Posted on 01/18/2012 9:09:57 PM PST by doug from upland
Since I sometimes eat fish, particularly salmon, which is good for my heart, I am a pescetarian. Gee, it’s been since 1991 that I have not eaten meat or fowl. I’ve outlived my dad and my grandfather by six years and intend many more. But I don’t push it on anyone else. It’s right for me, a Birkenstock-wearing, bearded, pescetarian right-winger.
I’m not a proselytizer. But I’ll answer questions. ;-)
If someone wants to eat meat IMHO the healthiest is wild fish or game, deer. Not one saturated with parasites though.
And people can be junk food vegetarians, I’ve known some! (blechh)
Bwahahahahahahahaha! The 20 worst foods =
http://listoftheday.blogspot.com/2007/01/americas-20-worst-foods.html
Paula uses lotsa budduh when she cooks. Y’all he uh me, lotsa budduh.
Not everything that causes an inflammatory response can be said to be a “poison”. Otherwise peanut butter is a poison!
Some people have an allergy to gluten - this doesn’t make bread pasta and flour “poison”.
As to what we were designed to eat - most human populations in a primitive state (outside the Arctic) gain the majority of their calories from carbohydrates, with infrequently eaten meat and fat providing essential nutrients and dense high quality high calories for lean times.
Nowadays the lean times are few and far between - thus the high calorie nutrient dense foods we have grown to love are probably too high calorie for our far more sedentary and far less likely to every suffer privation situation.
Bump!
The author says that the "excessive consumption of refined carbohydrates" will result in the kind of inflamation that leads to all sorts of deadly maladies. How does he define "excessive?" If you overwhelm the body with anything, bad things can happen. But I think he's arguing that all carbohydrates are bad. I've been hearing that a lot lately...and it is contrary to your fact that the human body was designed to derive the majority of its calories from carbohydrates.
EBH seems to be claiming that a diet including white flour, pasta, bread, and any other refined carbohydrate, is toxic and deleterious to our health. It's a common refrain I hear on this forum and elsewhere. If so, then we're all doomed to die an early and painful death. It appears that consuming a balanced diet (along with a discipline of moderation) is no longer a prescription for being healthy and happy. That's been replaced with the demonization of one macronutrient vs. another.
Even so, we continue to live longer and healthier lives than at any other time in our history. Go figure.
The anti-carb fanatics are the flip side of the coin from fanatic vegans. Both have had moderate success with a highly restrictive diet and think that because they were unhealthy being unrestricted and had some success with the diet - then everyone at every stage of health should at all times follow their diet.
Yes, the danger of “Di-hydrous Oxide” a deadly compound that is the #1 cause of death through inhalation of a chemical! Drowning. ;)
Demonization of one macronutrient or another seems a common thread to the illogical American mind about food and diet.
Fat free was the big thing. People thought “How can I get fat if I don't eat fat?”.
Cotton candy is a “fat free food”. Your body knows how to get energy from fat, protein, sugar or carbohydrate - and store that excess energy as fat tissue FROM ANY SOURCE that the energy was derived from.
A balanced diet high in carbohydrates is recommended for athletes and you will find that almost every successful Olympic caliber athlete will derive the majority of their calories from carbohydrates.
How poisonous can it be if eating it leads to Olympic caliber performance?
If their grandiose claims had any basis in reality, then raw foodist idiots, Atkinsites, and Vegans should be able to point to all the major athletes that follow their diet regimen, no?
If you listen to the foodophobes here, you'd be convinced that he's on death's doorstep and that he absolutely has to be suffering from diabetes, cancer and heart disease. These folks are certainly fanatical when it comes to carbohydrates, but not so much when it comes to biochemistry and physiology.
I've been round and round with one carbophobe on FR who continues to tell me that I can eat all the fat and protein I want and not gain weight. If only.... When I attempt to explain to him basic thermodynamics, that you can't get somethin' from nuthin', he hurls invective, links me to questionable research, and then runs away. The Atkins diet is a great example. Atkins made a mint selling a dubious dietary strategy that was not based on scientific evidence. It was designed simply to sell diet books by telling people that they can eat as much as they like of some foods and still go on a weight-loss diet. Instead of criticizing this gravy train, perhaps I should be getting on board. :^)
Sometimes, when reading FR, I wonder if I missed a big discovery somewhere and scientific progress has simply passed me by. Thanks for keeping me straight. It's always good to be able to go to someone who is current on the literature - there's so much of it out there these days, and it gets harder and harder to separate what's relevant from what isn't.
The conventional wisdom should be that the total number of calories is what's important – while the macronutrient ratio is not terribly important – provided it does not lead to malnutrition. History shows you can sell diet advice more easily if you claim that fats or carbs are the problem – while the (admittedly rather obvious) idea that calories are the problem seems to be something that few are prepared to pay for. They are, however, eager to fork over their hard earned money for any advice that pits one macronutrient against another. Again, go figure.
Not enough carb consumption today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.