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.

On Mon, 22 May 2006 09:18:02 -0700, Carmen wrote:
> 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. ^^^^^^^^

You put an extra 'r' in there

--
Karim <remove SPAMFREE: karimSrPaAsMhFaRdEE at gmail dot com>

Carmen wrote:
There's no need to tag on
> grains or pooh-pooh them as "nonessential".
>


Except that they are exactly that -- inessential. Carbohydrate is
inessential. In nutrition-speak, "essential" is defined as something
the body cannot make for itself. Given protein and fat, the body is
perfectly capable of making all the glucose it needs. (I'm sure that
there's *someone* out there whose body doesn't perform gluconeogenesis,
but they're the tiny exception.)

Doesn't mean that some carbohydrate foods don't supply essential
elements -- vitamin C in fruits and vegetables comes to mind. But the
carbohydrate itself is inessential, and I'm unaware of any essential
nutrient in grains or legumes that's not available in foods with a far
lower glycemic load.

Dana

"Dana Carpender" > wrote
> Except that they are exactly that -- inessential.

Cite?

This I gotta see.

Krusty wrote:

> "Dana Carpender" > wrote
>
>>Except that they are exactly that -- inessential.
>
>
> Cite?
>
> This I gotta see.
>
>

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

http://web.indstate.edu/thcme/mwking...eogenesis.html

The body is perfectly capable of making glucose with no dietary
carbohydrate whatsoever. That makes carbohydrates inessential by
definition.

Dana

"Dana Carpender" > wrote
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis
>
> http://web.indstate.edu/thcme/mwking...eogenesis.html
>
> The body is perfectly capable of making glucose with no dietary
> carbohydrate whatsoever. That makes carbohydrates inessential by
> definition.

Gluconeogenesis is used by the body when carbohydrates are limited or are
not in sufficient quantities to produce glucose. Producing glucose from
amino acids (glutamine and alanine for instance), glycerol and and lactate
is a response by the body when carbohydrates are *unavailable*.

Hardly an argument for "carbohydrates are inessential".

Krusty wrote:

> "Dana Carpender" > wrote
>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis
>>
>>http://web.indstate.edu/thcme/mwking...eogenesis.html
>>
>>The body is perfectly capable of making glucose with no dietary
>>carbohydrate whatsoever. That makes carbohydrates inessential by
>>definition.
>
>
> Gluconeogenesis is used by the body when carbohydrates are limited or are
> not in sufficient quantities to produce glucose.

Very good. Making carbohydrates inessential.

Producing glucose from
> amino acids (glutamine and alanine for instance), glycerol and and lactate
> is a response by the body when carbohydrates are *unavailable*.
>
> Hardly an argument for "carbohydrates are inessential".


It's exactly the argument that carbohydrates are inessential.
"Essential" in nutritional terms means something the body *cannot make*.
Vitamin C is essential because we can't make it. Eight amino acids
are essential because the body cannot make them, no matter how many
other amino acids you eat. The others can be made, given sufficient
essential aminos, and therefore are inessential.

If the body can make it, it is considered inessential. That's the
definition. Carbohydrate is inessential.

Dana

Dana Carpender wrote:
> Krusty wrote:
>
> > "Dana Carpender" > wrote
> >
> >>Except that they are exactly that -- inessential.
> >
> >
> > Cite?
> >
> > This I gotta see.
> >
> >
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis
>
> http://web.indstate.edu/thcme/mwking...eogenesis.html
>
> The body is perfectly capable of making glucose with no dietary
> carbohydrate whatsoever. That makes carbohydrates inessential by
> definition.

The body can make proteins. It can make half the amino acids it needs
to make proteins and get the other half from a diet of nothing but
grains and beans. Does that magically make that diet perfect? No. It
just demonstrates - as does gluconeogenesis - how adaptable humans are.

Carmen

"Carmen" > wrote
> The body can make proteins. It can make half the amino acids it needs
> to make proteins and get the other half from a diet of nothing but
> grains and beans. Does that magically make that diet perfect? No. It
> just demonstrates - as does gluconeogenesis - how adaptable humans are.

Exactly.

Gluconeogenesis is just an evolutionary response in humans to "cover
themselves" in the case that they couldn't find or scavenge an adequate
supply of carbohydrates.

God bless the smart people in this thread.

Carmen wrote:

> Dana Carpender wrote:
>
>>Krusty wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Dana Carpender" > wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>Except that they are exactly that -- inessential.
>>>
>>>
>>>Cite?
>>>
>>>This I gotta see.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis
>>
>>http://web.indstate.edu/thcme/mwking...eogenesis.html
>>
>>The body is perfectly capable of making glucose with no dietary
>>carbohydrate whatsoever. That makes carbohydrates inessential by
>>definition.
>
>
> The body can make proteins.

The body can make some proteins. It cannot make the eight essential
amino acids, making those essential in the diet.

Dana

Dana Carpender wrote:
> Carmen wrote:
> There's no need to tag on
> > grains or pooh-pooh them as "nonessential".
>
> Except that they are exactly that -- inessential. Carbohydrate is
> inessential. In nutrition-speak, "essential" is defined as something
> the body cannot make for itself. Given protein and fat, the body is
> perfectly capable of making all the glucose it needs. (I'm sure that
> there's *someone* out there whose body doesn't perform gluconeogenesis,
> but they're the tiny exception.)
>
> Doesn't mean that some carbohydrate foods don't supply essential
> elements -- vitamin C in fruits and vegetables comes to mind. But the
> carbohydrate itself is inessential, and I'm unaware of any essential
> nutrient in grains or legumes that's not available in foods with a far
> lower glycemic load.

You're being disingenuous now Dana. I said "grains" (see above), since
you've been claiming since your first post in this thread that grains
and beans - not carbohydrates. You cannot then change up the argument
mid-stream.

You also did not address my contention that your assertion that humans
were "intended" to eat any certain way is a specious argument, opinion
only, one not backed up by the physiological evidence of the species as
it is today or as it was in the past. Since your original argument was
based on that contention it must be successfully addressed in order to
build any further.

If you're wondering why I'm being so tough on you, it's because
lowcarbing is a valuable tool. It gave me back my health, gave me back
goodness knows how many years of useful and productive life and pared
off half my bodyweight to boot. It's far too valuable a medical tool
to watch it be reduced to some sort of cultish object of ridicule by an
overeager adherant. The unadorned facts can stand on their own merit,
without any side-swipes at others.

Carmen

"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.

Krusty wrote:

> "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.

Cite?

Dana
>
>

"Dana Carpender" > wrote
> Cite?

Eaton suggests that early primate diet was roughly 95% "plant foods". (see
associated citations)

....plant foods such as fruits, leaves, gums, and stalks probably comprised
at least 95% of their dietary intake with insects, eggs, and small animals
making up the remainder (Milton, 1993; Tutin & Fernandez, 1993). The general
nutritional parameters of an eating pattern along these lines can be
estimated with modest confidence, although certainly not with mathematical
exactitude. Protein would have contributed a greater proportion of total
energy than it does for most contemporary humans, but with much more from
vegetable sources than from animal. (Popovich, 1997) Simple carbohydrate
intake would have been strikingly below that now common, and, somewhat
counterintuitively, such diets would have provided only moderate levels of
starch and other complex carbohydrates so that the total carbohydrate
contribution to dietary energy would have been less, not more, than is
typical in contemporary affluent nations. Dietary fiber would have exceeded
current levels by an order of magnitude: 200 grams vs. 20 grams a day
(Milton, 1993): for some ancestral hominoids, colonic fiber fermentation may
have provided over 50% of total dietary energy. (Popovich, 1997) Daily
intake of vitamins and minerals is likely to have been considerably greater
than at present with the likely exception of iodine, consumption of which
would have varied with geographic location according to oceanic proximity,
volcanic activity, prevailing winds and rainfall. As it is for all other
free-living terrestrial mammals, sodium intake would have been only a
fraction of that currently common and would have been substantially less
than that of potassium. (Denton, 1995) Availability of phytochemicals, like
that of vitamins and most minerals would, in all likelihood, have been
substantially greater than for Americans and other Westerners.

Happy to Help.

Krusty wrote:

> "Dana Carpender" > wrote
>
>>Cite?
>
>
> Eaton suggests that early primate diet was roughly 95% "plant foods". (see
> associated citations)

Dunno who Eaton is, but he
>
>

The paradoxical nature of hunter-gatherer diets: meat-based, yet
non-atherogenic.

Cordain L, Eaton SB, Miller JB, Mann N, Hill K.

Department of Health and Exercise Science, Colorado State University,
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.

OBJECTIVE: Field studies of twentieth century hunter-gathers (HG) showed
them to be generally free of the signs and symptoms of cardiovascular
disease (CVD). Consequently, the characterization of HG diets may have
important implications in designing therapeutic diets that reduce the
risk for CVD in Westernized societies. Based upon limited ethnographic
data (n=58 HG societies) and a single quantitative dietary study, it has
been commonly inferred that gathered plant foods provided the dominant
energy source in HG diets. METHOD AND RESULTS: In this review we have
analyzed the 13 known quantitative dietary studies of HG and demonstrate
that animal food actually provided the dominant (65%) energy source,
while gathered plant foods comprised the remainder (35%). This data is
consistent with a more recent, comprehensive review of the entire
ethnographic data (n=229 HG societies) that showed the mean subsistence
dependence upon gathered plant foods was 32%, whereas it was 68% for
animal foods. Other evidence, including isotopic analyses of Paleolithic
hominid collagen tissue, reductions in hominid gut size, low activity
levels of certain enzymes, and optimal foraging data all point toward a
long history of meat-based diets in our species. Because increasing meat
consumption in Western diets is frequently associated with increased
risk for CVD mortality, it is seemingly paradoxical that HG societies,
who consume the majority of their energy from animal food, have been
shown to be relatively free of the signs and symptoms of CVD.
CONCLUSION: The high reliance upon animal-based foods would not have
necessarily elicited unfavorable blood lipid profiles because of the
hypolipidemic effects of high dietary protein (19-35% energy) and the
relatively low level of dietary carbohydrate (22-40% energy). Although
fat intake (28-58% energy) would have been similar to or higher than
that found in Western diets, it is likely that important qualitative
differences in fat intake, including relatively high levels of MUFA and
PUFA and a lower omega-6/omega-3 fatty acid ratio, would have served to
inhibit the development of CVD. Other dietary characteristics including
high intakes of antioxidants, fiber, vitamins and phytochemicals along
with a low salt intake may have operated synergistically with lifestyle
characteristics (more exercise, less stress and no smoking) to further
deter the development of CVD.

Dietary lean red meat and human evolution.

Mann N.

Department of Food Science, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.


Scientific evidence is accumulating that meat itself is not a risk
factor for Western lifestyle diseases such as cardiovascular disease,
but rather the risk stems from the excessive fat and particularly
saturated fat associated with the meat of modern domesticated animals.
In our own studies, we have shown evidence that diets high in lean red
meat can actually lower plasma cholesterol, contribute significantly to
tissue omega-3 fatty acid and provide a good source of iron, zinc and
vitamin B12. A study of human and pre-human diet history shows that for
a period of at least 2 million years the human ancestral line had been
consuming increasing quantities of meat. During that time, evolutionary
selection was in action, adapting our genetic make up and hence our
physiological features to a diet high in lean meat. This meat was wild
game meat, low in total and saturated fat and relatively rich in
polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA). The evidence presented in this
review looks at various lines of study which indicate the reliance on
meat intake as a major energy source by pre-agricultural humans. The
distinct fields briefly reviewed include: fossil isotope studies, human
gut morphology, human encephalisation and energy requirements, optimal
foraging theory, insulin resistance and studies on hunter-gatherer
societies. In conclusion, lean meat is a healthy and beneficial
component of any well-balanced diet as long as it is fat trimmed and
consumed as part of a varied diet.



Plant-animal subsistence ratios and macronutrient energy estimations in
worldwide hunter-gatherer diets.

Cordain L, Miller JB, Eaton SB, Mann N, Holt SH, Speth JD.

Department of Health and Exercise Science, Colorado State University,
Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA.

Both anthropologists and nutritionists have long recognized that the
diets of modern-day hunter-gatherers may represent a reference standard
for modern human nutrition and a model for defense against certain
diseases of affluence. Because the hunter-gatherer way of life is now
probably extinct in its purely un-Westernized form, nutritionists and
anthropologists must rely on indirect procedures to reconstruct the
traditional diet of preagricultural humans. In this analysis, we
incorporate the most recent ethnographic compilation of plant-to-animal
economic subsistence patterns of hunter-gatherers to estimate likely
dietary macronutrient intakes (% of energy) for environmentally diverse
hunter-gatherer populations. Furthermore, we show how differences in the
percentage of body fat in prey animals would alter protein intakes in
hunter-gatherers and how a maximal protein ceiling influences the
selection of other macronutrients. Our analysis showed that whenever and
wherever it was ecologically possible, hunter-gatherers consumed high
amounts (45-65% of energy) of animal food. Most (73%) of the worldwide
hunter-gatherer societies derived >50% (> or =56-65% of energy) of their
subsistence from animal foods, whereas only 14% of these societies
derived >50% (> or =56-65% of energy) of their subsistence from gathered
plant foods. This high reliance on animal-based foods coupled with the
relatively low carbohydrate content of wild plant foods produces
universally characteristic macronutrient consumption ratios in which
protein is elevated (19-35% of energy) at the expense of carbohydrates
(22-40% of energy).

"Dana Carpender" > wrote
> OBJECTIVE: Field studies of twentieth century hunter-gathers (HG)

Bzzzt. You lose. "Twentieth Century".

You should read your abstracts better.

That didn't take long.

"Krusty" > wrote in message
...
> "Dana Carpender" > wrote
> > Cite?
>
> Eaton suggests that early primate diet was roughly 95% "plant foods". (see
> associated citations)
>
> ...plant foods such as fruits, leaves, gums, and stalks probably comprised
> at least 95% of their dietary intake with insects, eggs, and small animals
> making up the remainder (Milton, 1993; Tutin & Fernandez, 1993). The
general
> nutritional parameters of an eating pattern along these lines can be
> estimated with modest confidence, although certainly not with mathematical
> exactitude. Protein would have contributed a greater proportion of total
> energy than it does for most contemporary humans, but with much more from
> vegetable sources than from animal. (Popovich, 1997) Simple carbohydrate
> intake would have been strikingly below that now common, and, somewhat
> counterintuitively, such diets would have provided only moderate levels of
> starch and other complex carbohydrates so that the total carbohydrate
> contribution to dietary energy would have been less, not more, than is
> typical in contemporary affluent nations. Dietary fiber would have
exceeded
> current levels by an order of magnitude: 200 grams vs. 20 grams a day

Hmmm. Seems like they're trying to say they ate low carb to me. Very
little simple carbs, and moderate levels of starches and other complex
carbs. And look at the fiber levels! Do you suppose that was because fruits
and vegetables in the wild do not contain a lot of carbs?

> (Milton, 1993): for some ancestral hominoids, colonic fiber fermentation
may
> have provided over 50% of total dietary energy. (Popovich, 1997) Daily
> intake of vitamins and minerals is likely to have been considerably
greater
> than at present with the likely exception of iodine, consumption of which
> would have varied with geographic location according to oceanic proximity,
> volcanic activity, prevailing winds and rainfall. As it is for all other
> free-living terrestrial mammals, sodium intake would have been only a
> fraction of that currently common and would have been substantially less
> than that of potassium. (Denton, 1995) Availability of phytochemicals,
like
> that of vitamins and most minerals would, in all likelihood, have been
> substantially greater than for Americans and other Westerners.
>
> Happy to Help.
>
>

"Krusty" > wrote:

>Simple carbohydrate
>intake would have been strikingly below that now common, and, somewhat
>counterintuitively, such diets would have provided only moderate levels of
>starch and other complex carbohydrates so that the total carbohydrate
>contribution to dietary energy would have been less, not more, than is
>typical in contemporary affluent nations.

This is supposed to be a cite AGAINST Dana? The person who says that
simple carbohydrates were strikingly lower and that complex carbs were
less than is typical in contemporary affluent nations?

OK, you've provided Dana's cite. Now how about one for your own
argument?
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27