Re: Counterintuitive Fatloss

February 14, 2008

--- wrote:

> The citation of elite endurance athletes as examples

> which somehow

> warrant generalizations that apply to the general

> population seems

> awfully silly to me. I guess I have to admit, if we

> just get everyone

> to ride their bikes at high speeds for 50 miles per

> day, my objections

> to grain-based diets won't apply.

The atheltes I was discussing are not elite endurance

athletes. They were members of a team of high school

and college amateur athletes on a team that I was

coaching.

You dont't have to get every one to ride their bikes,

just get them to get off their butts and exercise.

The the runners and rowers likewise are not elite

athletes but again they are amateur athletes.

The point I am trying to make is very simple to

understand. You can eat a high carb diet and not get

fat if you utilize the carbs in your daily acitivity.

As I pointed out before and will continue to point

out, it is the lack of physical activity that causes

obesity.

You made the following statement in your post of Fri

Feb 8, 2008 11:21 am-

<<<<The issue with refined grains, particularly white

flours, is that

eating them triggers hormonal responses that lead to

obesity. Not

only do they directly trigger fat storage, but they

also cause rapid

spikes and declines in blood sugar that lean one to be

way too hungry

again way too soon>>>

The implication in your statement is that white flour

causes obesity.

Food does not cause obesity unless you eat more than

you need for your daily activity.

Can you elaborate on which hormones are triggered by

refined grains to cause obesity.

> As to the processing, sometimes processing removes

> most of the

> antinutrients from grains. Unfortunately, the

> processed grain now

> causes insulin spikes and excessive hunger -

Do you have any data to corroborate your statement

that processed grain causes an insulin spike and

subsequently causes hunger?

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct USA

February 14, 2008

--- wrote:

> The citation of elite endurance athletes as examples

> which somehow

> warrant generalizations that apply to the general

> population seems

> awfully silly to me. I guess I have to admit, if we

> just get everyone

> to ride their bikes at high speeds for 50 miles per

> day, my objections

> to grain-based diets won't apply.

The atheltes I was discussing are not elite endurance

athletes. They were members of a team of high school

and college amateur athletes on a team that I was

coaching.

You dont't have to get every one to ride their bikes,

just get them to get off their butts and exercise.

The the runners and rowers likewise are not elite

athletes but again they are amateur athletes.

The point I am trying to make is very simple to

understand. You can eat a high carb diet and not get

fat if you utilize the carbs in your daily acitivity.

As I pointed out before and will continue to point

out, it is the lack of physical activity that causes

obesity.

You made the following statement in your post of Fri

Feb 8, 2008 11:21 am-

<<<<The issue with refined grains, particularly white

flours, is that

eating them triggers hormonal responses that lead to

obesity. Not

only do they directly trigger fat storage, but they

also cause rapid

spikes and declines in blood sugar that lean one to be

way too hungry

again way too soon>>>

The implication in your statement is that white flour

causes obesity.

Food does not cause obesity unless you eat more than

you need for your daily activity.

Can you elaborate on which hormones are triggered by

refined grains to cause obesity.

> As to the processing, sometimes processing removes

> most of the

> antinutrients from grains. Unfortunately, the

> processed grain now

> causes insulin spikes and excessive hunger -

Do you have any data to corroborate your statement

that processed grain causes an insulin spike and

subsequently causes hunger?

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct USA

February 14, 2008

--- wrote:

> If diabetics can't die in minutes from insulin

> shock, we need to get

> out the shovels and head to the graveyards. Many

> people have been

> mistakenly buried alive!

The only reason that diabetics would go into insulin

shock is if they gave themselves insulin and did not

eat enough carbs. How many people do you know who died

of insulin overdose?

Most patients who develop insulin shock become jittery

and have distinct symptoms and there is plenty of time

to consume some sugar or drink some juice. Those who

don't take the proper steps in time will lapse into

coma and unless there is something wrong with their

body's counter regulatory system eventually their

blood sugar will return to normal. They certainly

don't die in minutes if at all.

But more importantly you did not state that patients

would die from insulin. You made the following

statement:

> Some are so intolerant of sugars and flours that we

> call them

> diabetics, and improperly eating these substances

> can actually kill

> them in minutes.

Your implications are that eating sugars and flours

will cause diabetics to die in minutes. Eating too

much sugar or carbs may cause diabetics develop

hyperglycemia (high blood sugar) but they certainly

will not die in minutes.

For those not acquainted with the metabolism of

glucose a normal glucose level is between 70-90 and

after a meal it normally rises to 130 - 140 and

returns to 70-90 in 2-3 hours.

Excessive sugars and starches in uncontrolled

diabetics can rise as high as 200-300. Despite this

high glucose level they do not die in minutes. I have

treated diabetics with blood sugars as 700-800 and

they did not die in minutes.

I have even treated patients with hyperosmolar

diabetic ketoacidosis with blood sugars as high as

1400. Some died but even they did not die in minutes.

As you can imagine, these are very difficult patients

to treat and sometimes after many hours of intensive

treatment they may succumb to their disease despite

heroic efforts.

> Many of your arguments here have fallacy problems,

> for instance:

>

> Things that effect competitive endurance athletes

> don't necessarily

> apply to normal people.

The individuals I discussed are normal people who

happen enjoy racing bicycles or running road races or

racing skulls or kayaking just as many individuals in

this discussion group enjoy power lifting or Olympic

lifting.

> I never said eating processed carbs caused diabetes.

> That's a strawman. >>

Flour is a processed carb. Pasta is made from

processed flour as is bread and both of these are

processed carbs. So if processed flour causes

diabetes then it only stands to reason based on your

statement that processed carbs cause diabetes.

This is your statement:

> Some are so intolerant of sugars and flours that we

> call them

> diabetics, and improperly eating these substances

> can actually kill

> them in minutes.

********************

> Your father ate mostly beans and rice and had no

> malnutrition

> problems?

Pasta and beans has been called by nutritionists as

the poor man's steak because they each contain

complimentary amino acids. The same can be said of

rice and beans.

<<How do you know that?

A big pile of

> periodic extensive

> blood test records collected over his entire

> lifetime? It sounds

> impossible to me to eat the diet you described and

> not have

> malnutrition problems.

My father lived to be 79. He died of a ruptured

aneurysm in his brain while fixing a water heater. He

worked as a house painter and builder all his life and

did not retire until he was in his 70s. He had all his

teeth without any cavities, despite the fact that he

never went to a dentist until he was in his 60s.

He had a cardiac stress test in his 60s and passed it

with flying colors. He enjoyed the stress test so

much that he went out and bought a treadmill for

himself.

He had no heart disease, he had a normal blood

pressure and he was not diabetic. But he sure loved

his pasta and bread.

Up until the day before my father died he would go to

the local YMCA and swim for 30 minutes followed by

workout on the nautilaus machines and some work on the

treadmill.

My grandparents and their

> families were from

> that generation. They ate a diet more varied than

> you describe, yet

> mostly overcooked. From what I could see, they all

> had malnourishment

> problems, evidenced by heart disease, teeth falling

> out, lack of

> mental acuity, and so forth, starting as young as in

> their 50's. It

> is true that the ones who lived the most active life

> lasted the

> longest, but they weren't in very good condition for

> the last 20 to 30

> years.

>

> Overall, I would have to agree that lack of physical

> activity is more

> damaging to health than overconsumption of grains,

> but it doesn't mean

> overconsumption of of grains isn't bad.

>

> Wilbanks

> Wisconsin, USA

At least we agree on something. You need to define

what you mean by over consumption. What is normal for

one person might be too much for another. Individuals

who have sedentary jobs and lead a sedentary lifestyle

need to avoid excessive calories whether they be in

the form of fat protein or starch.

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct USA

>

> > > >

> > >

> > > > I grew up in the 50's (born 1941). Food was in

> > > > abundance, but obesity was very rare. All the

> > > sugary

> > > > cereals that are on the shelves in the

> supermarket

> > > now

> > > > where also present when I was a kid. My

> favorite

> > > was

> > > > sugar pops.

> > > >

> > > > As a kid the favorite stop on the way home was

> the

> > > > candy store where we loaded up on coca cola,

> > > chocolate

> > > > candy bars etc. The same candy bars that you

> find

> > > on

> > > > the shelves today existed when I was a kid.

> Baby

> > > Ruth

> > > > (named after presidents daughter and not Babe

> > > Ruth),

> > > > Three muscateers, Tootsie rolls were the

> > > favoritea.

> > > >

> > > > The difference between when I was a kid an now

> is

> > > that

> > > > even in elementary school I had to walk to

> school

> > > and

> > > > back twice a day. We had to walk home for

> lunch

> > > and

> > > > back to school for the afternoon session.

> > > >

> > > > My mother did not drive, most families had

> only

> > > one

> > > > car which was used for long trips and Sunday

> > > drives,

> > > > so when I wanted to play ball I had to get on

> my

> > > bike

> > > > and ride to the ball field.

> > > >

> > > > My mother walked to the grocery store. Etc.

> > > > What has brought about obesity is lack of

> physical

> > > > activity.

> > > >

> > > > There were very few places to workout in those

> > > days.

> > > > Most people had enough of a workout in their

> every

> > > day

> > > > job.

> > > >

> > > > Yes there is an abundance of food but more

> > > importantly

> > > > there is a lack of daily physical activity

> (NEAT).

> > >

> > > >

> > > > The fat gentry mentioned above not only had an

> > > > abundance of food but they had the poor to do

> > > their

> > > > physical labor.

> > > >

> > > > As for flours and grains causing obesity that

> also

> > > is

> > > > somewhat of a myth. There are plenty of

> > > individuals

> > > > who consume a high carb diet with plenty of

> starch

> > > in

> > > > the form of pasta, potato, rice, bread etc who

> > > have

> > > > 7-10% body fat.

> > > >

> > > > Ralph Giarnella MD

> > > > Southington Ct USA

> > > >

> > >

> > > The first problem with what you are saying is

> > > temporal. If eating all

> > > the sugary starchy stuff you describe became

> popular

> > > when you were a

> > > kid, then your generation is part of the stats

> that

> > > make up the

> > > current obesity epidemic. Were adults and

> > > geriatrics eating like that

> > > back then?

> >

> > Actually my generation ( I am 67 ) is not part of

> the

> > stats for obesity. The obesity epidemic is

> affecting

> > mostly our present below 40 generation and is even

> > worse amongst our present teenage generation.

> >

> > > Second, are there really " plenty " of people who

> chow

> > > down on processed

> > > carbs and remain bodybuilding contest thin?

> Where

> > > did you get this

> > > information? I don't doubt that there are a few

> > > people who can do

> > > this.

> >

> > Take a look at all the runners, cyclists, and

> rowers.

> > I have spent the past 20+ years associating

> myself

> > with cyclists of all ages as well as runners and

> > recently with rowers and their diet consists

> primarily

> > of high carb 60-70% and the serious cyclists,

> rowers

> > and runners - those who train 15-20 hrs a week

> have no

> > problem maintaining body fat % of less than 10%.

> > Whereas I find it curious that the body builders

> and

> > weight lifters seemed to be obsessed in trying to

> find

> > ways in getting to low % body fat. The only

> obsession

> > I find in the endurance athletes I mentioned is

> how to

> > eat enough food to maintain their daily energy

> output.

>

=== message truncated ===

February 14, 2008

--- wrote:

> If diabetics can't die in minutes from insulin

> shock, we need to get

> out the shovels and head to the graveyards. Many

> people have been

> mistakenly buried alive!

The only reason that diabetics would go into insulin

shock is if they gave themselves insulin and did not

eat enough carbs. How many people do you know who died

of insulin overdose?

Most patients who develop insulin shock become jittery

and have distinct symptoms and there is plenty of time

to consume some sugar or drink some juice. Those who

don't take the proper steps in time will lapse into

coma and unless there is something wrong with their

body's counter regulatory system eventually their

blood sugar will return to normal. They certainly

don't die in minutes if at all.

But more importantly you did not state that patients

would die from insulin. You made the following

statement:

> Some are so intolerant of sugars and flours that we

> call them

> diabetics, and improperly eating these substances

> can actually kill

> them in minutes.

Your implications are that eating sugars and flours

will cause diabetics to die in minutes. Eating too

much sugar or carbs may cause diabetics develop

hyperglycemia (high blood sugar) but they certainly

will not die in minutes.

For those not acquainted with the metabolism of

glucose a normal glucose level is between 70-90 and

after a meal it normally rises to 130 - 140 and

returns to 70-90 in 2-3 hours.

Excessive sugars and starches in uncontrolled

diabetics can rise as high as 200-300. Despite this

high glucose level they do not die in minutes. I have

treated diabetics with blood sugars as 700-800 and

they did not die in minutes.

I have even treated patients with hyperosmolar

diabetic ketoacidosis with blood sugars as high as

1400. Some died but even they did not die in minutes.

As you can imagine, these are very difficult patients

to treat and sometimes after many hours of intensive

treatment they may succumb to their disease despite

heroic efforts.

> Many of your arguments here have fallacy problems,

> for instance:

>

> Things that effect competitive endurance athletes

> don't necessarily

> apply to normal people.

The individuals I discussed are normal people who

happen enjoy racing bicycles or running road races or

racing skulls or kayaking just as many individuals in

this discussion group enjoy power lifting or Olympic

lifting.

> I never said eating processed carbs caused diabetes.

> That's a strawman. >>

Flour is a processed carb. Pasta is made from

processed flour as is bread and both of these are

processed carbs. So if processed flour causes

diabetes then it only stands to reason based on your

statement that processed carbs cause diabetes.

This is your statement:

> Some are so intolerant of sugars and flours that we

> call them

> diabetics, and improperly eating these substances

> can actually kill

> them in minutes.

********************

> Your father ate mostly beans and rice and had no

> malnutrition

> problems?

Pasta and beans has been called by nutritionists as

the poor man's steak because they each contain

complimentary amino acids. The same can be said of

rice and beans.

<<How do you know that?

A big pile of

> periodic extensive

> blood test records collected over his entire

> lifetime? It sounds

> impossible to me to eat the diet you described and

> not have

> malnutrition problems.

My father lived to be 79. He died of a ruptured

aneurysm in his brain while fixing a water heater. He

worked as a house painter and builder all his life and

did not retire until he was in his 70s. He had all his

teeth without any cavities, despite the fact that he

never went to a dentist until he was in his 60s.

He had a cardiac stress test in his 60s and passed it

with flying colors. He enjoyed the stress test so

much that he went out and bought a treadmill for

himself.

He had no heart disease, he had a normal blood

pressure and he was not diabetic. But he sure loved

his pasta and bread.

Up until the day before my father died he would go to

the local YMCA and swim for 30 minutes followed by

workout on the nautilaus machines and some work on the

treadmill.

My grandparents and their

> families were from

> that generation. They ate a diet more varied than

> you describe, yet

> mostly overcooked. From what I could see, they all

> had malnourishment

> problems, evidenced by heart disease, teeth falling

> out, lack of

> mental acuity, and so forth, starting as young as in

> their 50's. It

> is true that the ones who lived the most active life

> lasted the

> longest, but they weren't in very good condition for

> the last 20 to 30

> years.

>

> Overall, I would have to agree that lack of physical

> activity is more

> damaging to health than overconsumption of grains,

> but it doesn't mean

> overconsumption of of grains isn't bad.

>

> Wilbanks

> Wisconsin, USA

At least we agree on something. You need to define

what you mean by over consumption. What is normal for

one person might be too much for another. Individuals

who have sedentary jobs and lead a sedentary lifestyle

need to avoid excessive calories whether they be in

the form of fat protein or starch.

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct USA

>

> > > >

> > >

> > > > I grew up in the 50's (born 1941). Food was in

> > > > abundance, but obesity was very rare. All the

> > > sugary

> > > > cereals that are on the shelves in the

> supermarket

> > > now

> > > > where also present when I was a kid. My

> favorite

> > > was

> > > > sugar pops.

> > > >

> > > > As a kid the favorite stop on the way home was

> the

> > > > candy store where we loaded up on coca cola,

> > > chocolate

> > > > candy bars etc. The same candy bars that you

> find

> > > on

> > > > the shelves today existed when I was a kid.

> Baby

> > > Ruth

> > > > (named after presidents daughter and not Babe

> > > Ruth),

> > > > Three muscateers, Tootsie rolls were the

> > > favoritea.

> > > >

> > > > The difference between when I was a kid an now

> is

> > > that

> > > > even in elementary school I had to walk to

> school

> > > and

> > > > back twice a day. We had to walk home for

> lunch

> > > and

> > > > back to school for the afternoon session.

> > > >

> > > > My mother did not drive, most families had

> only

> > > one

> > > > car which was used for long trips and Sunday

> > > drives,

> > > > so when I wanted to play ball I had to get on

> my

> > > bike

> > > > and ride to the ball field.

> > > >

> > > > My mother walked to the grocery store. Etc.

> > > > What has brought about obesity is lack of

> physical

> > > > activity.

> > > >

> > > > There were very few places to workout in those

> > > days.

> > > > Most people had enough of a workout in their

> every

> > > day

> > > > job.

> > > >

> > > > Yes there is an abundance of food but more

> > > importantly

> > > > there is a lack of daily physical activity

> (NEAT).

> > >

> > > >

> > > > The fat gentry mentioned above not only had an

> > > > abundance of food but they had the poor to do

> > > their

> > > > physical labor.

> > > >

> > > > As for flours and grains causing obesity that

> also

> > > is

> > > > somewhat of a myth. There are plenty of

> > > individuals

> > > > who consume a high carb diet with plenty of

> starch

> > > in

> > > > the form of pasta, potato, rice, bread etc who

> > > have

> > > > 7-10% body fat.

> > > >

> > > > Ralph Giarnella MD

> > > > Southington Ct USA

> > > >

> > >

> > > The first problem with what you are saying is

> > > temporal. If eating all

> > > the sugary starchy stuff you describe became

> popular

> > > when you were a

> > > kid, then your generation is part of the stats

> that

> > > make up the

> > > current obesity epidemic. Were adults and

> > > geriatrics eating like that

> > > back then?

> >

> > Actually my generation ( I am 67 ) is not part of

> the

> > stats for obesity. The obesity epidemic is

> affecting

> > mostly our present below 40 generation and is even

> > worse amongst our present teenage generation.

> >

> > > Second, are there really " plenty " of people who

> chow

> > > down on processed

> > > carbs and remain bodybuilding contest thin?

> Where

> > > did you get this

> > > information? I don't doubt that there are a few

> > > people who can do

> > > this.

> >

> > Take a look at all the runners, cyclists, and

> rowers.

> > I have spent the past 20+ years associating

> myself

> > with cyclists of all ages as well as runners and

> > recently with rowers and their diet consists

> primarily

> > of high carb 60-70% and the serious cyclists,

> rowers

> > and runners - those who train 15-20 hrs a week

> have no

> > problem maintaining body fat % of less than 10%.

> > Whereas I find it curious that the body builders

> and

> > weight lifters seemed to be obsessed in trying to

> find

> > ways in getting to low % body fat. The only

> obsession

> > I find in the endurance athletes I mentioned is

> how to

> > eat enough food to maintain their daily energy

> output.

>

=== message truncated ===

February 14, 2008

--- wrote:

> If diabetics can't die in minutes from insulin

> shock, we need to get

> out the shovels and head to the graveyards. Many

> people have been

> mistakenly buried alive!

The only reason that diabetics would go into insulin

shock is if they gave themselves insulin and did not

eat enough carbs. How many people do you know who died

of insulin overdose?

Most patients who develop insulin shock become jittery

and have distinct symptoms and there is plenty of time

to consume some sugar or drink some juice. Those who

don't take the proper steps in time will lapse into

coma and unless there is something wrong with their

body's counter regulatory system eventually their

blood sugar will return to normal. They certainly

don't die in minutes if at all.

But more importantly you did not state that patients

would die from insulin. You made the following

statement:

> Some are so intolerant of sugars and flours that we

> call them

> diabetics, and improperly eating these substances

> can actually kill

> them in minutes.

Your implications are that eating sugars and flours

will cause diabetics to die in minutes. Eating too

much sugar or carbs may cause diabetics develop

hyperglycemia (high blood sugar) but they certainly

will not die in minutes.

For those not acquainted with the metabolism of

glucose a normal glucose level is between 70-90 and

after a meal it normally rises to 130 - 140 and

returns to 70-90 in 2-3 hours.

Excessive sugars and starches in uncontrolled

diabetics can rise as high as 200-300. Despite this

high glucose level they do not die in minutes. I have

treated diabetics with blood sugars as 700-800 and

they did not die in minutes.

I have even treated patients with hyperosmolar

diabetic ketoacidosis with blood sugars as high as

1400. Some died but even they did not die in minutes.

As you can imagine, these are very difficult patients

to treat and sometimes after many hours of intensive

treatment they may succumb to their disease despite

heroic efforts.

> Many of your arguments here have fallacy problems,

> for instance:

>

> Things that effect competitive endurance athletes

> don't necessarily

> apply to normal people.

The individuals I discussed are normal people who

happen enjoy racing bicycles or running road races or

racing skulls or kayaking just as many individuals in

this discussion group enjoy power lifting or Olympic

lifting.

> I never said eating processed carbs caused diabetes.

> That's a strawman. >>

Flour is a processed carb. Pasta is made from

processed flour as is bread and both of these are

processed carbs. So if processed flour causes

diabetes then it only stands to reason based on your

statement that processed carbs cause diabetes.

This is your statement:

> Some are so intolerant of sugars and flours that we

> call them

> diabetics, and improperly eating these substances

> can actually kill

> them in minutes.

********************

> Your father ate mostly beans and rice and had no

> malnutrition

> problems?

Pasta and beans has been called by nutritionists as

the poor man's steak because they each contain

complimentary amino acids. The same can be said of

rice and beans.

<<How do you know that?

A big pile of

> periodic extensive

> blood test records collected over his entire

> lifetime? It sounds

> impossible to me to eat the diet you described and

> not have

> malnutrition problems.

My father lived to be 79. He died of a ruptured

aneurysm in his brain while fixing a water heater. He

worked as a house painter and builder all his life and

did not retire until he was in his 70s. He had all his

teeth without any cavities, despite the fact that he

never went to a dentist until he was in his 60s.

He had a cardiac stress test in his 60s and passed it

with flying colors. He enjoyed the stress test so

much that he went out and bought a treadmill for

himself.

He had no heart disease, he had a normal blood

pressure and he was not diabetic. But he sure loved

his pasta and bread.

Up until the day before my father died he would go to

the local YMCA and swim for 30 minutes followed by

workout on the nautilaus machines and some work on the

treadmill.

My grandparents and their

> families were from

> that generation. They ate a diet more varied than

> you describe, yet

> mostly overcooked. From what I could see, they all

> had malnourishment

> problems, evidenced by heart disease, teeth falling

> out, lack of

> mental acuity, and so forth, starting as young as in

> their 50's. It

> is true that the ones who lived the most active life

> lasted the

> longest, but they weren't in very good condition for

> the last 20 to 30

> years.

>

> Overall, I would have to agree that lack of physical

> activity is more

> damaging to health than overconsumption of grains,

> but it doesn't mean

> overconsumption of of grains isn't bad.

>

> Wilbanks

> Wisconsin, USA

At least we agree on something. You need to define

what you mean by over consumption. What is normal for

one person might be too much for another. Individuals

who have sedentary jobs and lead a sedentary lifestyle

need to avoid excessive calories whether they be in

the form of fat protein or starch.

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct USA

>

> > > >

> > >

> > > > I grew up in the 50's (born 1941). Food was in

> > > > abundance, but obesity was very rare. All the

> > > sugary

> > > > cereals that are on the shelves in the

> supermarket

> > > now

> > > > where also present when I was a kid. My

> favorite

> > > was

> > > > sugar pops.

> > > >

> > > > As a kid the favorite stop on the way home was

> the

> > > > candy store where we loaded up on coca cola,

> > > chocolate

> > > > candy bars etc. The same candy bars that you

> find

> > > on

> > > > the shelves today existed when I was a kid.

> Baby

> > > Ruth

> > > > (named after presidents daughter and not Babe

> > > Ruth),

> > > > Three muscateers, Tootsie rolls were the

> > > favoritea.

> > > >

> > > > The difference between when I was a kid an now

> is

> > > that

> > > > even in elementary school I had to walk to

> school

> > > and

> > > > back twice a day. We had to walk home for

> lunch

> > > and

> > > > back to school for the afternoon session.

> > > >

> > > > My mother did not drive, most families had

> only

> > > one

> > > > car which was used for long trips and Sunday

> > > drives,

> > > > so when I wanted to play ball I had to get on

> my

> > > bike

> > > > and ride to the ball field.

> > > >

> > > > My mother walked to the grocery store. Etc.

> > > > What has brought about obesity is lack of

> physical

> > > > activity.

> > > >

> > > > There were very few places to workout in those

> > > days.

> > > > Most people had enough of a workout in their

> every

> > > day

> > > > job.

> > > >

> > > > Yes there is an abundance of food but more

> > > importantly

> > > > there is a lack of daily physical activity

> (NEAT).

> > >

> > > >

> > > > The fat gentry mentioned above not only had an

> > > > abundance of food but they had the poor to do

> > > their

> > > > physical labor.

> > > >

> > > > As for flours and grains causing obesity that

> also

> > > is

> > > > somewhat of a myth. There are plenty of

> > > individuals

> > > > who consume a high carb diet with plenty of

> starch

> > > in

> > > > the form of pasta, potato, rice, bread etc who

> > > have

> > > > 7-10% body fat.

> > > >

> > > > Ralph Giarnella MD

> > > > Southington Ct USA

> > > >

> > >

> > > The first problem with what you are saying is

> > > temporal. If eating all

> > > the sugary starchy stuff you describe became

> popular

> > > when you were a

> > > kid, then your generation is part of the stats

> that

> > > make up the

> > > current obesity epidemic. Were adults and

> > > geriatrics eating like that

> > > back then?

> >

> > Actually my generation ( I am 67 ) is not part of

> the

> > stats for obesity. The obesity epidemic is

> affecting

> > mostly our present below 40 generation and is even

> > worse amongst our present teenage generation.

> >

> > > Second, are there really " plenty " of people who

> chow

> > > down on processed

> > > carbs and remain bodybuilding contest thin?

> Where

> > > did you get this

> > > information? I don't doubt that there are a few

> > > people who can do

> > > this.

> >

> > Take a look at all the runners, cyclists, and

> rowers.

> > I have spent the past 20+ years associating

> myself

> > with cyclists of all ages as well as runners and

> > recently with rowers and their diet consists

> primarily

> > of high carb 60-70% and the serious cyclists,

> rowers

> > and runners - those who train 15-20 hrs a week

> have no

> > problem maintaining body fat % of less than 10%.

> > Whereas I find it curious that the body builders

> and

> > weight lifters seemed to be obsessed in trying to

> find

> > ways in getting to low % body fat. The only

> obsession

> > I find in the endurance athletes I mentioned is

> how to

> > eat enough food to maintain their daily energy

> output.

>

=== message truncated ===

February 14, 2008

****It is true that *some* of us can now digest milk very well.

> Last time I checked, the only contemporary populations in which more

> than half of people can easily digest milk are those originating in

> northern Europe, which has less than 10% lactose intolerance. The

> rest of the world is well over 50% intolerant. So, in 10,000

years, a

> small minority of humans developed the ability to digest milk, the

> rest are less than halfway there.****

Those populations exposed to animal herding and animal milk developed

lactose tolerance (lactase) in adulthood very quickly. (There is

lactose in human milk but lactase subsides after childhood in some

humans.)

BTW, excellent article here re lactose tolerance developing in some

East Africans in 3000 years.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/11/news/milk.php

**** Third, evolution is not so simple. Even if everyone could

digest milk

> by now, it doesn't mean adaptation to other foods would follow the

> same time line. People could just as easily have adapted to eating

> grains in a few hundred years, or not at all up until this day. I

> don't rely on the evolution argument, I just think hundreds of

> thousands of years vs. less than ten thousand is suggestive. I

> suspect that we have adapted to digesting grains in that time,

> somewhat, but there are still some problems. ****

Yes, excellent point. We agree on that.

****>If we lived in a culture where no one ate

> any grains, I'd probably come on here and argue that it was okay to

> eat some. As it is, we live in a culture that is massively

> over-consuming them, so I argue against them.****

Great, I see you have softened your approach. Now, may we all eat

grains as part of a balanced diet?

> As for the Asia/population argument, I don't see anyone suggesting

> that grains are so unhealthy that you will drop dead from eating

them

> prior to reaching puberty. Hence, I don't see what breeding rates

> would have to do with it. As I said, they may be breeding away, but

> 40% of them have bad zinc deficiencies, and probably a bunch of

other

> health problems. We are talking about an optimal diet, not raw

> survival.

Dietary zinc deficiency has nothing to do with grain eating per se.

Although phytate in whole grains does inhibit mineral absorption to

some extent, depending on the source, a balanced diet, even modern

vegetarian diets, can be complete. True zinc deficiency affects

fertility BTW. You would need to convince me that 40% of Asian people

have " bad zinc deficiency " .

I was suggesting that even with a putative sub-optimal diet, many

rural Asian populations fare very well, mostly on simple grain

carbohydrates, a few vegetables and small amounts of meat (and hard

work); and some are long-lived, unlike Paleo populations, who, by

most accounts, rarely survived past the mid thirties.

Gympie, Australia

February 15, 2008

Hi Nick,

You stated 'but I doubt that its the toxin's fault that we get fat.'

It is the livers job in the body to detoxify fat. If the liver is over worked

or can't dextoxify toxins in the body due to a back up due to excess toxin

levels the body will store these excess toxins in fat. If you don't have enough

fat for the toxins to be stored your body will make fat from whatever resources

it can in order to get the toxins out of the blood. This is why some people who

work in toxic environments and have relatively good nutrition are overweight.

Thank You

Kind Regards

Heldoorn

Sydney, Australia

=======================================

Nick Tatalias wrote:

You were the one who said that high grain diets were merely for survival but

we are talking about optimum nutrition. That was your statement, so I

offered you parts of the world were people are in desperate hunger eating

high grain diets to survive and in those same countries where elite athletes

eat optimally to win world titles, how much more optimum in nutrition do you

want. Rugby players at all levels will eat higher carb diets, normal people

and world cup winners. Thus you raised a point, I countered it and now you

say its irrelevant and silly, it is very hard to discuss rationally when

assertions change.

I have read the paleo web site and enjoyed his content, however when we are

discussing the training of athletes you need to temper the discussion. A

friend of mine tried the paleo diet and said he felt much better, I have no

problem with it, but when I tried it I found that I struggled to complete my

heavy training cycles with out the use of higher carb meals, I use whole

wheat pasta or brown rice, and red kidney beans, and I am an enthusiastic

master weightlifter not a distance athletes.

The point about over processed foods is one that I was also making, yet you

decry the use of fibre from grains in the diet. Is over processing the

problem - I understand that white flour is so processed and bleached that

weevils prefer not to eat it, but I doubt that its the toxin's fault that we

get fat.

As for people from previous generations, my grandmother was born in 1908,

She lived to be 93 years old, with good mental faculties. She drove until

she was 87 and only began to struggle with eyesight in the last year of her

life. She was a prone to eat diets very high in grain,rice, maize,

wheat (breads) and potatoes, all evils listed on the paleo diet list. She

lived through two world wars a depression when food was not abundant and

corn meal was a staple. She also ate eggs, bacon and sheep fat for

breakfast, but she walked to work, she ran a children's clothing store, rode

horses until her sixties and then played championship level bowls into her

70's. All her sisters died in their late eighties again eating diets in all

the wrong foods. The grains seemed not to effect her to badly.

=====================================

February 15, 2008