On March 30, 2001 9:54 AM, Todd Moody wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Norm Skrzypinski wrote:
>
> > Atkins says that eating high protein, high fat, low carb is the ideal.
>
> Atkins isn't the only one, of course.
No, he isn't the only one. But what is true isn't determined by majority
rule. If it were so, then we'd all be worshipping at the USDA's temple of
doom.
I value Atkins' contribution, as well as that of the Eades, Sears, Cordain
and others who recommend lower carb diets. They've raised the level of
debate and have brought a lot of important knowledge to public awareness.
Atkins, though, is among the more extreme in this group. His emphasis on
ketosis and almost total reliance on the fat pathway for energy is at one
end of the spectrum of ways of eating. It's within our range - possibly
even therapeutic, in some cases of obesity or diabetes - but is it ideal?
> > Can we have moved so far away from the way chimps live, in such a short
> > time?
>
> Short? According to mainstream evolutionary theory, the most
> recent common ancestor of humans and chimps lived about 7 million
> years ago.
OK. I had been under the impression that it was about 5 million years. In
either case, I admit that it's enough time to allow for some major changes.
But I really wonder if the natural diet of our closest living relative (97%
vegetable, 70% carb) can be as different from our best diet as Atkins
maintains (80-90% animal, < 10% carb).
If we were able to determine the midpoint of the range of carb consumption
of all the individuals in the more recent species of the genus homo in one's
ancestral line (whew!), I don't think it would be close to 10% of
calories -- even if you gave more weight to homo sapiens. I'm concerned
with the midpoint because I think our comfort zone is closer to that than to
the edge and I like to live well within my means.
I'm not aware of any evidence that any of our predecessors ever ate a diet
remotely resembling Atkins' until the last ice age.
Evolution is the result of: (1) the elimination of characteristics that
place an individual at a disadvantage and won't allow him or her or it to
reproduce; (2) the extinction of characteristics that are neither
advantageous nor disabling (although they may have been beneficial in a
previous environment); and (3) the development or extension of abilities
that do provide an advantage. Number 1 involves no genetic mutations and
relatively little time; 2 and 3 involve both mutations and a lot of time.
To illustrate, I'm quite sure that the nearly all-meat diet of the Inuit did
prevent the transmission of some characteristics (as in 1, above), leaving
the population better adapted to a high protein and high fat diet. But some
of the survivors were undoubtedly at or near the limit of their ability to
metabolize fat and protein, and were in less than optimal health. Also, I
think it's unlikely that they lost much of their ability to handle carbs (as
in 2, above) or much further extended their ability to handle protein and
fat (as in 3, above), during the short (yes, short) time that they've been
in the arctic.
While there are examples of people living on extreme diets, unless it was
for a long time and the people were in my ancestral line, the examples serve
only to depict what's humanly possible, not what's ideal.
> > we have deteriorated to the point where we must
> > rely on our secondary and tertiary sources of energy (fat and protein).
Our
> > ability to use the primary source (carbs) has been corrupted.
>
> What makes carbs primary?
I'll address this in a day or two. I'm very busy this weekend.
Norm
|
