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

[Guest guest]

> 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.

>

> ,

>

> 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.

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.

> 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 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.

Are you familiar with " punctuated equilibrium " ? 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.

> 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. 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. 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.

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

carb

> intakes were usually under 60 grams.

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.