On Sat, 30 Dec 2000 07:42:07 -0500, Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>I wrote:...  main topic: "no carbohydrate".
>
>That's not the main topic.  According to Lutz's research, there
>is little health benefit to reducing carbs below 72g/day, which
>is far from no carbohydrate.

Yes, actually Lutz only promotes some carbohydrate restriction,
particularly of sugar and white flour.
This, and also many of his tests remind me of my "wrong carbohydrate"
idea. Why should man not be able to digest carbohydrates well?
The evolutionary aspect i see very weak, there are very few times in history
of low carbohydrates. You mention that the last evolutionary times are more
deciding. So, the last 6-10000 years should be most deciding.
Except if there's a reason why we are unable to digest "modern"
carbohydrates like sugar.
So far i found B-vitamins coenzymes and enzymes as a striking reason,
particularly the pyruvate dehydrogenase. It's usually low in supply and
betrays only carbohydrate.
Other reasons may be found in other molecules, which are extracted away in
the "refinement" process.

Lutz's 72 g compute from the requirement the brain (and related tissues) has
- 9.2 g per hour for 8 hours. 8 hours beeing the normal insulin up time
after 3 meals.

>The authors don't just base their claims on arguments about what
>ought to work.  Instead, they use Dr. Lutz's extensive clinical
>experience with many patients over decades, including his
>published studies.

True, with striking success. May the reasoning why be right or wrong.

>I think what you have established is that the "mostly wild game"
>diet was not available in certain environments.  I think you also
>concede that it *was* dominant in certain other environments
>(cooler, wetter).  What is not yet established is which sort of
>environment has driven the dietary adaptations of modern humans.

Yes.
However a low-carb- diet seems to be equally seldom as a high carb diet like
today (SAD).

>> If you wan to live vegetarian (avoiding meat for some reason) the modern
>> implementation is more difficult.
>
>I think it was always rather difficult, which is probably why
>humans have mostly tried to avoid it.

I don't think it was ever difficult to be vegetarian, i think people didn't
try to avoid it, just did seldom care about.

>Quark?  I agree that if you include milk protein, preferably in
>the form of fermented milk products, and eggs, then you can
>probably enjoy good health without having to kill any animals,
>and I assume that this is the "some reason" alluded to above.

This is the reason for most i think.
"Some reason" can easily be else, like religious for example.
BSE (mad cow) has become such a big theme over here, that people
see it as a reason not to eat ...beef and other mass agricultural animals.

Cheers

Amadeus S.
(from beach to to snow now)