Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
John Robbins reviews Ray Audette's book "Neander Thin"
John Robbins, author of DIET FOR A NEW AMERICA reviews Ray Audette's
book NEANDER THIN ( low carb diet, similar to the PALEOLITHIC DIET published by another author) at this url: http://www.foodrevolution.org/askjohn/30.htm Here is the text of review: ----------------------------------------------------------- Ask John Ray Audette's "NeanderThin" and other "Paleolithic" diets Dear John, What is your response to Ray Audette's "NeanderThin" and other "Paleolithic" diets? Such programs claim that the appropriate diet for humans includes only those foods available to Paleolithic man (meat and wild fruits, nuts and veggies). They claim that grains and beans are not natural foods for humans and that consumption of these foods causes diabetes, cancer, obesity, heart disease, etc.. The author claims to have cured himself of arthritis and diabetes on such a diet. If you have already answered this or a similar question, or can recommend another forum where I may find the answer, please let me know. Jamie Dear Jamie, Thanks for your question. My sense of Ray Audette is that he is a well-meaning and intelligent man who writes well, and who is almost completely ignorant of what has been learned in medical research regarding diet and health. His book has no footnotes, so there is no way to verify or substantiate the research that he says provides supporting documentation. Central to Audette's views is his belief that we are natural meat-eaters. If you think there is validity to his argument, then I would ask you to consider a simple experiment. The next time you see a deer or wildebeest, see if you can run it down, jump up on its back, and dig your teeth into its hide. I think that you would discover several things. You'd probably find out that you don't have a lot of desire to do this. Even if you tried, though, you'd probably find that you can't run fast enough or jump high enough to manage the task. And even if you could, you'd find that your mouth doesn't open very wide, and your canine teeth aren't very long or very sharp or very hard. And even if you could bite off a piece, I think you'd find yourself quite displeased with the result. I believe you'd find that you really aren't anatomically equipped to hunt down and eat raw meat. In this regard I think you'd find yourself decidedly inferior to the natural carnivores. For instance, the cat. Have you ever seen a cat yawn? Have you noticed how wide their mouths can open? And how long and sharp are their canine (or feline?) teeth? Cats are designed for hunting and they are true carnivores. Our teeth and jaws, in contrast, are much more like those of rabbits, deer, or horses. Our canine teeth are vestigial and are hardly longer than our molars. Here's another test, to see if you are a natural meat-eater. Can you move your lower jaw forward and back? Can you slide your lower teeth in front of your upper teeth, and then back? And can you move your lower jaw left and right, side to side? Because if you can perform these movements, then you are not a carnivore. There is not a true carnivore on the planet that can do either of those movements. Dogs can't, cats can't, hyenas can't, minks can't, etc.. Their jaws are simple hinges and can only move up and down. They are designed to rip off hunks of flesh, and then to swallow them more or less whole (ever noticed how fast a dog or cat eats?). Their teeth are far harder, longer and sharper than ours. In contrast, the jaws and teeth of herbivores (horses, cows, rabbits, etc.) are designed for grinding plant matter. Carnivores devour, herbivores graze. Human beings, obviously, are omnivorous, but I believe that when it comes to eating we have far more anatomical characteristics in common with herbivores than with carnivores. Do you feel better when you wolf down your food, or when you eat leisurely and with relaxation? Which is more appealing and inviting to you, a slaughterhouse or a fruit orchard? The stomachs of natural meat eaters secrete levels of hydrochloric acid that are capable of dissolving raw meat and bone. The levels of hydrochloric acid in the human stomach are miniscule in comparison. If you were to swallow a capsule containing the digestive secretions of a cat, the contents of that capsule would be so acidic that they would almost instantly ulcerate the lining of your stomach. Audette and other advocates of "Paleolithic diets" say that our ancestors were heavy meat eaters. Is this true? Not according to paleontologist Richard Leakey, who is widely acknowledged as one of the world's foremost experts on the evolution of the human diet. Leakey points out, "You can't tear flesh by hand, you can't tear hide by hand. Our anterior teeth are not suited for tearing flesh or hide. We don't have large canine teeth, and we wouldn't have been able to deal with food sources that required those large canines." In fact, says Leakey, even if cavemen had large canine teeth, they still almost certainly would only rarely have eaten meat. Their diet would have been similar to that of our closest genetic relative - the chimpanzee. Molecular biologists and geneticists have compared proteins, DNA, and the whole spectrum of biological features, and have established convincingly that humans are closer to chimpanzees than horses are to donkeys. This is remarkable, because horses and donkeys can mate and reproduce, although their offspring, mules, are sterile. A significant difference between humans and chimpanzees, though, is that chimpanzees have large canine teeth that can tear apart their prey, and they have more strength and speed than humans. Still, even with these traits, which would be advantages for a meat-eater, chimpanzees, like other primates, eat a mainly vegetarian diet. Dr. Jane Goodall, whose work with chimpanzees represents the longest continuous field study of any living creature in science history, says chimpanzees often go months without eating any meat whatsoever. Indeed, she says, "The total amount of meat consumed by a chimpanzee during a given year will represent only a very small percentage of the overall diet." I am reminded of something Harvey Diamond once said: "You put a baby in a crib with an apple and a rabbit. If it eats the rabbit and plays with the apple, I'll buy you a new car." Audette's desire to eat more naturally is admirable. He is certainly correct that modern food technology has created some truly unnatural foods that undermine the health of people who consume them. He is absolutely right that modern food technology has refined, processed, and adulterated natural foods to the point of contributing to many degenerative diseases. His appreciation of the dangers of dairy products and sugar, and of refined carbohydrates such as white flour, is commendable. The dangers of technologically tampering with our food supply need to be far more widely understood. But these basic and valid insights are intermixed in Audette's theories with a host of ideas that are far more dubious, and some of which are outright bizarre. For example, his fundamental premise, to which he returns over and again, is that you should not eat anything that you could not eat "naked and with a sharp stick on the African savanna� To see how this primeval grassland (African savannas) appeared all we need to do is look at any lawn of golf course." So much for the complex ecological realities of African savannas. Audette's diet is heavily meat based. This emphasis on meat, he says, is natural. "My definition of nature," he says, "is the absence of technology� I eat only those foods that would be available to me if I were naked of all technology save that of a convenient sharp stick or stone." Accordingly, he believes that ideally one would eat all one's food raw. At the same time, however, he acknowledges that "meats, poultry, eggs and seafood are prone to contamination and should be cooked enough to sterilize them." This puts Audette in a bind. He sees that animal products carry extremely dangerous pathogens such as E. coli 0157:H7, salmonella, trichinosis, Listeria, and campylobacter. How to resolve this dilemma with his ideal of eating everything raw? Audette's answer is remarkable, coming as it does from an author whose entire program is based squarely upon eating only those foods that don't require technology for their production, preparation, or consumption. "Irradiated foods," he says "will eliminate this risk and make steak tartar and raw eggs much more possible." When it comes to grasping the functioning of the human intestinal tract seems, some of the things Audette says are, frankly, out to lunch. "The hunter-gatherer's miracle food, pemmican (equal parts raw, dehydrated, powdered red meat and tallow - rendered animal fat), makes practicing the NeanderThin program easy," he writes. "If eaten exclusively, a small amount per day will sustain you indefinitely without vitamin or mineral deficiencies�. It produces no waste� Pemmican is almost totally absorbed by the body. Very little waste remains from its digestion. As such pemmican is an excellent first solid food for infants, and a good choice for anyone suffering from a gastrointestinal disorder." Actually, exclusive dependence on such a food would create gross deficiencies in vitamin C and many other essential nutrients. And a food that "is almost totally absorbed by the body" and "produces no waste" would be a good choice for anyone wishing to experience constipation. Audette's understanding of obesity issues similarly seems to be missing in action. "Overweight people," he says, "eat significantly less than lean persons do�. Fat is good for you." Audette says that you should never eat grains, beans, or potatoes. In fact, his admonition never to eat these foods is fundamental to what he calls his "Ten Commandments." Calling his advice by such a Biblical term may provide the appearance of grandeur and importance, but it does not make his counsel any more valid or healthful. He says repeatedly that human beings are not designed to eat grains, beans, or potatoes. But these foods have been the primary source of food energy for the human race for many centuries. Today they account for the satisfaction of 70% of our species' energy needs. On the other hand, the meats he is saying to eat are (along with dairy products) the chief sources of saturated fat and cholesterol in the human diet, the principal causes of heart disease, and the primary carriers of food-borne disease. Modern meat is a far cry from the flesh of Paleolithic animals. For example, chickens raised for meat traditionally took twenty-one weeks to reach 4-pound market weight. But today, with the birds having been systematically bred for rapid weight gain, it takes only seven weeks for them to reach the same weight. One not-so-slight problem with this is that those chickens who are used for breeding must be kept under severe food restriction - otherwise they rapidly become too obese to reproduce. Loren Cordain, author of The Paleo Diet, recommends that more than half your diet should be meat and fish, and then goes on to say "the mainstays of the Paleo Diet are the lean meats, organ meats, and fish and seafood that are available at your local supermarket� Turkey breast is one of the best and cheapest sources of very lean meat�and fortunately, it's available almost everywhere." Well, yes, turkey breasts are available at almost every supermarket, and yes their breasts are low in fat, but it is hard for me to grasp how authors recommending that we go back to eating the way they say our ancestors did can recommend such a product. Turkeys today are far from the wild birds of yore. For one thing, thanks to a host of technological manipulations, they grow so fast that they literally find it impossible to mate naturally. By the time they reach reproductive age they are literally so obese that they simply cannot get close enough to physically manage. As a result, all 300 million turkeys born annually in the United States every year are the result of an act of artificial insemination. (How, you may wonder, is this done? Suffice it to say that there are people who have become adept at handling male turkeys in just the right way. The procedure is called-with delicacy but without anatomical accuracy-"abdominal massage." After the semen is thus collected, and then mixed with a myriad of chemicals, there are other "experts" whose job it is to inject the material into the females, using an implement that looks, rather ironically, remarkably like a turkey baster.) Each year at Thanksgiving, the U.S. president and vice president pardon a turkey and a vice turkey. This is a nice gesture, but after the turkeys are sent to a small farm, within a few months they die from heart attacks or lung collapse because their hearts and lungs can't support the ever increasing bulk. A farm journal noted that "If a seven-pound human baby grew at the same rate that today's turkeys grow, when the baby reached 18 weeks of age it would weigh 1,500 pounds." There may be some individuals who - by dint of their unique biochemical individuality - do well on a diet that avoids grains, beans and/or potatoes. If you want to experiment by not eating these foods for a time to see what happens and how you feel, all power to you. But I believe it is the rare person who will find that cereal grains and legumes are the health disaster they are said to be by the authors of these diet books. For the vast majority of people, I am afraid that diets which are so very heavy on animal protein will lead to constipation, increased risks for heart disease, cancer, obesity, diabetes, and many other diseases. We are always learning, John |
|
|||
|
|||
> "Must we build a new twenty-first century society corresponding to a
> hunting/gathering culture? Of course not; humans do not consciously > make > cultures. What we can do is single out those many things, large and Humans don't "consciously make cultures"? So we do it all in our sleep, or we are all unconscious? Please explain. It seems to me that we have a power elite which exists for historical reasons and persists because most people are passive observers of the ongoing spectacle - and those influential people are very much conscious of what they are doing and why. They consciously promote a culture that keeps them at the top whatever it takes. I think plenty of ordinary people are also aware of what is going on as well. With the advent of modern communications we are all conscious of the destruction that modern civilisation causes. If you really are motivated by ecological concerns, then eat some bugs out of your own yard. They are better for your health than meat and free. John |
|
|||
|
|||
> "Must we build a new twenty-first century society corresponding to a
> hunting/gathering culture? Of course not; humans do not consciously > make > cultures. What we can do is single out those many things, large and Humans don't "consciously make cultures"? So we do it all in our sleep, or we are all unconscious? Please explain. It seems to me that we have a power elite which exists for historical reasons and persists because most people are passive observers of the ongoing spectacle - and those influential people are very much conscious of what they are doing and why. They consciously promote a culture that keeps them at the top whatever it takes. I think plenty of ordinary people are also aware of what is going on as well. With the advent of modern communications we are all conscious of the destruction that modern civilisation causes. If you really are motivated by ecological concerns, then eat some bugs out of your own yard. They are better for your health than meat and free. John |
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
(Steve) wrote in message . com>...
> (Barbara) wrote in message om>... > > John Robbins, author of DIET FOR A NEW AMERICA reviews Ray Audette's > > book NEANDER THIN ( low carb diet, similar to the PALEOLITHIC DIET > > published by another author) > > <snip> > > > My sense of Ray Audette is that he is a well-meaning and intelligent > > man who writes well, and who is almost completely ignorant of what has > > been learned in medical research regarding diet and health. His book > > has no footnotes, so there is no way to verify or substantiate the > > research that he says provides supporting documentation. > > I think that is the best point Robbin's had to make in his assesment > of Audette's book. You're right, St. Martin's Press would not let me have footnotes - they paid me way to large an advance to give my book that particular "kiss of death" ( as my editor put it). They did allow for an anotated bibliography at my insistance - it's posted on my website for all to see. I'm not the only person studing or writing about Paleolithic Nutrition ( only the most popular. For other views of this facinating field by other authors ( most with better credentials than I or John Robbins) go to www.paleodiet.com Ray Audette Author "NeanderThin" www.NeanderThin.com |
|
|||
|
|||
(Ray Audette) wrote in message . com>...
> (Steve) wrote in message . com>... > > (Barbara) wrote in message om>... > > > John Robbins, author of DIET FOR A NEW AMERICA reviews Ray Audette's > > > book NEANDER THIN ( low carb diet, similar to the PALEOLITHIC DIET > > > published by another author) > > > > <snip> > > > > > My sense of Ray Audette is that he is a well-meaning and intelligent > > > man who writes well, and who is almost completely ignorant of what has > > > been learned in medical research regarding diet and health. His book > > > has no footnotes, so there is no way to verify or substantiate the > > > research that he says provides supporting documentation. > > > > I think that is the best point Robbin's had to make in his assesment > > of Audette's book. > > You're right, St. Martin's Press would not let me have footnotes - > they paid me way to large an advance to give my book that particular > "kiss of death" ( as my editor put it). They did allow for an > anotated bibliography at my insistance - it's posted on my website for > all to see. Your publisher wouldn't let you publish the facts? I have read plenty of popular books with footnotes. > > I'm not the only person studing or writing about Paleolithic Nutrition > ( only the most popular. In other words you are late in publishing another derivation of the low carb fad? |
|
|||
|
|||
(Steve) wrote in message > >
> > I'm not the only person studing or writing about Paleolithic Nutrition > > ( only the most popular. > > In other words you are late in publishing another derivation of the low carb fad? Yes, I'm very late into the game. Williams Banting's "Letter on Corpulence" (1853) was on the best-seller lists for decades. It was his work and that of Dr. James Salisbury's ( inventor of the "Sailsbury Steak")" The Relation of Alimentation and Disease" (1888)that began the low-carb craze. It was it's results that has kept it in business. Today Amazon.com lists over 195 low-carb diet books and such works have been continiously on best-seller lists since Banting. Mine ( 1995) was one of six selected from this list for review by Time Magazine in their May 3, 2004 issue. Atkin's diet products sold an estimated $800,000,000 last year (ibid. Time). Paleolithic Nutrition is a sub-set of such dieting. It is based on the diet of humans before technology and for 2 million years (hardly a "fad")was the only diet humans ate. Books on this topic have been around since Vilhjalmur Stefansson's "Cancer Disease of Civilization" (1960). There are currently several paleolithic diet books available. See www.paleodiet.com for listings and reviews. Paleolithic Nutrition saved my life. My work has saved many others. It is their encouragement that keeps me posting. Ray (I'm no AtkinsAudette Author "NeanderThin" www.NeanderThin.com |
|
|||
|
|||
> You're right, St. Martin's Press would not let me have footnotes -
> they paid me way to large an advance to give my book that particular > "kiss of death" ( as my editor put it). They did allow for an > anotated bibliography at my insistance - it's posted on my website for > all to see. Footnotes are more appropriate for technical lit'. However there is nothing wrong with putting a small ref number next to the citation and then put the references at the end of each chapter. John |
|
|||
|
|||
> I'm not the only person studing or writing about Paleolithic Nutrition
> ( only the most popular. For other views of this facinating field > by other authors ( most with better credentials than I or John > Robbins) go to www.paleodiet.com > > Ray Audette > Author "NeanderThin" > www.NeanderThin.com There is no empirical data for the Paleo diet, nor even a hypothesis that is supported by any strong evidence. Cordains book contains all manner of unsupported claims and bias selection - it is pseudo-science. John |
|
|||
|
|||
> I'm not the only person studing or writing about Paleolithic Nutrition
> ( only the most popular. For other views of this facinating field > by other authors ( most with better credentials than I or John > Robbins) go to www.paleodiet.com > > Ray Audette > Author "NeanderThin" > www.NeanderThin.com There is no empirical data for the Paleo diet, nor even a hypothesis that is supported by any strong evidence. Cordains book contains all manner of unsupported claims and bias selection - it is pseudo-science. John |
|
|||
|
|||
"John Coleman" > wrote in message >...
> > I'm not the only person studing or writing about Paleolithic Nutrition > > ( only the most popular. For other views of this facinating field > > by other authors ( most with better credentials than I or John > > Robbins) go to www.paleodiet.com > > > > Ray Audette > > Author "NeanderThin" > > www.NeanderThin.com > > There is no empirical data for the Paleo diet, nor even a hypothesis that is > supported by any strong evidence. Cordains book contains all manner of > unsupported claims and bias selection - it is pseudo-science. > > John The two studies mentioned earlier showed that a low-carb diet works better than Lipitor ( the best selling prescription drug in America)in lowering bad cholesterol and triglycerides while increasing good cholesterol. A far earlier study showed that a low-fat, high carb diet had the opposite effect. see: Garg, Abhimanyu, M.B.B.S., M.D. et al, "Effects of Varying Carbohydrate Content of Diet in Patients with Non-Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus." Journal of the AmericanMedicalAssociation vol. 271, #18 (May 11, 1994) 1421-1428. [Shows how a low-fat diet caused a rapid increase in LDL-cholesterol and triiglyceride levels in insulin-resistant (i.e., overweight) patients. Only one other mechanism ( cafestrol)has been shown to increase heart disease risk by this much] For more on the low-fat hoax from the New York Times see: http:nasw.org/mem-maint/award/01Taubesarticle1.html The hypothesis behind Paleolithic Nutrition is: A natural diet is best. Nature is defined as the absence of technology. Without technological intervention, grains, beans, potatoes, the milk of other animals and refined sugars are not edible to any species of Primate. Many paleopathological studies have been done as to what happened to Humans when they began to eat "Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge". see: Mark Cohen and G. J. Armelagos, Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture. New York: Academic Press, 1984. When people went through the Neolithic Revolution ( the biblical "Fall from Grace") we know from their remains that they lost more than 30% of average lifespan, six inches of average height, all their teeth before age 30 and show evidence of auto-immune disorders for the first time in the archeological record. Living people eating a Paleolithic diet were studied for over 100 years by missionary doctors, government officials and anthropologists whose curiosity was piqued by Dr. Stanislaw Tancho, who predicted in 1843 that auto-immune diseases would not be found in these people. He was the first person to discover a carcinogen when he found that epidemiological cancer rates statistically mirrored per-capita grain consumption everywhere in the world that such data was available. His work was further confirmed in 2002 when scientists testing for acrylamides in grain and potato products found that they were the most dangerous carcinogens in the modern human environment and the first carcinogen that statically mirrored epidemiological cancer rates. see: Stefansson, Vilhjalmur, ( the famous American Anthropologist) Cancer: Disease of Civilization. New York: Hill and Wang, 1960. [Documents the unsuccessful search for cancer and other autoimmune disorders among hunter-gatherers] Ray Audette Author "NeanderThin" www.NeanderThin.com |
|
|||
|
|||
> Paleolithic Nutrition is a sub-set of such dieting. It is based on
> the diet of humans before technology and for 2 million years (hardly a So you don't count spears, knives, and sharp pieces of stone as technology Ray? What other species eating its natural diet needs such tools to survive? Palaeolithic populations only manage average life expectancy of around 25 years, and we have no morbitity data for them of course, and not even historical accounts of how they really where. Do you believe, like Cordain, that this high death toll isn't because the diet was unsuitable? How do you explain modern populations with better average life expectancy and far superior longevity, such as the Okinawans? Traditional Okinawans eat nothing like a cave man diet, rather a high carbo diet, lots of fresh fruit and veggies, little meat, and some fish: "All told, vegetables, fruits, and grains comprise 72 percent of the diet, soy and seaweed contribute 14 percent, fish about 11 percent, while meat, poultry, and eggs account for only three percent. " http://www.drweil.com/app/cda/drw_cd...estionId=21237 Neander...Thin on facts and logic? John |
|
|||
|
|||
> Paleolithic Nutrition is a sub-set of such dieting. It is based on
> the diet of humans before technology and for 2 million years (hardly a So you don't count spears, knives, and sharp pieces of stone as technology Ray? What other species eating its natural diet needs such tools to survive? Palaeolithic populations only manage average life expectancy of around 25 years, and we have no morbitity data for them of course, and not even historical accounts of how they really where. Do you believe, like Cordain, that this high death toll isn't because the diet was unsuitable? How do you explain modern populations with better average life expectancy and far superior longevity, such as the Okinawans? Traditional Okinawans eat nothing like a cave man diet, rather a high carbo diet, lots of fresh fruit and veggies, little meat, and some fish: "All told, vegetables, fruits, and grains comprise 72 percent of the diet, soy and seaweed contribute 14 percent, fish about 11 percent, while meat, poultry, and eggs account for only three percent. " http://www.drweil.com/app/cda/drw_cd...estionId=21237 Neander...Thin on facts and logic? John |
|
|||
|
|||
On 08/20/04 8:12 PM, in article ,
"John Coleman" > wrote: >> Paleolithic Nutrition is a sub-set of such dieting. It is based on >> the diet of humans before technology and for 2 million years (hardly a > > So you don't count spears, knives, and sharp pieces of stone as technology > Ray? What other species eating its natural diet needs such tools to survive? > > Palaeolithic populations only manage average life expectancy of around 25 > years, and we have no morbitity data for them of course, and not even > historical accounts of how they really where. Do you believe, like Cordain, > that this high death toll isn't because the diet was unsuitable? How do you > explain modern populations with better average life expectancy and far > superior longevity, such as the Okinawans? > > Traditional Okinawans eat nothing like a cave man diet, rather a high carbo > diet, lots of fresh fruit and veggies, little meat, and some fish: > "All told, vegetables, fruits, and grains comprise 72 percent of the diet, > soy and seaweed contribute 14 percent, fish about 11 percent, while meat, > poultry, and eggs account for only three percent. " > http://www.drweil.com/app/cda/drw_cd...estionId=21237 > > Neander...Thin on facts and logic? > > John > > > Well said. |
|
|||
|
|||
> You are asking good questions. How much can a person, whose main job
> is hunting mammoths with a spear, expect to live? Can we expect him to > live to 70? I'm talking about much later HGs in North America, they also had low average life expectancies. They were not killed by mammoths. The low average was due to high child mortality, how many HG children do you think hunted mammoths anyway? > that Diamond called corn, often thought to be an agricultural wonder, > "a public health disaster." (Hartmann 1996: 109, Beyond ADD) The first farmers would not have understood soil fertility, of course their health took a dive. > 27 percent to 81 percent. Average life expectancy dropped from twenty-six > to nineteen years." (Budiansky 1992: 37, The Covenant of the Wild) So average life expectancy even prior to agriculture was a feeble 26 years, on the supposed ideal diet and lifestyle? > What is surprising is that they do not live much longer: That is not very surprising as most of the later years of survival are thought to be genetically determined, and don't forget Westerners have the "benefit" of modern medicine to keep them alive, even when terribly degenerated. The main points are that they have many more centarians, and that the people are vigorous into old age compared to Westerners. Average life spans do not reflect quality of life. > As you can see, it is not a dramatic difference. Comparing simple numbers is fairly uninformative. > Okinawans also "eat less", which has an effect separate from > percentages of macronutrients. Yes, HGs may have benefitted from that as well. When we have good quality data showing HGs have better quality and quantity of life over Okinawans, then we can talk usefully about it in the context of human welfare. Until then the idea HG diets are optimal is an unsupported and irrational hypothesis. So no need to post here about it or write daft books. John |
|
|||
|
|||
John Coleman wrote:
>>You are asking good questions. How much can a person, whose main job >>is hunting mammoths with a spear, expect to live? Can we expect him to >>live to 70? I am surprised nobody has mentioned how that naked person with a pointed stick could also use that stick to dig up a low glycemic, high nutrition sweet potato Dang that naked person even eat wild legumes, without even using the stick! Steve -- Be A Healthy Vegan Or Vegetarian http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdo...ealthyVeg.html Steve's Home Page http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdom/ "The great American thought trap: It is not real unless it can be seen on television or bought in a shopping mall" |
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, Ray
Audette > wrote: > Without technological intervention, grains, beans, potatoes, the milk > of other animals and refined sugars are not edible to any species of > Primate. That's why they're still primates. Man is a grain eater. Grain eating and cooking is why we are Man, why we stand up, why our thinking is more encompassing. No technological intervention is needed to eat grains, most can be eaten uncooked. "Meal" means cooked grain, the food of Man. Any diet that promotes natural and organic food is helpful. Diets that also advocate high meat consumption (more than 20%) are not. These "Low-carb" diets are fads which will end when the downside is understood. The downside is very large, so please, return to the real food of man, rice, wheat, oats, millet etc. quickly. |
|
|||
|
|||
> Man is a grain eater.
That is true, but grains are a recent food in human nutrition and their introduction saw a decline in human health. Grains are innedible in their natural state and cooking and process is usually required for them. You can sprout them, I guess that is what you are reffering to? But they have no particular taste or flavour. Humans have all the anatomical features of fruit eaters just like other closely related great apes, grain eating is largely limited to rodents, although I suppose cattle and other grazers do also eat a lot of seed. This paper http://www.vegan-straight-edge.org.uk/GW_paper.htm explores the drug effects of grains. I agree about the natural and organic food and try to make most my diet like that. > food of man, rice, wheat, oats, millet etc. quickly. I think I'll stick to the fruit and nuts thanks. The phytates in grains can promote mineral deficienies. John |
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, John Coleman
> wrote: > > Man is a grain eater. > > That is true, but grains are a recent food in human nutrition and their > introduction saw a decline in human health. Grains are innedible in their There is nothing recent about grains or humans. We are grains, we have always been, and always will be. When I speak of humans, I don't only mean those on this planet. I'm including humans on millions of other planets as well. The history of humans and the grains that created them is far older than this planet, which is probably only a few hundred billion years old. Do you want to give up the the greatest treasure that exists in this universe, your evolution to human status, a gift to you from millions of your grain eating ancestors, by de-volving yourself back to a crocodile, or lion? You think I'm joking? And all for a few carefully chosen "research papers" which support your insane ideas. I'll say no more, but please remember that I called your ideas "insane". I know it's just a case of temporary insanity, so please get well soon. > natural state and cooking and process is usually required for them. You can > sprout them, I guess that is what you are reffering to? But they have no > particular taste or flavour. Humans have all the anatomical features of No taste or flavor, aha! so that's the problem. > fruit eaters just like other closely related great apes, grain eating is > largely limited to rodents, although I suppose cattle and other grazers do > also eat a lot of seed. This paper > http://www.vegan-straight-edge.org.uk/GW_paper.htm explores the drug effects > of grains. > > I agree about the natural and organic food and try to make most my diet like > that. > > > food of man, rice, wheat, oats, millet etc. quickly. > > I think I'll stick to the fruit and nuts thanks. The phytates in grains can > promote mineral deficienies. Really? You did the research on this? Or did you read it somewhere? > John > best wishes -itchy |
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, itchy
> wrote: > In article >, John Coleman > > wrote: > > > > Man is a grain eater. > > > > That is true, but grains are a recent food in human nutrition and their > > introduction saw a decline in human health. Grains are innedible in their > There is nothing recent about grains or humans. We are grains, we have > always been, and always will be. When I speak of humans, I don't only > mean those on this planet. I'm including humans on millions of other > planets as well. The history of humans and the grains that created them > is far older than this planet, which is probably only a few hundred > billion years old. Hi John, I just re-read the thread and realized I mixed up you and Mr. Audette. You are not supporting the low-carb diets, so the stuff below applies to him. My apologies. -itchy > Do you want to give up the the greatest treasure that exists in this > universe, your evolution to human status, a gift to you from millions > of your grain eating ancestors, by de-volving yourself back to a > crocodile, or lion? You think I'm joking? > And all for a few carefully chosen "research papers" which support your > insane ideas. > I'll say no more, but please remember that I called your ideas > "insane". I know it's just a case of temporary insanity, so please get > well soon. > |
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, itchy
> wrote: > In article >, John Coleman > > wrote: > > > > Man is a grain eater. > > > > That is true, but grains are a recent food in human nutrition and their > > introduction saw a decline in human health. Grains are innedible in their > There is nothing recent about grains or humans. We are grains, we have > always been, and always will be. When I speak of humans, I don't only > mean those on this planet. I'm including humans on millions of other > planets as well. The history of humans and the grains that created them > is far older than this planet, which is probably only a few hundred > billion years old. Hi John, I just re-read the thread and realized I mixed up you and Mr. Audette. You are not supporting the low-carb diets, so the stuff below applies to him. My apologies. -itchy > Do you want to give up the the greatest treasure that exists in this > universe, your evolution to human status, a gift to you from millions > of your grain eating ancestors, by de-volving yourself back to a > crocodile, or lion? You think I'm joking? > And all for a few carefully chosen "research papers" which support your > insane ideas. > I'll say no more, but please remember that I called your ideas > "insane". I know it's just a case of temporary insanity, so please get > well soon. > |
|
|||
|
|||
> Hi John,
> I just re-read the thread and realized I mixed up you and Mr. Audette. > You are not supporting the low-carb diets, so the stuff below applies > to him. My apologies. -itchy Maybe you have an "itchy" trigger finger and need to read before you post? Audette is quite right to present a case against grains, but however bad they are, that doesn't make a case for eating half your diet as meat. His position is based on an old logical fallacy, A is bad therefore B is good. The psychotropic effects (I cited a paper on) only apply to certain grains, plenty of others don't have these effects and are quite nutritious. I would never use a grain as a staple food though, too much is bad. The fact that starch has no taste or flavour ought to tell you something. John |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Baskin Robbins | General Cooking | |||
31 cents Baskin-Robbins Scoops Promotion | General Cooking | |||
31 cents Baskin-Robbins Scoops Promotion | General Cooking | |||
About Ray Audette? | Vegan | |||
KO- Baskin-Robbins® Ice Cream Cake | Recipes |