Reason for my post on carbohydrates

June 9, 2004

Dear Francine & Robin,

Ray Peat writes too generalized on some things, and I agree he went

overboard on this one. This part was the only thing I thought was

important for candida sufferers because it aligns with my Candida

article:

" The primary high-carbohydrate foods to avoid are ***sugars, honey,

flour, grains, legumes, fruit, milk and starchy-vegetables***.

***Whole grains cause disease in both humans and animals. Whole grain

breads and bagels are not the healthy food as people are lead to

believe. All grains have a very high level of omega-6 fatty acids,

which are pro-inflammatory. Grains are a poor source of protein.

Grains are the most allergenic of all foods. Multiple sclerosis,

lupus and rheumatoid arthritis are rare in populations where no grain

products are consumed such as the Paleolithic (hunter-gatherer) diet. "

I'll have to use a better example next time eh?

When I made the statement about Ekimos eating only meat and blubber I

didn't meant that it would be recommended or even good. I only meant

to point out that " some " people " can be healthy " on only meat and

blubber, meaning good fats and meat are healthy. That was not the

best way to convey it. I have to use better sense next time my

friends.

Sorry for not clarifying better and for using examples that don't

help in the end.

Warmest Regards,

Bee

> Dear Bee,

> Here's another excerpt from a book called " How and When to Be Your

Own

> Doctor " by Isabelle A. Moser. In it she argues that: " Homo Sapiens

clearly

> can posses extreme health while eating very different dietary

regimens.

> There is no one right diet for humans. " She was observing the same

thing

> your Dr. Price observed and came up with a different

interpretation; the

> soil.

>

> " Prior to the Second World War there were several dozen sizable

groups of

> extraordinarily healthy humans remaining on Earth. Today, their

descendants

> are still in the same remote places, are speaking the same

languages and

> possess more or less the same cultures. Only today they're watching

> satellite TV. wearing jeans, drinking colas–and their superior

health has

> evaporated.

> During the early part of this century, at the same era vitamins

and

> other basic aspects of nutrition were being discovered, a few

farsighted

> medical explorers sought out these hard-to-reach places with their

> legendarily healthy peoples to see what caused the legendary well-

being

> they'd heard of. Enough evidence was collected and analyzed to

derive some

> very valid principles.

> First lets dismiss some apparently logical but incorrect

explanations

> for the unusually good health of these isolated peoples. It wasn't

racial,

> genetic superiority. There were extraordinarily healthy blacks,

browns,

> Orientals, Amarinds, Caucasians. It wasn't living at high altitude;

some

> lived at sea level. It wasn't temperate climates, some lived in the

tropics,

> some in the tropics at sea level, a type of location generally

thought to be

> quite unhealthful. It wasn't a small collection of genetically

superior

> individuals, because when these peoples left their isolated locale

and moved

> to the city, they rapidly began to lose their health. And it wasn't

genetics

> because when a young couple from the isolated healthy village moved

to town,

> their children born in town were as unhealthy as all the other kids.

> And what do I mean by genuinely healthy? Well, imagine a remote

village

> or a mountain valley or a far island settlement very difficult to

get to,

> where there lived a thousand or perhaps ten thousand people. Rarely

fewer,

> rarely more. Among that small population there were no medical

doctors and

> no dentists, no drugs, no vaccinations, no antibiotics. Usually the

> isolation carried with it illiteracy and precluded contact with or

awareness

> of modern science, so there was little or no notion of public

hygiene. And

> this was before the era of antibiotics. Yet these unprotected,

undoctored,

> unvaccinated peoples did not suffer and die from bacterial

infections; and

> the women did not have to give birth to 13 children to get 2.4 to

survive to

> breeding age–almost all the children made it through the gauntlet of

> childhood diseases. There was also virtually no degenerative

disease like

> heart attacks, hardening of the arteries, senility, cancer,

arthritis. There

> were few if any birth defects. In fact, there probably weren't any

aspirin

> in the entire place. Oh, and there was very little mortality during

> childbirth, as little or less than we have today with all our

hospitals. And

> the people uniformly had virtually perfect teeth and kept them all

till

> death, but did not have toothbrushes nor any notion of dental

hygiene. Nor

> did they have dentists or physicians. (Price, 1970)

> And in those fortunate places the most common causes of death

were

> accident (trauma) and old age. The typical life span was long into

the 70s

> and in some places quite a bit longer. One fabled place, Hunza, was

renowned

> for having an extraordinarily high percentage of vigorous and

active people

> over 100 years old.

> I hope I've made you curious. " How could this be? " you're

asking. Well,

> here's why. First, everyone of those groups lived in places so

entirely

> remote, so inaccessible that they were of necessity, virtually

> self-sufficient. They hardly traded at all with the outside world,

and

> certainly they did not trade for bulky, hard-to-transport bulk

foodstuffs.

> Virtually everything they ate was produced by themselves. If they

were an

> agricultural people, naturally, everything they ate was natural:

organic,

> whole, unsprayed and fertilized with what ever local materials

seemed to

> produce enhanced plant growth. And, if they were agricultural, they

lived on

> a soil body that possessed highly superior natural fertility. If

not an

> agricultural people they lived by the sea and made a large portion

of their

> diets sea foods. If their soil had not been extraordinarily

fertile, these

> groups would not have enjoyed superior health and would have

conformed to

> the currently widely-believed notion that before the modern era,

people's

> lives were brutish, unhealthful, and short.

> What is common between meat-eating Eskimos, isolated highland

Swiss

> living on rye bread, milk and cheese; isolated ish island

Celts with a

> dietary of oat porridge, kale and sea foods; highland central

Africans

> (Malawi) eating sorghum, millet tropical root crops and all sorts

of garden

> vegetables, plus a little meat and dairy; Fijians living on small

islands in

> the humid tropics at sea level eating sea foods and garden

vegetables. What

> they had in common was that their foods were all were at the extreme

> positive end of the Health = Nutrition / Calories scale. The

agriculturists

> were on very fertile soil that grew extraordinarily nutrient-rich

food, the

> sea food gatherers were obtaining their tucker from the place where

all the

> fertility that ever was in the soil had washed out of the land had

been

> transported–sea foods are also extraordinarily nutrient rich.

> The group with the very best soil and consequently, the best

health of

> all were, by lucky accident, the Hunza. I say " lucky "

and " accident " because

> the Hunza and their resource base unknowingly developed an

agricultural

> system that produced the most nutritious food that is possible to

grow. The

> Hunza lived on what has been called super food. There are a lot of

> interesting books about the Hunza, some deserving of careful study.

(Wrench,

> 1938; Rodale, 1949)

>

> Finding Your Ideal Dietary

> Anyone that is genuinely interested in having the best possible

health

> should make their own study of the titles listed in the

bibliography in the

> back of this book. After you do, award yourself a BS nutrition. I

draw

> certain conclusions from this body of data. I think they help a

person sort

> out the massive confusion that exists today about proper diet.

> First principle: Homo Sapiens clearly can posses extreme health

while

> eating very different dietary regimens. There is no one right diet

for

> humans.

> Before the industrial era almost everyone on Earth ate what was

produced

> locally. Their dietary choices were pretty much restricted to those

foods

> that were well adapted and productive in their region. Some places

grew rye,

> others wheat, others millet, others rice. Some places supported

cows, others

> goats, others had few on no domesticated animals. Some places

produced a lot

> of fruits and vegetables. Others, did not. Whatever the local

dietary,

> during thousands of years of eating that dietary natural selection

> prevailed; most babies that were allergic to or not able to thrive

on the

> available dietary, died quickly. Probably of childhood bacterial

infections.

> The result of this weeding out process was a population closely

adapted to

> the available dietary of a particular locale.

> This has interesting implications for Americans, most of whose

ancestors

> immigrated from somewhere else; many of our ancestors

also " hybridized " or

> crossed with immigrants from elsewhere. Trying to discover what

dietary

> substances your particular genetic endowment is adapted to can be

difficult

> and confusing. If both your parents were Italian and they were more

or less

> pure Italian going way back, you might start out trying to eat

wheat,

> olives, garlic, fava beans, grapes, figs, cow dairy. If pure

German, try rye

> bread, cow dairy, apples, cabbage family vegetables. If ish,

try oats,

> mutton, fish, sheep dairy and cabbage family vegetables. If Jewish,

try goat

> dairy, wheat, olives and citrus. And certainly all the above ethnic

> derivations will thrive on many kinds of vegetables. Afro-Americans,

> especially dark-complexioned ones little mixed with Europeans,

might do well

> to avoid wheat and instead, try sorghum, millet or tropical root

crops like

> sweet potatoes, yams and taro.

> Making it even more difficult for an individual to discover

their

> optimum diet is the existence of genetic-based allergies and worse,

> developed allergies. Later in this chapter I will explain how a

body can

> develop an allergy to a food that is probably irreversible. A

weakened organ

> can also prevent digestion of a food or food group.

> One more thing about adaptation to dietaries. Pre-industrial

humans

> could only be extraordinarily healthy on the dietary they were

adapted to if

> and only if that dietary also was extraordinarily high in

nutrients. Few

> places on earth have naturally rich soil. Food grown on poor soil

is poor in

> nutrition; that grown on rich soil is high in nutrition. People do

not

> realize that the charts and tables in the backs of health books

like Adelle

> 's Lets Cook It Right, are not really true. They are

statistics. It is

> vital to keep in mind the old saying, " there are lies, there are

damned

> lies, and then there are statistics. The best way to lie is with

> statistics. "

> Statistical tables of the nutrient content of foods were

developed by

> averaging numerous samples of food from various soils and regions.

These

> tables basically lie because they do not show the range of

possibility

> between the different samples. A chart may state authoritatively

that 100

> grams of broccoli contains so many milligrams of calcium. What it

does not

> say is that some broccoli samples contain only half that amount or

even

> less, while other broccoli contains two or three times that amount.

Since

> calcium is a vital nutrient hard to come by in digestible form, the

high

> calcium broccoli is far better food than the low calcium sample.

But both

> samples of broccoli appear and taste more or less alike. Both could

even be

> organically grown. Yet one sample has a very positive ratio of

nutrition to

> calories, the other is lousy food. (Schuphan, 1965) Here's another

example I

> hope will really dent the certainties the ites. Potatoes

can

> range in protein from eight to eleven percent, depending on the

soil that

> produced them and if they were or were not irrigated. Grown dry

(very low

> yielding) on semiarid soils, potatoes can be a high-protein staff

of life.

> Heavily irrigated and fertilized so as to produce bulk yield

instead of

> nutrition, they'll produce two or three times the tonnage, but at 8

percent

> protein instead of 11 percent. Not only does the protein content

drop just

> as much as yield is boosted, the amino acid ratios change markedly,

the

> content of scarce nutritional minerals drops massively, and the

caloric

> content increases. In short, subsisting on irrigated commercially-

grown

> potatoes, or on those grown on relatively infertile soils receiving

abundant

> rainfall will make you fat and sick. They're a lot like manioc.

> Here's another. Wheat can range from 7 to 19 percent protein.

Before the

> industrial era ruined most wheat by turning it into white flour,

> wheat-eating peoples from regions where the cereal naturally

contains

> abundant protein tended to be tall, healthy and long-lived. Wheat-

eating

> humans from regions that produce low protein grain tended to be

small,

> sickly and short-lived. (McCarrison, 1921, 1936, 1982; Albrecht,

1975)

> Even cows have to pay attention to where their grass is coming

from.

> Some green grass is over 15 percent protein and contains lots of

calcium,

> phosphorus and magnesium to build strong bodies. Other equally or

even

> better looking green grass contains only six or seven percent

protein and

> contains little calcium, phosphorus or magnesium. Cows forced to

eat only

> this poor type of grass can literally starve to death with full

bellies. And

> they have a hard time breeding successfully. The reason for the

difference:

> different soil fertility profiles. (Albrecht, 1975)

> When people ate local, those living on fertile soils or getting

a

> significant portion of their diet from the sea and who because of

physical

> isolation from industrial foods did not make a practice of eating

empty

> calories tended to live a long time and be very healthy. But those

> unfortunates on poor soils or with unwise cultural life-styles

tended to be

> short-lived, diseased, small, weak, have bad teeth, and etc. The

lesson here

> is that Homo Sapiens can adapt to many different dietaries, but

like any

> other animal, the one thing we can't adapt to is a dietary

deficient in

> nutrition.

> So here's another " statistic " to reconsider. Most people

believe that

> due to modern medical wonders, we live longer than we used to.

Actually,

> that depends. Compared to badly nourished populations of a century

ago, yes!

> We do. Chemical medicine keeps sickly, poorly nourished people

going a lot

> longer (though one wonders about the quality of their dreary

existences.) I

> hypothesize that before the time most farmers purchased and baked

with white

> flour and sold their whole, unground wheat, many rural Americans

(the ones

> on good soil, not all parts of North America have rich soil) eating

from

> their own self-sufficient farms, lived as long or even longer than

we do

> today. You also have to wonder who benefits from promulgating this

mistaken

> belief about longevity. Who gets rich when we are sick? And what

huge

> economic interests are getting rich helping make us sick? "

>

> The entire chapter can be found at:

>

http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020102moser/020102Moser0

5ch5.h

> tml

>

> ________________________________

>

> From: francilor@a... [mailto:francilor@a...]

> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 5:45 AM

>

> Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Scientific Proof Carbohydrates

Cause

> Disease

>

> Dans un e-mail daté du 08/06/2004 13:01:22 Romance Standard Time,

> beewilder@s... a écrit :

>

> > ====>In Ray Peat's article he points out that the Eskimos are

very

> > healthy without any carbohydrates, only meat and blubber.

> >

> > The logic flaw in this demonstration is that other populations

are also

> very

> > healthy WITH carbohydrates.

> > The only thing this demonstrates in correct logic is that

several types

> of

> > diets can keep people healthy. How old do Eskimos live on

average? As far

> as

> > I remember, people following the Mediterranean diet may welll

live longer

> on

> > average.

> And of course, the duration of life does not depend only on the

type of

> diet.

>

> Francine

>

June 9, 2004

No harm no foul, Bee. And I'm so sorry about those dear sweet Calgary

Flames. I was totally disappointed! With you, I feel like I have family in

Canada now.

Fondly,

~Robin

_____

From: Bee [mailto:beewilder@...]

Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 8:46 PM

Subject: [ ] Reason for my post on carbohydrates