Hi, Wes . . . I hadn't intended on contributing to the list - I had
asked how to be removed from it, in fact.  But, I can't resist a wee
bit of participation.  Here goes:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wes Peterson" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Another success story & sugar cravings


> Hi Rick,

> I thought I'd make a few comments on your message:

> >What I discovered was that we are biochemically driven to consume
> >carbohydrates when exposed to a long day.  The theory that the
authors
> >presented was that humans had to fatten up for winter so the long
> >summer day triggered a craving for sweets. Cortisol, dopamine,
> >melatonin, seratonin and, ultimately insulin, play huge roles in
the
> >way we choose our foods and experience our daily existence.
>
> I've read about that theory as well. But I don't buy it. In fact,
I've also
> read the opposite theory: that exposing oneself to more natural
light (as in
> summertime) will result in less of a desire for carbohydrate.

The book I was referring to was "Lights Out" by Formby and Wiley
(errata: t'was not Elliot as I previously stated)
The authors, between them, have biochemical degrees and medical
anthropological backgrounds. Their research, hard-core science, was
drawn from the New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, Journal of the
American Medical Association, oncological journals, etc.  The
reference section is approximately 2/5 worth of the book, not an
add-on to the appendices.

I mention the above only by way of pointing out that, in this
particular case, these authors really do have their act together.

As far as "natural" light is concerned, there really is no such thing
as artificial light.  Short circuiting the nervous system, and, hence,
the attendant hormonal releases, by exposing the skin and eyes to a
"white-light day" using light bulbs is uncontestable.  The jury's not
out on this one.

The opposite theory is just that -  a theory.  Empirical data, in this
case, do not suggest - they illustrate.  I invite all curious
bystanders to pick up the book.  It deals specifically with cancer,
heart disease, diabetes and, my particular affliction, sugar
addiction.  The common denominator is insulin.  Mess with that and
Momma Nature ain't gonna love ya no more.
----------------------------------------------------
> as for "fattening up" via eating lots of
> carbohydrate, well, I haven't had any such problem in relation to
getting
> about 66% of my calories from fresh fruit. My body is lean, toned,
etc.

The carbos we're referring to here are junk food, not the complex
carbs found in fruits, etc.  Junk food will put on too many pounds.
This has more to do with a sugar's glycemic index.  Complex carbs do
not trigger a spike of insulin the way a chocolate milk shake will.
This insulin spike is what gets us into trouble.
-------------------------------------------------------------
> The overweight issues with regard to carbohydrate consumption
> appear to be directly correlated with eating cooked carbohydrates,
> especially grains (and of course also various "refined" junk
carbohydrates).
> So, while it's evident that eating bread can pack on the fat, I have
yet to
> see any evidence that eating fresh raw apples (for example) will do
the same.

Agreed - to a point.  Bread is definitely a fat packer-on'r.  Again,
what differentiates it from real food is the spike of insulin bread
(and pasta) generate.

In terms of cooked carbos being the fat gaining culprit, I refer back
to the insulin spike:  Cooked carbos alone won't make you fat - to
back up my point, the next time you're out for a casual boat ride on
the Ganges (try Varanasi - they've got a great pizza joint run by
Nepalese; Grateful Dead playing on the overheads - ah, paradise) check
out all the bathing Hindus.  Talk about abs to die for.  No meat, and,
certainly, the Indians are renowned for killing their food by fire.

BTW, south Indians, vegetarians almost to a one, have the shortest
life span in the world.  It's that damned cooking.  Personally, I have
faith in the veggie part.
------------------------------------------------------------------
> >According to
> >anthropologists, virtually all primitive tribes, and, judging by
the
> >historical evidence, early Man, ate a diet comprised of roughly 70%
> >animal products.
>
> Perhaps during a certain portion of human history, that occurred.
Whether or
> not it was optimal for health is up to you to decide. From what I've
read,
> the amount of animal products included in the diet varied/varies per
tribe.
> Most of this high % animal product ingestion supposedly occurred in
fairly
> recent history, in the grand scheme of things.

Well, again, are we trying to fit a theory to the evidence or the
other way around?  Evidence put forth by scientists from varying
disciplines (that snookers a conspiracy) has shown that both
historically, and with contemporary hunter-gatherers, the meat-eating
ratio is in the neighbourhood of 70%, give or take a few bagels.  That
is one huge chunk of humanity.  Like, all of it.
------------------------------------------------------------------

>I suppose we could speculate
> that it occurred in response to needing to eat what was available,
for
> survival. Spanning millions of years of "human" existence, with
perhaps 99%
> of the evidence of past human dietary behavior being unavailable,
much is
> indeed open to endless speculation and presumption.

Sorry, beg to differ again.  Evidence of past dietary choices is well
documented.  Bone analysis, jaw structure, tooth condition, etc. are
just some examples of hard core research that's been conducted.
Combine the archaeological studies with the anthropological studies,
mix them together with contemporary studies of hunter-gatherers, and
it's mighty hard to come to any other conclusion than what the
evidence states.  A priori beliefs notwithstanding.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------

However, a study
of
> anatomy and physiology appears to reveal that the human body is
designed as
> a frugivore, with possible adaptations to some animal products.

If you're referring to the length of the intestines, etc., consider
that cooking alone changes the length as well as the function of
intestines.  Now, I have to wonder about anatomy.  My canines were not
designed to chew paper.  Canines are not exactly a casual adaptation.
Secondly, the fruiting season, be it the far north or the tropics of
South America, occurs during a very short period of the year.  The
rest of the year the natives are "forced" to subsist on whatever they
can literally dig up, trap or spear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Am I a direct descendant of a chimpanzee or a bonobo?

Ah, Wes, now you're tempting fate.  :-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
> >In support of the above, a Canadian by the name of Weston Price (a
> >dentist) travelled around the world in the 30's and 40's studying
the
> >mouths of tribal peoples.  The result was a difficult to read tome
(he
> >was a lousy writer) that said, in effect, exposure to a Western
diet
> >leads to tooth decay and that - and this is the cruncher (no pun
> >intended) - those cultures that ate meat were by far the healthiest
> >out of all he studied.  Virtually all of the primitive ones ate
their
> >meat in that 70% ratio.
>
>
> I have and have read that book. Nowhere did he indicate that almost
all the
> people he studied ate 70% of their foods as meat.

My apologies.  I shouldn't have combined that statement with Price's
work.  The actual ball park figure of  70% was from the other sources
mentioned above (anthro, archeo, etc.).  Price did in fact mention
that higher meat consumption was found only in the healthiest
populations he studied.  And where there was not that much meat
eating, there were other animal products being consumed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------

None of the people
were
> vegan, granted.

Researchers have yet to find a vegan culture (let's ignore the
Internet age)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
Some ate more animal products than others. He stated
that
> those who included seafood (plant and/or animal) in their diets had
the best
> bones and teeth.

Again, Price's observations are important here:  Animal products are
critical to our well being.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----

I do have a couple of comments:  Has anyone picked up on the
popularity of retro-anthropomorphism?  Meaning, we've taken
contemporary beliefs and back dated them to include the cavemen.
Since when did early man have to fight for his survival?

It seems that if we imagine ourselves with no grocery stores or
electricity, life MUST have been brutal.  Um, if contemporary
hunter-gatherer societies are any indication, life was not all that
tough.

Second point: Again, well documented, fruitarians and vegans are
REALLY sick people.  Check out the evidence, not the anecdotal stuff.

My inclination is that fruitarians and vegans, once having sworn off
junk and cooked food, would naturally see an incredible improvement in
their well-being.  HOWEVER, there's a caveat here: Over the long term,
a fruitarian diet is just plain and simple triggering off the wrong
mechanisms.  You can't survive well if insulin from fruit sugar is
constantly being pumped into the blood stream.  And, you're setting
yourselves up for all sorts of nasties if you insist on living that
way as a life style.

As far as vegans are concerned, I think they're in better shape
overall, but, the slide's just a little longer, that's all.

If I'm not mistaken, didn't Berger's wife (Instinctive Nutrition) die
of cancer?  Did she truly eat as an Instincto?  Did she stay up late
at night with the lights burning bright so that her hormones were
shot?

One parting note:  Mothers often put on weight once they've given
birth.  And, they keep putting it on.  Ever wonder why?

Think about it:  Mom has Baby.  Baby keeps mom and dad up late, every
night.  For two years give or take.  Then, baby number two comes
along.  Gestation plus two more years, 5 years.  One more kid,
gestation plus two years, 8 years straight of staying up late - with
the white lights on.  Three kids later, mom is exhausted.  Late nights
equal simple carbohydrate consumption equals chronic insulin spikes
equal fat, diabetes and cancer.

Now the kids are going to school:  Homework times three - for thirteen
years (for three kids).  We have now arrived at high school.  Eight
plus thirteen is? Twenty one years of late nights and junk food.  For
you math whizzes out there, forgive my liberal use of numbers.

But, now Mom and Dad want QUALITY TIME ALONE.  So, they watch TV,
read, etc.  Forget sex in the dark.  They'll fall asleep before they
hit the bed.

White light = 12 month sugar craving = chronic insulin spikes = messed
up hormones = diabetes, brain fog, cancer, cardiac problems, etc.

Combine that with transfatty acids, high homocysteine levels, poor HDL
/ LDL ratios, adrenal exhaustion, insufficient melatonin production
and so forth and you end up dead - or insane.  Point in fact:  Every
effective anti-psychotic is - are we paying attention? - a sleep
regulator.

Good night to all.

Rick in Vancouver, Canada