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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Barbara
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ray Audette
 
Posts: n/a
Default John Robbins reviews Ray Audette's book "Neander Thin"

(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)
> at this url:
>
>
http://www.foodrevolution.org/askjohn/30.htm
>
> Here is the text of review:
>


This post and book could use the services of a good fact checker.
Does he not know how to access PubMed?

For a deeper view of ecology, I suggest something from Paul Shepard
(considered by most to be the father of the "deep ecology" movement).

Perhaps:
Shepard, Paul,
"The Tender Carnivore and the Sacred Game. "
New York: Charles Scribner and Sons, 1973.
[A manifesto concerning how agriculture and neoteny
conspire to oppress humans and destroy the environment.]


"Most people seem to agree that we cannot and do not want to go back
to the
past, but the reason given is often wrong; that time has moved on and
what
was can never be again. The truth is that we cannot go back to what we
never
left. Our home is the earth, our time the Pleistocene Ice Ages. The
past is
the formula for our being."

Paul Shepard, The Tender Carnivore and the Sacred Game

"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
small,
that characterized the social and cultural life of our ancestors - the
terms
under which our genome itself was shaped - and incorporate them as
best we
can by creating a modern life around them. We take our cues from
primal
cultures, the best wisdom of the deep desires of the genome. We
humans are
instinctive culture makers; given the pieces, the culture will reshape
itself."

Concluding paragraph of "Coming Home to the Pleistocene" by Paul
Shepard
1998 ( his last book )

I suppose you believe like, Michael Moore in his recent book, that
George W. ordered the attacks of 9/11? Probe deeper!

Ray Audette
Author "NeanderThin"
www.NeanderThin.com
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> "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


  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> "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


  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ray Audette
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(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
  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> 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




  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> 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


  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> 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


  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ray Audette
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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
  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> 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



  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> 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





  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Randell Tarin
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> 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


  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Steve
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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"



  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
itchy
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> 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




  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
itchy
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
itchy
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
>

  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
itchy
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
>

  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> 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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Baskin Robbins Virginia Tadrzynski General Cooking 4 29-04-2009 02:36 AM
31 cents Baskin-Robbins Scoops Promotion Sqwertz General Cooking 14 29-04-2008 10:58 PM
31 cents Baskin-Robbins Scoops Promotion notbob General Cooking 9 28-04-2008 12:13 AM
About Ray Audette? Barbara Vegan 77 02-01-2005 03:43 AM
KO- Baskin-Robbins® Ice Cream Cake ~*~ Bunny ~*~ Recipes 0 16-10-2004 04:41 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:40 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"