Sweeteners (was Re: Guilt, satiety, calorie restrictio...

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/7/03 8:15:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

paultheo2000@... writes:

> Props on your post; I agree wholeheartedly with it. We often think as

> nature or the human body as being almost omniscient and we forget the

> basic facts of physiology. Honey is sugar and therefore deleterious to

> health regardless of how 'natural' it is. I think this same logic also

> applies to the appestat discussion some of us were having earlier.

> Clearly the body doesn't always know when it's best to stop, because,

> from an evolutionary perspective, it was very rarely faced with such a

> choice.

,

This is clearly untrue, since the predominant carbohydrate in all of the most

nutrient-dense vegetables are simple sugars. So there are plenty of foods we

would all consider to be extremely healthy that are mostly simple sugars,

with little protein or fat to speak of.

While it's ridiculous to say the body desires whatever and only whatever is

good for it, it is equally ridiculous to say that the brain does not modify

desires for the sake of modifying behavior in order to meet the body's

physiological needs.

The distinction must be made between different kinds of cravings, and

appestat/taste systems that have been made dysfunctional and ones that are

functioning properly.

As to 's suggestion that one cannot eat 60 g carbs a day without using

artificial sweeteners, I fail to see how this is the case. For most of the

last year and a half or so, my carb intake has only exceeded this amount due to

lactic acid in cultured milk, which I would consider an effective carb, because

it is converted to glucose (in some varying proportion). But if milk

potential carbs are excluded (and I don't mind drinking 48 hour kefir at all), I

can

easily keep my carbs to 60 g a day without artificial sweeteners, and am sure

I've done so.

I sweeten my ice cream with raw honey and blueberries, yet a serving only has

about 10 g carbs. How much desert could you possibly need to eat in a day?

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/6/03 11:03:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

liberty@... writes:

> can't really say, or more importantly back up, that it

> is genetically dictated, but I suspect that on an average

> cave man's or woman's day they often got even less 60 grams,

> with occasional periods of feasting on much much more. It's

> difficult to tell how this all averages out for the modern

> human.

,

What basis do you have for this belief? I'm not very educated in low-carb

theory, so correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know there isn't any.

Any speculation, first of all, on how much carbs paleo folks ate is, just

that: pure speculation. It is particularly complicated by the fact that most

animal remains survive archeologicaly and most plant remains don't.

I suspect carb consumption varied the way it does among present

hunter-gatherers, where equatorial folks eat the most plants, and proportion of

animal food

increases with latitude. Since humans spent much time evolving in tropical

or somewhat tropical conditions, the seasonality argument isn't very convincing.

It also can't be assumed that because humans didn't have agriculture they

didn't modify there environment. That is completely untrue. hunter-gatherers

have always used means to modify there environment, including means of

encourging growth of certain plants. It's false that there is a clear dichotomy

between hunter-gatherer and agriculturist; it is actually a continuum, and

rarely

does a society not fit somewhere in the middle.

So I don't see any reason at all for the belief that hunter-gather carb

intakes were usually under 60 grams.

Chris

[Guest guest]

,

In a message dated 10/7/03 7:58:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

paultheo2000@... writes:

> Surely you can't be comparing honey to vegetables. Honey contains next

> to nothing in terms of nutrition

That's not true. Raw unfiltered honey contains minerals, immune factors, and

is absolutely loaded with enzymes. It is one of the few enzyme-dense foods,

and contains more than 8000 different enzymes. Digestion of carb foods can be

improved by spreading honey on it and waiting a period of time while the

honey predigests the starch.

>and spikes insulin levels while

One food doesn't spike insulin levels by itself-- that depends on many

factors including amount, eating schedule, ones own metabolism, and what it's

eaten

with. A glass of carrot juice will be much worse on insulin than a teaspoon

of honey sweetening a small bowl of ice cream.

> vegetables are primordial to optimal health and have a beneficial

> impact on blood sugar levels.

What do you mean by " primordial " ? There is no evidence that humans evolved

on large amounts of vegetables.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/7/03 8:21:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

paultheo2000@... writes:

> I'd take vegetables over honey or any other sugar, calories being

> equal. I think it'd be borderline ridiculous to think otherwise.

I do too, but you said that honey per se is deleterious to health, so

calories being equal is an unjustified premise. The question is whether honey

can be

consumed in such a way as to be neutral in terms of health or a net health

positive, rather than a net negative. And I think there is good reason to think

honey in proper amount can be a net health positive. When I mentioned

vegetables, it wasn't to equate them with honey, but to make the point that

something being a sugar does not make it necessarily negative to health.

> There may not be any evidence of humans eating large quantities of

> vegetables throughout evolution, but that's largely irrelevant. The

> question is not " what did people eat " , but " what is healthy " ?

That's a better question, I agree, but you used the term " primordial, " which

I addressed in response.

Although it's worth keeping in mind that archeological evidence indicates

paleo folks were astronomically healthier than neolithic folks.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>Along with this you also refer earlier in your post to

>the disparity in the archaeological evidence of animal

>and plants foods, and to the varied environmental zones

>in which ancient humans lived. However regardless of

>all of these factors, prior to the invention of an

>agriculture advanced enough to make more food than we

>could immediately eat, and of course contraceptives,

>human reproduction everywhere kept pace with whatever

>average number of calories were available from the

>environment. This is a sort of universal rule that can

>be counted upon in any prehistoric culture.

That isn't quite accurate. Nomadic people (before they

tamed horses and camels, anyway) were constrained

by carrying babies. A baby takes about 3 years before it

can run with an adult, and most women breast-fed

for that period of time. So babies were at LEAST 3 years

apart. And the lifespan was a lot shorter (injuries accounted

for more deaths though). There seems to have been a LOT

of homicide too, and infanticide.

When people became " domestic " they also started using

cow milk to help raise infants, and the homicide rate went

way down (laws were passed). Women started using cradles

instead of carrying the baby all the time. People started depending

on crops ... and the crops would fail ... and THEN starvation

became a big deal. Folks who followed huge herds of bison

didn't have that problem.

Calories were probably not the constraining

factor, esp. not on Paleo times where there were huge herds

of animals. The Indians thought you had to be insane to

starve if you lived near the coast, where sea life was plentiful.

>So we can

>confidently assume that primitive humans were almost

>always struggling to get enough to eat. When and where

>humans, or any mammals for that matter, have an excess

>of carbohydrate in the diet, the rate of reproduction

>goes up proportionally.

That may have been true in some places, but there

are plenty of counterexamples. The Hawaiian islands

come to mind. Plenty of food year round. The population

stays pretty stable, possibly because a lot of those island

cultures also practice " war as entertainment " and dangerous

sports like surfboarding? They eat a LOT of very sweet fruit.

But they don't get fat and diabetic til Cap'n Cook comes along.

Most folks agree is was flour/sugar that caused the change ...

but was it the flour or the sugar or both? My suspicions of

course lean toward the flour ...

Many cultures grew or gathered starchy roots, and there ARE

very sweet native fruits. There is some evidence that some

cultures ate a lot of meat, but the fact that humans don't do

well at over 30% protein in the diet says something too.

What makes up the other 70% of the calories?

Fat is rather rare also (hence prized), and you need to balance

the protein with fat or carbs. The Inuit could get fat easily,

but most wild animals tend to be leaner, esp. the nearer

the equator. So unless they were superb and lucky hunters,

they were likely eating a fair dinkum of carbs.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

,

In a message dated 10/7/03 9:53:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

liberty@... writes:

> I don't necessarily disagree with this, though actually

> I'm not sure that I understand what you're saying. Are

> you saying that there is some sort of vegetable that is

> composed primarily of sugar, not water and fiber?

No I'm talking about macronutrient content. I don't know what the water

content of honey is. I think there are vegetables that have more non-fiber

carbs

than fiber though.

> I didn't realize that lactic acid is a carbohydrate. If

> it is, then I have been consuming more than 60 grams a

> day too. Actually, I gave 60 grams just as an average.

> Many days a week I go as low as 20 or 30 grams, and a

> once or twice a week I may go as high as 80.

It technically isn't, but it does get converted to carbs. The question is how

much and how fast. A T1(/2) diabetic on the list said she needs as much

insulin for kefir as milk, which indicates for at least *some* people, *most* of

the lactic acid gets converted. Although there is a hormone which in part

regulates this conversion that might factor in somewhere. She also said,

though,

that the sugar spike is less severe and longer-lasting, so she was going to

try taking half the units when she drank the kefir, and half later.

Interesting how you cycle your carbs. That sounds like the reccomendation in

t the article by Ori someone posted recently.

> Yes, and you can have sex standing up,

Actually the last time I tried, which was a long time ago, it was so hard

that it was basically unworkable. I suspect I *could* do it now, but...

have access to

> raw pastured milk and inexpensive organic blueberries,

> etc. I'm very impressed by all that you can do, and

> don't mind admitting that I'd much rather be you than

> me.

Hmm, thank you. If it's the blueberries that do it, you can just move to

somewhere in the vicinity northwestern MA. No identity switch required ;-)

> Maybe if I were as young as you and having all of

> that great sex I wouldn't care if I could have a piece

> of pie either.

Maybe if I were having great sex I'd eat some pie too, lol.

> > I sweeten my ice cream with raw honey and blueberries, yet a

> serving only has

> > about 10 g carbs.

> Well, maybe I am wrong. I'll have to look in to it.

> It doesn't really seem correct though. The label on

> my jar of honey says that one tablespoon contains

> sixteen grams of sugar, and even wild blueberries

> have some sugar in them.

My honey says 17 grams per tablespoon, but I use 3-4 tablespoons for what

ends up being nearly a half gallong of ice cream. The wild blueberries probably

contribute about 20 g carbs (regular blueberries would contribute 30, but

these don't seem nearly as sweet), and the honey would contribute between 51 and

68 g carbs. The rest is raw heavy cream and egg yolks. If there are 88 g

carbs, and 32 half cup servings then holy shit, there are 3 grams of carbs? Is

my

math right??? Something seems wrong. In any case, I don't think 10 g is

unreasonable. The blueberries at lots of sweetness (to me), and honey is much

sweeter per gram of sugar than any other sweetener, so it lowers the total carb

content. Also, most people would probably say my ice cream isn't sweet

enough, but I like it.

Blueberry ice cream is one

> thing, and a very nice thing, but baked goods are

> another. With the combination of some sort of flour

> and the sweetener, even if fruit and/or honey, it's

> difficult to keep the amount of carbohydrate in a

> decent sized serving very low.

Right, which is one reason I wouldn't eat baked goods every day, and why NT

relegates them to a serving a week or so and special occasions, or several

times a week if you have kids. I usually only maked baked goods for special

occasions. I made donuts as my reward for not eating a single whole donut in

about

5 or 6 years due to trans fat content, and I ate 1-2 donuts every day for a

week. I probably won't do that again for months.

> > How much desert could you possibly need to eat in a day?

>

> I don't eat desert even once a day, but more like three

> or four times a week. Funny that you should ask such a

> question, since after reading your description of your

> meals, I wondered how much food could one possibly need

> to eat in a day.

I guess that lowers my total desert portion of my food then.

> Moreover, I like being able to cut out

> all real sugar from deserts so as to be able to eat more

> carbohydrate in the form of whole grains, sweet potatoes,

> carrots, blueberries, etc. I really don't care for these

> insinuations that I'm some sort of glutton.

I'm not insinuating you're a glutton. I was making a generic statement

directed at the concept the use of artificial sweeteners to restrict carbs,

which

more than one person have recently explicitly claimed to do, and there was no

element of personal attack in the statement.

If you include my ice cream, or whipped cream and berries, I eat desert every

day. If not, I rarely eat desert. I think your desert intake is reasonable,

and I guess if they ALL consist of baked goods you could have a problem

keeping your carbs down (though there are some NT baked goods like coconut

mousse

pie that aren't that high in sugar but still taste very sweet), but I didn't

realize you're also trying to eat potatoes and carrots every day.

But no one *has* to eat potatoes and carrots every day, or bread. I

generally eat one of those (carrots are fermented) every day now, because I'm

deliberately trying to *increase* my carb intake. But I don't think it's

necessarily

for health to eat potatoes if one doesn't need a high carb intake, so one who

is low-carbing could consider them a desert or compromise food, consuming them

on days they don't eat desert, and should be able to stimulate all of the

taste categories every day without going over 60 g carbs.

But it all depends one what you WANT to eat. I don't care if you like

potatoes, go for it! I was just disputing the *need* to use artificial

sweeteners,

while fulfilling ones taste for sweetness, while keeping carbs to 60 g.

Chris

[Guest guest]

,

In a message dated 10/7/03 10:42:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

liberty@... writes:

> > In a message dated 10/6/03 11:03:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> > liberty@p... writes:

> >

> > > can't really say, or more importantly back up, that it

> > > is genetically dictated, but I suspect that on an average

> > > cave man's or woman's day they often got even less 60 grams,

> > > with occasional periods of feasting on much much more. It's

> > > difficult to tell how this all averages out for the modern

> > > human.

> See above where you pasted my words " I can't really say,

> or more importantly back up, ... " and " I suspect " . You

> don't need to inform me that I'm speculating, when I've

> already said so myself.

Ok, I understood that to be referring to the genetic wiring, not the

historical/anthropological assertion. Fair enough.

> > It is particularly complicated by the fact that most animal remains

> survive

> > archeologicaly and most plant remains don't.

>

> You assume that my speculation is based on extrapolating

> rules for today from the palaeolithic, while actually it

> is as much that, as it is extrapolating about the palaeo-

> lithic from rules observed today. Since a low-carbohydrate

> diet has proven to be such an effective means to improving

> health, it is not unreasonable to guess that it is because

> it shares at least some features of the diet upon which

> humans evolved.

I don't see the logic then. Humans have been observed in great health with

high carb intakes, like numerous of Price's groups.

> Are you familiar with " punctuated equilibrium " ?

Not in any detail, but conceptually, yes.

> My

> ancestors have been a long time out of the tropics,

> and were nomadic pastoralists who lived primarily on

> dairy products and are historically known for suffering

> (?) from a chronic shortage of grain and other agricultural

> products.

That *might* (or might not) make *you* genetically wired to consume the low

carb you are consuming, but that says nothing about what " cave men " ate.

> > It also can't be assumed that because humans didn't have

> agriculture they

> > didn't modify there environment. That is completely untrue.

> hunter-gatherers

> > have always used means to modify there environment, including means

> of

> > encourging growth of certain plants. It's false that there is a

> clear dichotomy

> > between hunter-gatherer and agriculturist; it is actually a

> continuum, and rarely

> > does a society not fit somewhere in the middle.

>

> Along with this you also refer earlier in your post to

> the disparity in the archaeological evidence of animal

> and plants foods, and to the varied environmental zones

> in which ancient humans lived. However regardless of

> all of these factors, prior to the invention of an

> agriculture advanced enough to make more food than we

> could immediately eat, and of course contraceptives,

> human reproduction everywhere kept pace with whatever

> average number of calories were available from the

> environment.

That's not what some folks say. I believe the mainstream belief is that all

hunter-gatherers and nomads of every sort practiced birth control, if not by

abstinence or herbs, then by killing the babies, because nomadic peoples could

not afford a high birth rate. Agricultural populations grew much faster

because they were stable and could afford to have more children then they could

carry in both arms while moving, and children even became an asset.

The variation is my *point*-- I believe that some " cave men " probably ate

low-carb diets and some high-carb diets and the rest is mostly speculation.

This is a sort of universal rule that can

> be counted upon in any prehistoric culture. So we can

> confidently assume that primitive humans were almost

> always struggling to get enough to eat.

We can? Modern hunter-gatherers don't, why would ancient hunter-gatherers?

When and where

> humans, or any mammals for that matter, have an excess

> of carbohydrate in the diet, the rate of reproduction

> goes up proportionally.

But hunter-gatherers tended to practice birth control.

> It is not my " belief " , it is my speculation or suspicion,

> that it intakes were often very low, and I think that

> contrary to what you say, there is _some_ reason for

> this idea.

I still don't think so, but thanks for clearing up the speculation/belief

thing :-)

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/8/03 2:12:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

liberty@... writes:

> All of this reduces one side of the equation, but doesn't

> tell us anything about the other side, the amount of food

> available. Human beings would have to be very different

> from all other types of successful animals if the size of

> their population didn't come close to total exploitation

> of all the available resources.

Humans are much different than other animals, including the dramatic

extension of " infancy " and even the fetal period. Humans are actually fetuses

till 8

months or so after birth, on average. The extended period for which humans

must be cared, particularly the period for which humans must be carried, forces

humans essentially to engage in birth control, which animals do not do, at

least to the same extent. Thus nomadic populations operate dramatically under

their birthing potential, whereas animal populations tend to have a birth rate

that approaches or meets the birth rate potential.

A pleasant life can be

> enjoyed by any group that can keep their numbers much lower

> than that, a good lesson for all of us today too, but as a

> rule in the past such groups were overwhelmed and had their

> territories and resources taken over by other groups with

> higher birth rates.

During what period? This is primarily true post-ag, not pre-. The high

birth rates were usually *allowed* by agriculture, because agriculture allows

stability and stratification, and stability allows high birth rates, and

stratification tends to encourage high birth rates, so this is primarily a

neolithic

feature.

> As I stated before, extremely active people

> can certainly tolerate a diet higher in carbohydrates.

Wouldn't that cover most or all pre-modern folks?

> Where did the traditional Inuit get the other 70%?

Fat, but they are in an environment very different from that in which humans

primarily evolved, aren't they?

> > The Inuit could get fat easily, but most wild animals tend to

> > be leaner, esp. the nearer the equator. So unless they were

> > superb and lucky hunters, they were likely eating a fair dinkum

> > of carbs.

>

> I doubt that ancient humans necessarily got most of their

> protein from hunting, a high-calorie burning activity. I

> think it most likely that a large, if not the largest,

> proportion of their protein came from a slow and methodical

> gleaning of the area they were moving through at the time,

> for wild-bird eggs, insects, nuts, seeds, etc. In any case,

> as I've already said, I'm not just extrapolating rules for

> the present from the past, but am also extrapolating an idea

> of the past from the present.

But the main archeology sites reveal that humans primarily relied on big

game, not little game. And while modern day h-g's do eat more plant than animal

products in tropical climates, they also engage in big game hunting quite

often, for prestige.

Modern research into disease

> causation has revealed that excess carbohydrate is a factor

> in many, if not most, of the diseases of civilization.

Your interpretation is controversial, hence the recent thread we've had

debating the issue.

> Finally, and most importantly, it was not my original intent

> to get into a debate over carbohydrate consumption. I don't

> really care what other people believe or what they eat. I

> only ever included reference to such because I felt that I

> was being judged for what I eat, and needed to make clear to

> those offering the advice that my dietary beliefs and goals

> were different from theirs.

I wasn't judging you, dunno bout Mike.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/8/03 5:07:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

paultheo2000@... writes:

> Well, I think anything can probably be consumed in small quantities

> without deleterious effects. That includes vegetable oil, margarine, etc.

Most food substances could for a great many people. However, small amounts

of honey could possibly have a significantly *positive* health effect.

> I think in a controlled study you wouldn't be able to tell the

> difference between honey and white sugar use.

There is some sort of inherent irony in speculating about what a controlled

study would achieve, but anyway I don't see this as a very meaningful statement

because you could be testing a great variety of things. If you are testing

the effect on someone with any significant degree of impaired digestion, then

the honey clearly wins out because it is monosacharides rather than

disacharides and hence does not need any digestion at all. Raw honey could also

possibly

significantly improve anyone's digestion due to its enzyme content, and might

perhaps otherwise improve health due to metabolic enzymes. Raw unfiltered

honey is high in immune factors and contains some pollen, wax, honey comb,

proppolis, royal jelly, etc, and eating some harvested in your area can help

immunize you to the local pollen during allergy season. The best sugar could do

is

act neutral... and could also make your allergies worse.

It is also claimed that raw unfiltered honey does *not* have as severe an

insulin response as white sugar, but I haven't read the studies that were

supposedly done on this, so can't say for sure.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/8/03 5:02:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

christiekeith@... writes:

> >> As to 's suggestion that one cannot eat 60 g carbs a day

> without using

> > artificial sweeteners, I fail to see how this is the case. <<

>

> I didn't see this suggestion.... but my jaw dropped when I saw it quoted

by

> someone else. While I do put stevia (which *I* don't consider an artificial

> sweetener, but rather a concentrated natural sweetener) into my hot tea or

> coffee, I don't cook with it or use it in any other way. I don't use any

> other form of sweetener, artificial OR natural, and I eat 25-30 grams of

> carbs a day. What could this possibly have meant?

Since I paraphrased it, I suppose I should say that we weren't talking about

a *need* to use artificial sweeteners, but whether or not one could fulfill

ones taste for sweets, while keepin the restricted carbs, and not using

artificial sweeteners.

Depends on how you use the word " artificial. " It's artificial in the sense

that it is mimicing (rather poorly) the taste of sugar, without containing any

sugars.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>> As to 's suggestion that one cannot eat 60 g carbs a day

without using

> artificial sweeteners, I fail to see how this is the case. <<

I didn't see this suggestion.... but my jaw dropped when I saw it quoted by

someone else. While I do put stevia (which *I* don't consider an artificial

sweetener, but rather a concentrated natural sweetener) into my hot tea or

coffee, I don't cook with it or use it in any other way. I don't use any other

form of sweetener, artificial OR natural, and I eat 25-30 grams of carbs a day.

What could this possibly have meant?

Christie

[Guest guest]

>All of this reduces one side of the equation, but doesn't

>tell us anything about the other side, the amount of food

>available. Human beings would have to be very different

>from all other types of successful animals if the size of

>their population didn't come close to total exploitation

>of all the available resources. A pleasant life can be

>enjoyed by any group that can keep their numbers much lower

>than that, a good lesson for all of us today too, but as a

>rule in the past such groups were overwhelmed and had their

>territories and resources taken over by other groups with

>higher birth rates.

That has been true in recent history, certainly! But for

a million years or so, homo sapiens was a fairly rare

species and they seem to have had lots to eat. The whole

idea of " settling down " and having high birth rates is

very, very recent.

There isn't really good info on what all people ate

before, say, the invention of fire (50,000 years ago

or so) but it is clear that we aren't pure carnivores

because we have these nice grinding teeth and not

very sharp canines. And no 2nd stomach, which lets

out eating lots of grass. So our ancestors were not

on an all-meat diet, they ate a fair bit of plant matter,

which was probably pretty common (monkeys today

subsist on mostly plants, and very very few of those

plants are grains, and many are higher in carbs).

>Yes, but these foods in your example here are all flesh

>foods, not carbohydrates unless you're including seaweed.

>So it tends to add to my argument, at least to my argument

>that carbohydrate consumption was lower. Also note that

>these same " Indians " had their territory and resources

>taken from them by other groups with higher-birth rates

>whose technology allowed them to extract more calories

>than the aboriginals could from the same amount of land.

Why would you doubt there would be plenty of carbohydrates?

People use these same intuitive arguments for vegetarianism,

because chimps and monkeys do just fine with little meat

(actually they were thought to be vegetarians until recently).

You don't hear about massive chimp starvation. In most

parts of the world (Northern Europe and the poles excluded)

there is lots of plant life, much of it edible, and a lot

if it DOES have carbs, albeit not our modern ones. Life in

the tropics and Africa is usually not constrained by lack

of food, but by predators. Including other humans,

but I don't think lack of food was the main reason

they fought -- people seemed to have a tendency to

fight when they got too crowded, long before there

was a food shortage.

There is not much evidence for exactly what pre-modern

humans ate -- animal bones survive the best. But the

fact we don't digest protein all that well (over 30% causes

kidney problems) and the shape of our teeth and the fact

we basically aren't designed like true carnivores suggests

humans have eaten a fair amount of carbs (probably fruit,

seeds, roots) for a long, long time. And Price found

plenty of healthy people eating a lot of carbs too, as

has already been pointed out.

There IS a lot of evidence that some of the modern forms

of carbs (particularly wheat) are rather damaging, and

straight sugar is not real good for glycemic control. But

you can't extrapolate from that and say that, say, the yams

they eat in Africa are bad.

>> They eat a LOT of very sweet fruit.

>

>Do they really though, and is this not cultivated

>fruit also? Our stereotype of the polynesian islands

>is one of paradise-like parks filled with fruit of

>every description, but do the natives actually eat

>all that much of it, and more importantly, what is

>the ratio of daily calories burned to daily calories

>consumed? As I stated before, extremely active people

>can certainly tolerate a diet higher in carbohydrates.

I have not been able to get a really good picture of

WHAT they really ate. A lot of poi, certainly! There

has been a move to get the current Hawaiians (who are

massively overweight and diabetic) back on the pre-Cook

diet, and THOSE folks say the diet was almost vegetarian,

very full of fruit and poi. (and no wheat). Poi, being fermented,

would help with blood sugar control. Personally I think

people eat too much because of wheat gluten, which

fouls up the appestat -- if your appetite is working correctly,

you just would NOT eat more than you needed on a given

day and it wouldn't matter so much whether the food was hi or lo

carb.

Many tropical fruits are sweet and always have been. Mangos and

papayas, for instance, haven't changed drastically. Sugar cane has

always been sweet. It is true that a lot of European fruits have changed

a lot (like apples, which in their original form were barely edible) but

the concept that all wild fruits are lacking in sugar is an extrapolation

that doesn't have much validity, IMO. Actually I think the sugar content

is LESS in some marketed fruits now, because the wild version goes

bad too fast.

> Where did the traditional Inuit get the other 70%?

Fat. Whales and seals are full of it. But in warmer climates,

fat is harder to get. Now there are coconuts, of course, and

fat fish, and pork. But wild animals don't have near as

much fat in most parts of the world.

> If all three are needed in balance, why would fat only be

>prized?

I some places, fat is the hardest to get (not for the Inuit).

If you want a fat deer, for instance, you have to get an

older one. So if you DO find an older deer, you take the

fat first. If you want to get oil from nuts or olives, it is

a LOT of work, and those fats were highly prized too. Now

once people started milking animals, it got easier to get fat!

Now carbs many cultures have a staple supply of. People have

been digging yams for a long time, or manioc, or other roots.

I'm not saying you NEED all 3, BTW. Just that you can't live

off protein, and carbs have traditionally been eaten. Humans

are very adaptable!

>I doubt that ancient humans necessarily got most of their

>protein from hunting, a high-calorie burning activity. I

>think it most likely that a large, if not the largest,

>proportion of their protein came from a slow and methodical

>gleaning of the area they were moving through at the time,

>for wild-bird eggs, insects, nuts, seeds, etc. In any case,

>as I've already said, I'm not just extrapolating rules for

>the present from the past, but am also extrapolating an idea

>of the past from the present. Modern research into disease

>causation has revealed that excess carbohydrate is a factor

>in many, if not most, of the diseases of civilization.

Well THAT is the part I disagree with. ALL the research I've

read on " excess carbohydrate " does not distinguish between

the types of carbs, except perhaps with rats that are force-fed

sugar water. " Carb " and " wheat " in our society are synonymous,

and there is a ton of data that shows wheat protein causes

major systemic damage in both people and rats. And probably

in dogs and cats. Lutz did all kinds of research on the usefullness

of " low carb " diets but his diets were all low wheat ... he even

called his book " Life without bread " for heaven's sake.

There have been cases where modern Africans have been

living off millet for ages ... and they get shipments of wheat,

for food aid, and suddenly get sick. Millet is as high-carb

as wheat, but it doesn't cause the same problems. The " foods

of modern commerce " that Price talked about were white flour

and sugar ... when researchers judge the impact of wheat flour,

it takes about 20 years for it to cause problems in the health

of a population, which is about what Price noted.

>Finally, and most importantly, it was not my original intent

>to get into a debate over carbohydrate consumption. I don't

>really care what other people believe or what they eat. I

>only ever included reference to such because I felt that I

>was being judged for what I eat, and needed to make clear to

>those offering the advice that my dietary beliefs and goals

>were different from theirs.

Well, I'm not one to judge what people eat either, and

I wouldn't want you to feel judged for it. I do disagree

with the concept that keeps coming around that " it has

been shown that high carb diets cause ... " -- no such thing

has been shown, and there are plenty of counterexamples

of people being healthy on high carb diets. Just not

American carbs. I could say the same thing about meat --

it has been shown that Americans on high-meat diets

have problems. But I'm pretty sure most of the issues

have to do with the meat source (grain fed meat, high

in Omega 6's and who knows what else) because

humans can do just fine on a high meat diet if they

aren't modern Americans.

-- Heidi

>

[Guest guest]

>Profactor-A is responsible for many of the autoimmune

>diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, rheumatic fever,

>pernicious anemia, and lupus erythematosus. In the diseases

>caused by Profactor-A, the body literally attacks itself.

>Unfortunately, the process responsible for Profactor-A has

>not yet been positively identified, though current research

>in the area of cytokines, substances secreted by immune

>cells as they fight disease, may soon provide some answers.

>The prevention and alleviation of autoimmune diseases still

>awaits positive identification of this important profactor.

All the diseases listed here are linked to gluten intolerance.

I haven't heard Profactor-A mentioned specifically, but

when the body reacts to gluten (and 1 in 5 people do) it

starts attacking itself. The levels of these self-attacking

antibodies drop as soon as the person stops eating wheat.

Thing is, wheat probably isn't the only food that triggers

these, though it seems to be the worst. Mercola feels the

reason is due to " molecular mimicry " , but the jury

is still out. The other major triggers are corn and soy,

and rice for some people. So low-carb diets DO help, but

not for the reason people expect.

We also had a discussion earlier on the insulin issue.

You get too much insulin when you eat too much.

But WHY would a person eat too much? You are supposed

to stop after you have eaten the correct number of calories.

People in other cultures, eating honey and rice and other

high-insulin carbs, tend to STOP EATING. Why to they stop

and we don't?

-- Heidi

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/9/03 7:11:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

paultheo2000@... writes:

> Perhaps not entirely relevant, but perhaps our food is more varied and

> palatable over the long term? Imagine eating only 4-5 foods day in and

> day out. I don't think you'd be over-eating after the initial few weeks.

I very much agree with this conceptually, which is one reason I lost weight

on an anti-candida diet-- I just had no desire to eat.

But I don't think this factor's in to Heidi's point at all, because most--

Americans at least-- people in our society, from my observation, eat the most

monotonous diet imaginable, and have far less variety than any traditional

folks. This might be somewhat less true for some of the agricultural folks who

had

certain main staples, but it's definitely true for say, Asians, and

especially true for hunter-gatherers.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/9/03 2:00:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

christiekeith@... writes:

> I have to distinguish between " normal people " and " me " with this issue. Hot

> tea or coffee with stevia basically takes care of any taste I might have

for

> sweets, and I have simply had to accept that for whatever reason, I can't

> handle desserts, sweet treats, etc.

I usually eat sugary things out of respect for other people, or make healthy

ones for social reasons, primarily for other people, though I eat them with

them, and to help other people see that you can make healthy deserts. I often

make deserts as presents for people as a form of nutritional propaganda, for

example by wrapping it up and putting a card on it that explains each of the

benefits of each aspect of its making.

> As to whether stevia is " artificial " because it mimics sugar but contains

no

> sugars, I don't know. It's as natural as sugar, and is in fact LESS refined

> than white table sugar. So it's not an artificial sweetener, IMO, but

rather

> a natural refined sweetener. I use it because it is a zero on the glycemic

> index and has no calories, which appears to be what I need in a sweetener.

As far as I know, white stevia powder is about as refined as white sugar.

Unrefined stevia is green and doesn't tase very good. The drops are even more

refined.

> Regarding the " taste " of stevia, I once went 8 years without eating sugar,

> and then ate some, and discovered that sugar has a very strange, metalic

> aftertaste that never in my life had I noticed before. Anything sweet has

its

> own unique taste, including sugar, and while we think of white sugar as the

> gold standard of sweetness, that really is purely arbitrary. I'm so used to

> stevia now that to me, it tastes just sweet. I don't notice any sort of

> flavor to it at all.

I don't consider white sugar to be the gold standard, I consider raw honey

and maple syrup to be the gold standards, and I find the taste of things that

are loaded with white sugar to be apalling. However, each of these sweeteners

have in common the fact that they contain sugar-- and stevia doesn't. Stevia

contains some kind of sweetness, but it is a distinct taste in a whole 'nother

category that can be separated from the category which can include ALL sugars,

including fruit, honey, white sugar, rapadura, maple syrup, barley malt,

sprouted Manna bread, etc.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>> Since I paraphrased it, I suppose I should say that we weren't talking about

a *need* to use artificial sweeteners, but whether or not one could fulfill

ones taste for sweets, while keepin the restricted carbs, and not using

artificial sweeteners. <<

OK, I understand. Thanks for explaining. has had me on bounce status twice

in the last few days and I've missed a lot of posts, and since I live in the

middle of nowhere, have only slow dial up access, so reading on the website is

too slow for me. So I am getting only pieces of the discussions.

I have to distinguish between " normal people " and " me " with this issue. Hot tea

or coffee with stevia basically takes care of any taste I might have for sweets,

and I have simply had to accept that for whatever reason, I can't handle

desserts, sweet treats, etc. I have never had any ability to handle them. I'm

sure it's related to the fact that neither can I handle alcohol.

My mother, on the other hand, can take sweets or leave them. I know lots of

folks like that, but I'm not one of them. So satisfying my " taste for sweets " is

just a non-issue for me. If hot tea or coffee made with stevia doesn't do it (or

hot cocoa in my pre-Atkins days, right now the carbs in milk are too high for

me, although I could make it with cream and probably will do when the weather

cools off) then I just suck it up and live with it. It really is only a problem

for me around my menstrual period, when I get all kinds of feelings of hunger

and weird cravings for a day or two.

As to whether stevia is " artificial " because it mimics sugar but contains no

sugars, I don't know. It's as natural as sugar, and is in fact LESS refined than

white table sugar. So it's not an artificial sweetener, IMO, but rather a

natural refined sweetener. I use it because it is a zero on the glycemic index

and has no calories, which appears to be what I need in a sweetener.

Regarding the " taste " of stevia, I once went 8 years without eating sugar, and

then ate some, and discovered that sugar has a very strange, metalic aftertaste

that never in my life had I noticed before. Anything sweet has its own unique

taste, including sugar, and while we think of white sugar as the gold standard

of sweetness, that really is purely arbitrary. I'm so used to stevia now that to

me, it tastes just sweet. I don't notice any sort of flavor to it at all.

Christie

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/9/03 6:32:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Which is why a heroin addict can think that jabbing oneself

> with a needle feels GOOD too. Or why people crave sweets or salt.

> But it works in a good direction also ... if a diet of raw fish is

> balanced and you are adapted to it, you might constantly

> crave raw fish and nothing but raw fish.

>

The one and only time I've eaten kidneys was in a restaurant in Montreal. I

asked the waiter if they tasted good, or if they only served them because

people ate them for their health, and he said that when he first tried them he

thought they tasted " wierd, " but now he craves them.

Chris

[Guest guest]

all artificial sweetners are bad (white death) so use stevia instead,

much better for you and all natural, tastes sweet without the sugar

r

Christie wrote:

>>> Since I paraphrased it, I suppose I should say that we weren't talking

about

>a *need* to use artificial sweeteners, but whether or not one could

fulfill

>ones taste for sweets, while keepin the restricted carbs, and not using

>artificial sweeteners. <<

<big snip>

---------------------------------------------

Yound Living Essential Oils and more.

http://my.youngliving.com/starwulf/

----

Kill the Ego, Lose your Mind, Use your

Brain!

-richard aka: StarWulf & k(no)w one

http://www.geocities.com/i_starwulf/index.htm

[Guest guest]

In commenting on the Inuit diet, Steffanson said that while it SEEMS like it

would be monotonous, it wasn't, and they never got tired of fish day in

and day out. He wrote at length about that. I suspect that " monotony "

really signals " I'm missing a nutrient " . Your taste buds are really your

body's way of controlling you ... if your body wants it, it will taste

good!

Which is why a heroin addict can think that jabbing oneself

with a needle feels GOOD too. Or why people crave sweets or salt.

But it works in a good direction also ... if a diet of raw fish is

balanced and you are adapted to it, you might constantly

crave raw fish and nothing but raw fish.

-- Heidi

>But I don't think this factor's in to Heidi's point at all, because most--

>Americans at least-- people in our society, from my observation, eat the most

>monotonous diet imaginable, and have far less variety than any traditional

>folks. This might be somewhat less true for some of the agricultural folks who

had

>certain main staples, but it's definitely true for say, Asians, and

>especially true for hunter-gatherers.

>

>Chris

[Guest guest]

>Heidi,

>

>Do you base your assessment of how much your body 'needs' on whether a

>person is fat or not? What do you make of people with thrifty

>metabolisms? People who can eat loads and loads of food (junk or not)

>and stay lean year round. Should they go ahead and eat as much as they

>like?

>

>-

I think your body has a REALLY GOOD chemistry set built in,

that gets fouled up sometimes. But if it's working right, weight

shouldn't be an issue. That is the theory, which is based

on a lot of research with people and rats, and it seems to

work in my family. That doesn't mean that a person shouldn't

go for nutritious foods etc -- nutrient content is a whole 'nother

ball game, although again, if the chemistry set is working right,

you should CRAVE foods that are full of nutrients.

But yeah, a person who has a working appestat has no reason

to limit their food intake. Most kids do fine until they

get older -- in some experiments, they put young kids in

a room with tons of food, and measure what the kids

choose. Given the choice of sweets, pastries, salad, fruit,

meat ... they choose just what they need, and don't load

up on candy like you would think.

That changes

after a certain age, in the US. Not necessarily elsewhere though,

and it doesn't change for everyone, some people don't

have an overeating problem. WHY does it change?

THAT is the question the researchers are trying to answer.

I can say that for my family, my daughter can eat whatever

she wants, including candy and pop, and she generally eats

fruit, cheese, and meat. I've never seen her heat more than

one piece of candy, and more often she takes a bite or a lick

and then leaves it. She rarely finishes pop either, she just

takes a little and leaves it. But she will drink a lot of cider

or kefir beer. She used to be chubby, but now she is not,

and my DH lost 20 lbs too (still eating junk). All we did

was lose our major allergen (wheat) -- the house is as full

of junk as it was, but they just choose not to eat it much.

(They love to BUY it though! The advertising works to

get them to buy it, but not to actually eat it!).

They did a great experiment with prisoners -- they use

prisoners because they could monitor their REAL food

intake, I think. They took some " always skinny " guys

and force fed them more than they wanted to eat. They

DID gain weight. EATING TOO MUCH causes weight gain.

But those guys hated the diet. They just really had a hard

time shovelling in the calories. And they dropped the

weight as soon as they were off the diet ... and prison

is not a place with great food or lots of exercise.

People that eat a LOT of junk likely either have a really

fast metabolism, or poor absorption, or a disorder.

Fats in particular can go undigested, so you could eat 4,000

calories a day and absorb 2,000. But some of the folks

that eat a lot really aren't eating as much as you think ...

one skinny lady I know confided to me that yeah, she

eats a big plate of pizza at dinner, but she doesn't

eat all day (she was a WD before the term came into being).

She never snacked, or drank pop. Also a lot of people

who are always skinny and eat a lot turn get diagnosed

with celiac eventually (and then start gaining weight,

because they are used to really shovelling in the food).

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>No, I don't blame a lack of gluten for weight loss, or for causing

>hunger. My point was, that if my health problems, or constant

>hunger due to a ruined appestat, had been caused by gluten, then

>they should have gone away on this diet, but they didn't.

Except that it doesn't usually work that way. Some of

the damage might even be permanent. The folks on

the Celiac list have to do a LOT of work to get

better, not just eliminate gluten. And as far as the appestat,

it can be damaged in early childhood, possibly

permantently (and by other things than gluten, which

I'm not saying is the only culprit). Premies, for example,

are statistically very likely to become fat kids, but no

one knows why.

>I'm not sure why you have such an idealized picture of

>the Japanese. Though they are not as fat as Americans

>on average, they are certainly not the healthiest people

>in the world. Obesity is not the only health problem

>that comes from over eating, or eating an imbalanced diet.

>Nor is every disease accompanied by obesity. In fact,

>I've never been fat in my life, but that doesn't mean that

>I was in good health. The fact that someone is eating " as

>much as they feel like " and not getting fat, does not mean

>that they are actually in ideal health.

Their health is going down, partly because they are

adopting more Western foods. But they are generally

considered to lack many of the diseases that plague

us, like obesity, breast cancer, etc. As far as the

appestat (which was the topic) it seems clear that they

don't overeat, in spite of the high white-rice diet.

But as I said before, the Japanese _do_ eat wheat, and

>typically every day. Rent the movie " Tampopo " from the

>international section of your video store to learn about

>Japan's national obsession with wheat noodles.

They are beginning to eat it -- I did see the movie. Their

wheat imports are rising faster than any other country.

But their noodles were not traditionally made of wheat,

they were rice and buckwheat. It is considered to take

at least 20 years before " wheat damage " really shows

up statistically. But in either case, I was making the

point that high carbs do not equal high blood sugar/obesity,

and their obsession with noodles goes to that point!

> No, I don't have any hard evidence. I am sure that

>mangoes and bananas have been bred-up by humans,

>but I can't remember what my official source for this

>was. I thought at first that it was the book " Food in

>History " by Reay Tannahill, but I haven't been able to

>locate it in my copy yet. There is another book with

>alot of information on tropical fruit, which I _think_

>is titled " Food in Ancient India " , but I can't remember

>for sure. I'm going to have to do some digging.

The programs I've been hearing have been lamenting

the LACK of sugar in modern fruits -- high sugar

fruits don't ship well. Dates and persimmons, in

their wild state, are supremely high in sugar, pawpaws

too, I think, and prickly pears. Most of the fruits

people ate way back when we don't even eat any more --

again, high sugar fruits don't keep well.

> Price found people eating high carb diets and doing just

>> fine, and people are doing the same today all over the world.

>

>I don't think that he found any that weren't consuming a

>low ratio of carbohydrates to carbohydrates burned.

If their appestat is working, then they would consume

just enough, regardless of how much was available.

The Swiss and their oatmeal, for instance. I find

in my life I tend to fill up on protein/fat because

I HAVE it, and it tastes better, if I have a choice,

and I don't overindulge on carbs. But I think, again,

it is the appestat ... your body knows what it wants,

it it probably wants meat/fat more. People who

avoid the steak and eat a ton of potatos probably

either 1) Can't afford steak 2) are food idealists, or

3) Have a messed up metabolism/appestat.

I'm not sure that a modern farmer has to work anywhere

>as hard as a primitive one did, for one thing, and I'm not

>sure that being fat alone is all that unhealthy, unless the

>fat is due to insulin resistance, for another.

Fat is a good measure of insulin resistance

and messed up appestat, which was the topic.

" Poor health " can be caused by all kinds of things,

but these guys are 300+ lbs and that has to

mean (by the theories I've read) that their

appestat isn't working.

> Don't many Japanese walk or ride a bicycle to work? The

>Japanese in general are known for being very industrious

>people.

A lot of them ride subways, and they work long hours

The wives stay home. And a lot of them move here. When

I go to the Korean store, there are a lot of middle-aged

women buying traditional foods ... and they are thin. Not

terribly athletic. Around here I see women in the health

clubs, sweating away ... still fat. And take the Sumos ...

they work out HARD but force themselves to overeat,

and even with those good Japanese genes they are fat.

Eating more calories than you need makes you fat, no

matter the exercise level. There are lots of skinny guys

lounging around in prison too.

When one factors in the fact that

>these people have had thousands of years of evolutionary

>adaptation to a rice-based diet, and are typically much

>more active than the average American, the case is not

>so clear.

Those are all guesses ... when I've visited oriental

families the meal centers around rice or noodles. Richer

folk eat more meat, poorer folk eat more rice -- but neither

group is really fat. If their appestats are working they

would NOT consume so much sugar, which is my point.

Nor would they eat more rice than they need. My point

is that HOW MUCH food an individual eats, and often

what TYPES, is largely determined by the " food brain "

of the individual (affected to some degree by culture

and advertising and exercise levels, but not to the

degree people think).

>> And if a person has impaired carb metabolism, then maybe they

>> DO need to go low carb.

>

>Well this _is_ at least a step for you to say! (-:

Not at all, a lot of gluten-damaged people go low carb!

> No, I don't blame a lack of gluten for weight loss, or for

>causing hunger. My point was, that if my health problems,

>or constant hunger due to a ruined appestat, had been caused

>by gluten, then they should have gone away on this diet, but

>they didn't. My problems did go away however, after I went

>on a low-carbohydrate diet, that was higher in protein, but

>which does include small amounts of wheat and spelt.

Also a diet that sounds like it was higher in nutrients.

I don't know if you are gluten sensitive or not, and

the health problems I was talking about were

obesity and high blood sugar and appestat problems,

which don't sound like YOUR problems. Low-carb diets

tend to be be more nutritious (most carbs are just not

very high in nutrients, except maybe sweet potatoes

and " real " yams) and a lot of people end up eating

too little protein and fat on a high-carb diet.

But there are societies, including the Japanese, who

>have gluten and also seem to do O.K., or at least they

>don't give obvious evidence of over-eating, like obesity.

This is true, though the Japanese aren't a good

measure of that because their wheat consumption

is still low. The French are better, because they

are thin and still eat lots of wheat. But the people who

are VERY sensitive to wheat all have certain genes,

(very common ones, unfortunately), and other

factors play in (like, weaning time, how OFTEN you

eat, food combining).

The genes involved tend to be rarer the longer

a country has eaten wheat, which would seem to

indicate the wheat is really bad for folks with those

genes. Much of the US was settled by people from

Northern Europe, esp. England and Ireland, where

those genes are very common. I don't know how

common the genes are among the Japanese

and Chinese -- the Chinese have farmed wheat

for some time, and the Japanese haven't but

they were descended from the Chinese. They

seem to be pretty common among Africans

though.

>I'm not sure that you aren't correct here, but I've forgotten

>now what this has to do with the argument. (-:

Just that statistics showing " high carb diets are bad "

might miss the point (you were saying that high carb

diets are the root of health problems in the US, to loosely quote).

" High carb diets " have multiple problems in the US,

including the TYPE of carbs (non nutritious, highly allergenic

carbs).

I don't doubt it. I've never doubted that many people have

>a problem with gluten and shouldn't eat it, including possibly

>myself. I only doubt that all problems thought to be caused

>by excessive carbohydrate are really just caused by gluten.

Most of the people who had major overeating problems

and then stop eating gluten, don't doubt it at all.

Their overeating goes away. Not everyone reacts

to gluten ... there are other allergens that cause the same

types of problems, and other things that throw off

the appestat. Gluten problems are just the most common.

This has been noted by doctors and researchers too,

and yes, anecdotally on list groups. Sure, it's just

my theory that it's causing a lot of the major obesity

problem in the US.

> That's my point. Until there is a careful disentangling

>of the two factors, any insistence by you that the problem

>is all gluten, or any insistence by me that it's all carbo-

>hydrate, is merely anecdotal, not having any basis in properly

>conducted tests, but based on our personal experiences and

>observations.

Sure. Until I get my 10 million dollar research grant,

it's all like I say, " my theory " !

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/12/03 6:42:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

paultheo2000@... writes:

> After I mentioned it here I decided to investigate my own claim a bit

> and came up empty. I've seen it mentioned many times though...I don't

> know where the information came from. Likely from a CR source (Roy

> Walford?). In any case, the GM mice study is not a study against

> CRON...simply another way to achieve longevity. And since we have not

> yet engineered special insulin receptor sites in humans...CR remains a

> valid alternative. CR is likely simply correlated with another life

> extension mechanism (Mercola suggests Insulin).

It isn't a study against anything, CRON or otherwise, but it is a study that

shows that lowering bodyfat (which calorie-restriction does) extends life,

regardless of the amount of calories consumed, which suggests that the results

of

the CR studies, which all fail to isolate the CR variable, might be partially

or wholly attributable to lower body fat rather than the number of calories

consumed.

Chris

[Guest guest]

CR still works. I don't think the people doing CRON, assuming they

live longer and don't feel like crap, don't really care WHAT the

underlying mechanism at work is.

-

> In a message dated 10/12/03 6:42:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> paultheo2000@y... writes:

>

> > After I mentioned it here I decided to investigate my own claim a bit

> > and came up empty. I've seen it mentioned many times though...I don't

> > know where the information came from. Likely from a CR source (Roy

> > Walford?). In any case, the GM mice study is not a study against

> > CRON...simply another way to achieve longevity. And since we have not

> > yet engineered special insulin receptor sites in humans...CR remains a

> > valid alternative. CR is likely simply correlated with another life

> > extension mechanism (Mercola suggests Insulin).

>

> It isn't a study against anything, CRON or otherwise, but it is a

study that

> shows that lowering bodyfat (which calorie-restriction does) extends

life,

> regardless of the amount of calories consumed, which suggests that

the results of

> the CR studies, which all fail to isolate the CR variable, might be

partially

> or wholly attributable to lower body fat rather than the number of

calories

> consumed.

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:34:22 -0400

Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

>-

>

>>Yes the idea that honey can be used in the treatment of diabetes or can

>>help with blood sugar problems is difficult for many folks to believe.

>

>Unfortunately, even the highest quality raw honey gives me severe blood

>sugar problems. Granted, I don't have diabetes, but I'm extremely

>hypoglycemic (at least when I don't eat lots of animal fat and eschew most

>carbs).

>

>

>

>

>-

>

,

I could see how that would be a problem for some but apparently it works

for others. I was actually referring to folks who dismiss the idea out

of hand, not offering honey as a " remedy " for everyone, but the diabetic

angle is quite fascinating.

[Guest guest]

-

Any idea what the percentages are supposed to be? I guess it's academic

for me, but I'm still curious.

>I could see how that would be a problem for some but apparently it works

>for others.

-