitz
--
Mind the runner beans!

>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.

A.) Pizza has nothing to do with being a carnivore. B.) This isn't "a
little dough" we are talking about.

>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.

A.) Pizza has nothing to do with being a carnivore. B.) This isn't "a
little dough" we are talking about.

"trijcomm" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> >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.
>
> A.) Pizza has nothing to do with being a carnivore. B.) This isn't "a
> little dough" we are talking about.

Pizza is all about being a carnivore the way I like it.

Fraser

..

"theoriginaldimi" > wrote in message
oups.com...

You an me both brother. Particularly Meatlovers with BBQ sauce.

Fraser

"theoriginaldimi" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
Do you also eat your own shit?