As regards the generalisations re carb-consumers since the forum started, I referred to them as I've previously come across many similiar claims from Primal Dieters/Raw Vegans or what have you, making claims that their diet makes them more intelligent, more moral etc. by comparison to other diets.
I think I see what you're trying to avoid--the turning of this forum into a negative complain-moan-and-insult session about eaters of cooked or high-carb foods. I've seen that tendency in a couple of veggie boards I perused (I like to challenge my assumptions and get the broadest possible perspectives) and it was definitely a turnoff for me (of course, I was among the crowd they were making fun of, so maybe that's why). I'll try to keep your goal in mind.
Yes, morality is a touchy area and claims of improved morals is a slippery slope. I suppose that doesn't make inquiry off limits (nothing is off limits to true science), but my own inclination would be to not tread that ground much.
My brain fog disappeared and I noticed my performance rapidly improved some on a computer chess game when I eliminated gluten, but I don't know whether that means I would score higher on an IQ test or some such measure and don't really care about that anyway.
And I have come across too many exceptions that certainly don't prove the rule, such as very placid vegetarians or very immoral vegans etc. You have every right to make a statement of what you believe re personal accounts, I'm just pointing out my concern.
Yes, I actually studied Mahatma Gandhi. I only meant I noticed a correlation, not an absolute. Being a fan of science and learning, I'm not generally fond of absolutes.
Thanks for the links. That Wai site seems even more eccentric than the BibleLife site, but it also has some interesting info.
Another point raised by others is that most studies done on fructose are totally flawed as they study REFINED fructose, which is, of course, useless.
You could make that same sort of excuse re: the nonhydrogenated fat study--it used cottonseed oil, so I could say I don't use plant oils and only heat grassfed suet at low temps, writing the study off as useless in the same manner.
More importantly, the studies are not limited to refined fructose. Fruit juice and fructose rich fruits (apples and oranges) and honey and dried fruits like raisins and cranberries have also been linked to heart disease risk, increased uric acid and gout risk.
Soft drinks, fructose consumption, and the risk of gout in men: prospective cohort studyHyon K Choi, associate professor of medicine1, Gary Curhan, associate professor of medicine2
BMJ, doi: 10.1136/bmj.39449.819271.BE, (Published 31 January 2008)
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/bmj.39449.819271.BEv1 ".... Other major contributors to fructose intake such as total
fruit juice or fructose rich fruits (apples and oranges) were also associated with a higher risk of gout (P values for trend <0.05).
Conclusions: Prospective data suggest that consumption of sugar sweetened soft drinks and fructose is strongly associated with an increased risk of gout in men. Furthermore, fructose rich fruits and fruit juices may also increase the risk. Diet soft drinks were not associated with the risk of gout."
Despite the data of their own study, notice how the authors offered homage to the dietary dogma by still claiming that people should eat modern apples and oranges anyway--this is where science ends and unquestioning superstition begins: "Foods such as apples and oranges, the authors stress, contain higher fructose levels but also help prevent chronic disorders such as high blood pressure, coronary heart disease, stroke and certain types of cancer, thus their findings should be balanced against these benefits." Soda Increases Risk of Gout,
http://www.arthritistoday.org/conditions/other-conditions/gout/soda-and-gout.phpFructose is a coronary risk factorTuesday, August 04, 2009
http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/fructose-is-coronary-risk-factor.htmlAs discussed in a previous Heart Scan Blog post, Say Goodbye to Fructose, a carefully-conducted University of California study demonstrated that, compared to glucose, fructose induces:
1) Four-fold greater intra-abdominal fat accumulation
2) 13.9% increase in LDL cholesterol, doubled Apoprotein B
3) 44.9% increase in small LDL, 3-fold more than glucose
4) Increased postprandial triglycerides 99.2%.
Other studies have shown that fructose:
--Increases uric acid--No longer is red meat the cause for increased uric acid; fructose has taken its place. Uric acid may act as an independent coronary risk factor and increases high blood pressure and kidney disease.
--Induces insulin resistance, the situation that creates diabetes
--Increases glycation (fructose linked to proteins) and protein cross-linking, processes that underlie atherosclerosis, liver disease, and cataracts.
Make no mistake: Fructose is a powerful coronary risk factor.
There is no doubt whatsoever that a diet rich in fructose from
fruit drinks, honey, raisins and other dried fruit like cranberries, sucrose (table sugar), and high-fructose corn syrup is a high-risk path to heart disease.
Also note that many foods labeled "heart healthy" because of low-fat, low saturated fat, addition of sterol esters, or fiber, also contain fructose sources, especially high-fructose corn syrup.
Calorie Restricted Monkeys Part IITuesday, July 14, 2009 at 4:10PM
http://www.paleonu.com/"...why don’t the monkeys get CAD, despite our successful efforts to give them the metabolic syndrome that correlates so closely with CAD risk in humans?
My shoot-from-the-hip speculation is that Homo Sapiens, during two million years of evolution since H.Habilis, lost what little tolerance for excess fructose we started with at the same time we acquired our metabolic preference for exploiting the fat stores of other mammals and became more tolerant of saturated fat than fructose.
Sugar is just more poisonous to humans, and that is why you have to try so hard to give CAD to monkeys, even if you are stimulating inflammation with gobs of linoleic acid. CAD may depend on not tolerating fructose. That would explain a lot and we should keep that in mind when reading animal studies.
So among the Neolithic agents, excess industrial oils are probably bad for most mammals, but sugar may be peculiarly bad for humans. Step one of PaNu stays step one."
[/quote] Lastly, I do find that many ZCers lump all carbs together. Yet, while there's plenty of evidence against some carbs like grains, the evidence against fruit, for example, is very weak indeed. After all, fruit was eaten for ages in the Palaeolithic, unlike grains or dairy.
[/quote]
Not me. While I find that all carbs appear to do me some harm, some have far more severe effects on me than others. Wheat seems to be my worst, then I would probably say other grains, milk lactose, and sweeteners. The ill effects of nightshades, squashes, fruits and nuts were more subtle. Except for sugars, one could argue that other elements in each of these foods was the real problem for me, but for whatever reason, only animal body carb foods don't seem to have ill effects on me.
While fruits were eaten in the Paleolithic, I am not aware of any evidence that they were a staple anywhere close to the degree that animal flesh was for the period around 500k ybp to 40k ybp, during which our last two species changes (to homo sapiens and homo sapiens sapiens) occurred. This period is known as the "Carnivore Guild" for a reason, and it doesn't involve lots of sweet fruits.
The evidence against fruit is preliminary, but not "weak" and there is not much Paleolithic evidence showing precedent for heavy consumption of sugary fruits like modern apples, oranges, bananas and dried fruits. Todays staple fruits bear little resemblance to Paleo fruits and their year-round availability is likely mostly a neolithic innovation. I understand that this news that the fruits most people eat today are not healthy after all, despite the dogma they have been fed by the diet dictocrats. I was misled by that dogma myself. The more I investigate it, the less substance I find underlying it.
Topic: For First Time, Chimps Seen Making Weapons for Hunting! (Read 18034 times)