Low-carb diets get thermodynamic defence

On 18 Aug 2004 02:40:37 -0700, (Peter Allen)
wrote:

3. Please explain why you use the word fractal in such an incredibly
retarded way.

Yeah, I was wondering about that too :-).

Chris (A.B., Mathematics, Brown University, 1970; M.S., Computer
Science, University of Toronto, 1972)
262/141/ (145-150)

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 17:21:46 +0100, John HUDSON
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:57:19 GMT, "Lee Michaels"
wrote:


"Ray Audette" wrote

In my humble opinion, anybody who would take dietary advice from a
person who is morbidly obese is a moron. That the vast majority of
weight loss "experts" who espouse a thermodynamic approach to
weight-loss are themselves overweight ought to point you in the right
direction.


In my humble opinion, anybody who would take dietary advice from a swarmy
spammer like Ray Audette is a moron. His delusions of pseudo-scientific
explanations hardly qualify as something to trust your body to.

Even if he had something of value, he comes across like a megalomaiac
fruitcake. Who wants to get involved with that?

Certainly not me "William", I have enough difficulty trying to
decipher your own particular brand of meglomaniacal fruitcakery!!




how long has this thread been anything more than a flame fest?

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:36:41 -0400, Mack©® wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 17:21:46 +0100, John HUDSON
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:57:19 GMT, "Lee Michaels"
wrote:


"Ray Audette" wrote

In my humble opinion, anybody who would take dietary advice from a
person who is morbidly obese is a moron. That the vast majority of
weight loss "experts" who espouse a thermodynamic approach to
weight-loss are themselves overweight ought to point you in the right
direction.


In my humble opinion, anybody who would take dietary advice from a swarmy
spammer like Ray Audette is a moron. His delusions of pseudo-scientific
explanations hardly qualify as something to trust your body to.

Even if he had something of value, he comes across like a megalomaiac
fruitcake. Who wants to get involved with that?

Certainly not me "William", I have enough difficulty trying to
decipher your own particular brand of meglomaniacal fruitcakery!!




how long has this thread been anything more than a flame fest?


In which way would that make it different to the majority of threads
in this celebrated seething cauldron of inflated and ofttimes bruised
egos?!! ;o)

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:36:41 -0400, Mack©® wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 17:21:46 +0100, John HUDSON
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:57:19 GMT, "Lee Michaels"
wrote:


"Ray Audette" wrote

In my humble opinion, anybody who would take dietary advice from a
person who is morbidly obese is a moron. That the vast majority of
weight loss "experts" who espouse a thermodynamic approach to
weight-loss are themselves overweight ought to point you in the right
direction.


In my humble opinion, anybody who would take dietary advice from a swarmy
spammer like Ray Audette is a moron. His delusions of pseudo-scientific
explanations hardly qualify as something to trust your body to.

Even if he had something of value, he comes across like a megalomaiac
fruitcake. Who wants to get involved with that?

Certainly not me "William", I have enough difficulty trying to
decipher your own particular brand of meglomaniacal fruitcakery!!




how long has this thread been anything more than a flame fest?


In which way would that make it different to the majority of threads
in this celebrated seething cauldron of inflated and ofttimes bruised
egos?!! ;o)

In article ,
Ignoramus29728 wrote:

In article , Lyle McDonald wrote:
Ignoramus29728 wrote:

In article , Lyle McDonald wrote:

Not how an essential nutrient is defined.

As well, what grains provide is calories in an easy/inexpensive/bulk
form, which are necessary for survival.

Of course, what the paleo-folks forget is that the development of grain
refining allowed humans to breed beyond the realm of any other animal.
The increase in efficiency allowed humans to benefit from a reproductive
standpoint.
That the overconsumption of said grains within the context of inactivity
in modern times (leading to health problems) is a different issue is
lost on them.


What the paleo folks are also saying, is that as soon as ancient
people started eating grains, they started having health problem and
deaths from diseases cut life expectancy. I saw a number stated that
life expectancy dropped by 30 years.

Whether that is actually true, is not clear to me as I like to see
more evidence than I have seen.

If they can source it, great.
I have a feeling it's a lot of bull****.

I tried googling for "paleolithic neolithis life expectancy".

I found this:

http://www.humanevolution.net/a/goddess.html

``"Diamond pointed out that along with these social ills came physical
ills as well. Hunter-gatherer era skeletons of American Indians dug up
in the Illinois and Ohio River valleys differ so dramatically from the
later, smaller, and less healthy agriculture era skeletons in the same
region that Diamond called corn, often thought to be an agricultural
wonder, "a public health disaster." (Hartmann 1996: 109, Beyond ADD)

"Nutritional problems and susceptibility to infectious disease seem to
have been an even worse consequence. Anthropologist George Armelagos
studied the skeletons of Indians who lived in Illinois from A.D. 950
to A.D. 1300; their adoption of intensive agriculture in A.D. 1200 was
accompanied by a sudden increase in disease. In the preagricultural
phase, only 16 percent of the skeletons showed signs of
iron-deficiency anaemia. After A.D. 1200, the incidence shot up to 64
percent. The overall rate of infectious diseases that leave a mark in
bone went from 27 percent to 81 percent. Average life expectancy
dropped from twenty-six to nineteen years." (Budiansky 1992: 37, The
Covenant of the Wild)''

Hmm, do you suppose living at much higher population densities (made
possible by more abundant food) in more permanent settlements (since the
cornfields don't migrate) could have anything to do with increased
incidence of diseases?

On 19 Aug 2004 17:52:43 GMT, Ignoramus29728
wrote:

In article , Will wrote:
In article ,
Ignoramus29728 wrote:

In article , Lyle McDonald wrote:
Ignoramus29728 wrote:

In article , Lyle McDonald wrote:

Not how an essential nutrient is defined.

As well, what grains provide is calories in an easy/inexpensive/bulk
form, which are necessary for survival.

Of course, what the paleo-folks forget is that the development of grain
refining allowed humans to breed beyond the realm of any other animal.
The increase in efficiency allowed humans to benefit from a reproductive
standpoint.
That the overconsumption of said grains within the context of inactivity
in modern times (leading to health problems) is a different issue is
lost on them.


What the paleo folks are also saying, is that as soon as ancient
people started eating grains, they started having health problem and
deaths from diseases cut life expectancy. I saw a number stated that
life expectancy dropped by 30 years.

Whether that is actually true, is not clear to me as I like to see
more evidence than I have seen.

If they can source it, great.
I have a feeling it's a lot of bull****.

I tried googling for "paleolithic neolithis life expectancy".

I found this:

http://www.humanevolution.net/a/goddess.html

``"Diamond pointed out that along with these social ills came physical
ills as well. Hunter-gatherer era skeletons of American Indians dug up
in the Illinois and Ohio River valleys differ so dramatically from the
later, smaller, and less healthy agriculture era skeletons in the same
region that Diamond called corn, often thought to be an agricultural
wonder, "a public health disaster." (Hartmann 1996: 109, Beyond ADD)

"Nutritional problems and susceptibility to infectious disease seem to
have been an even worse consequence. Anthropologist George Armelagos
studied the skeletons of Indians who lived in Illinois from A.D. 950
to A.D. 1300; their adoption of intensive agriculture in A.D. 1200 was
accompanied by a sudden increase in disease. In the preagricultural
phase, only 16 percent of the skeletons showed signs of
iron-deficiency anaemia. After A.D. 1200, the incidence shot up to 64
percent. The overall rate of infectious diseases that leave a mark in
bone went from 27 percent to 81 percent. Average life expectancy
dropped from twenty-six to nineteen years." (Budiansky 1992: 37, The
Covenant of the Wild)''

Hmm, do you suppose living at much higher population densities (made
possible by more abundant food) in more permanent settlements (since the
cornfields don't migrate) could have anything to do with increased
incidence of diseases?

It could, but iron deficiency would not be one of them.

Also, I am not sure if agriculture implies a high population density.
Think about farmers living in little villages and farming nearby. It
is not dissimilar from a hunter gatherer tribe living together and
hunting and foraging nearby. You asked a good question, but the answer
to it is not apparent.

Corn, in particular, does cause a deficiency disease called pellagra
if eaten as the primary food source. It limits a vitamin which I
can't remember, but I think it was one of the B's (I don't feel like
googling it).

I suspect also that both agriculture and hunting/gathering would have
their share of feast/famine cycles. I'd expect I'd expect to see
incidence of malnutrtion from both camps if you were just lucky enough
to find the right remains. Permanent settlements would increase that
chance, I suspect.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

On 19 Aug 2004 17:52:43 GMT, Ignoramus29728
wrote:

In article , Will wrote:
In article ,
Ignoramus29728 wrote:

In article , Lyle McDonald wrote:
Ignoramus29728 wrote:

In article , Lyle McDonald wrote:

Not how an essential nutrient is defined.

As well, what grains provide is calories in an easy/inexpensive/bulk
form, which are necessary for survival.

Of course, what the paleo-folks forget is that the development of grain
refining allowed humans to breed beyond the realm of any other animal.
The increase in efficiency allowed humans to benefit from a reproductive
standpoint.
That the overconsumption of said grains within the context of inactivity
in modern times (leading to health problems) is a different issue is
lost on them.


What the paleo folks are also saying, is that as soon as ancient
people started eating grains, they started having health problem and
deaths from diseases cut life expectancy. I saw a number stated that
life expectancy dropped by 30 years.

Whether that is actually true, is not clear to me as I like to see
more evidence than I have seen.

If they can source it, great.
I have a feeling it's a lot of bull****.

I tried googling for "paleolithic neolithis life expectancy".

I found this:

http://www.humanevolution.net/a/goddess.html

``"Diamond pointed out that along with these social ills came physical
ills as well. Hunter-gatherer era skeletons of American Indians dug up
in the Illinois and Ohio River valleys differ so dramatically from the
later, smaller, and less healthy agriculture era skeletons in the same
region that Diamond called corn, often thought to be an agricultural
wonder, "a public health disaster." (Hartmann 1996: 109, Beyond ADD)

"Nutritional problems and susceptibility to infectious disease seem to
have been an even worse consequence. Anthropologist George Armelagos
studied the skeletons of Indians who lived in Illinois from A.D. 950
to A.D. 1300; their adoption of intensive agriculture in A.D. 1200 was
accompanied by a sudden increase in disease. In the preagricultural
phase, only 16 percent of the skeletons showed signs of
iron-deficiency anaemia. After A.D. 1200, the incidence shot up to 64
percent. The overall rate of infectious diseases that leave a mark in
bone went from 27 percent to 81 percent. Average life expectancy
dropped from twenty-six to nineteen years." (Budiansky 1992: 37, The
Covenant of the Wild)''

Hmm, do you suppose living at much higher population densities (made
possible by more abundant food) in more permanent settlements (since the
cornfields don't migrate) could have anything to do with increased
incidence of diseases?

It could, but iron deficiency would not be one of them.

Also, I am not sure if agriculture implies a high population density.
Think about farmers living in little villages and farming nearby. It
is not dissimilar from a hunter gatherer tribe living together and
hunting and foraging nearby. You asked a good question, but the answer
to it is not apparent.

Corn, in particular, does cause a deficiency disease called pellagra
if eaten as the primary food source. It limits a vitamin which I
can't remember, but I think it was one of the B's (I don't feel like
googling it).

I suspect also that both agriculture and hunting/gathering would have
their share of feast/famine cycles. I'd expect I'd expect to see
incidence of malnutrtion from both camps if you were just lucky enough
to find the right remains. Permanent settlements would increase that
chance, I suspect.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

"Ignoramus29728" wrote in message


[...]

Apparently, the skeleton examinations and life expectancy show that
farming led to poorer health.

I take any archaeological estimates of life expectancy with a large grain of
salt. Some years back I saw a most fascinating documentary wherein a 17th
church cemetery in England was moved. A team of archaeologists was given
the opportunity to test various methods of aging the bones and so forth
before they were reinterred and the results were compared to the church's
extensive records. It quickly became apparent that archaeological methods
of estimating age at death were hopeless. They were getting it wrong by up
to thirty or more years. Their only consistency was that they always
under-estimated the age at death. It was a real slap in the face for the
forensic archaeologists.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

"Ignoramus29728" wrote in message


[...]

Apparently, the skeleton examinations and life expectancy show that
farming led to poorer health.

I take any archaeological estimates of life expectancy with a large grain of
salt. Some years back I saw a most fascinating documentary wherein a 17th
church cemetery in England was moved. A team of archaeologists was given
the opportunity to test various methods of aging the bones and so forth
before they were reinterred and the results were compared to the church's
extensive records. It quickly became apparent that archaeological methods
of estimating age at death were hopeless. They were getting it wrong by up
to thirty or more years. Their only consistency was that they always
under-estimated the age at death. It was a real slap in the face for the
forensic archaeologists.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

Will wrote:


Hmm, do you suppose living at much higher population densities (made
possible by more abundant food) in more permanent settlements (since the
cornfields don't migrate) could have anything to do with increased
incidence of diseases?

You can't write a diet book or make absurd claims based on that.

Lyle