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