Tamsin,

I wasn't going to speak further, but since this post appears to have been
directed at me, I will elaborate.

>This desire for energy-dense foods is also why people will never be able
to eat as much as they like and be as thin as they like, despite what Bob
Avery says.

And I still disagree with you.  I've seen countless examples.  It's what
you eat, not how much you eat, that counts most.

>Because what he overlooked in his comment that we would be
fine if we all ate only raw veggies, is that when people want to eat as
much as they like, they want to eat as much as they like OF FOODS THAT
THEY LIKE.

"Likes" are malleable and formed largely by habit.  New habits can be
learned.

This seems to apply in all areas of life, not just diet.  Aren't choices
of recreational activities determined more by habit than by genetic
imperative?  It seems fashionable these days to blame most human miseries
on genetics when environment is by far the larger determining influence
of the two.

>I would venture that most people would think that eating only
raw veggies isn't that much more palatable than cutting back.

I would venture to agree with you, but most people have never given them
a fair trial.  After an acclimatization period, they can be much more
enjoyable than the former "likes" ever were.  I know; I've been there.
For 45 years, I made poor eating choices due to ignorance and habit.
I'll now choose fresh, organic peaches and broccoli over chocolate cake
any day (though my former poor choices weren't quite THAT poor).

Of course, the quality of the produce is hugely relevant too.  Much of
what's for sale these days isn't worth eating, I'll grant you.

>'junk food monkeys', completely
abandoned their usual diet when they discovered that they could feast to
their hearts' content on garbage from the national park buildings.

>they also became obese

Exactly illustrative of the problem humans face!  That cooked, highly
refined and processed commercial junk is what makes us fat, not our
natural foods as obtainable in our natural habitats.

Sure, the artificial, processed stuff is addictive -- it's meant to be --
but it only tastes "better" to warped tastebuds.  The animals first eat
it as a matter of expediency, and then they get hooked on it, just as a
cocaine addict does with cocaine or a tobacco addict with nicotine.

Many recovered nicotine addicts can't stand the smell of tobacco smoke
any more than nonsmokers can, yet they wallowed in smoky bars and pool
halls formerly and appeared to enjoy the smoke.  Why is that?

Anyone here ever get hooked on sodium chloride, where everything you eat
had to be heavily salted to "taste good"?  And then had the opposite
experience of giving up salt completely and after an adaptation period
gradually rediscovering the delicious, delicate flavors of the pure,
unadulterated foods in their natural, unspiced state?  Which ultimately
tastes better?  I've been on both sides of that fence, but it's easy to
guess which side I eventually came down on.

None of this adulterated food eating is a genetic imperative.  For most
humans, it's a conscious choice, albeit one heavily influenced by media
misinformation and prior cultural conditioning begun almost from the
moment of birth.  (Ever noticed how babies first being indoctrinated with
processed, adulterated "baby foods" spit them out repeatedly until they
become hooked on them?  We do have natural instincts that warn us away
from that stuff, but they become overwhelmed by cultural conditioning at
a very early age.)

BTW, I am far from obese, most would say underweight, and have no need of
counting calories to remain that way because satiety mechanisms work very
well when natural, unprocessed and unadulterated foods are eaten.

By contrast, before I started eating this way, I had developed the
so-called "middle age spread," with protruding waistline and double chin.
 Those are long gone now.  My genes are as "thrify" as anyone else's when
they are abused with poor food choices.

I'm one living example, but only one of many, of what I'm talking about.
Perhaps you still disagree (not having personally experienced both ways
of eating for any length of time), but I think it's far easier to learn
to make better food choices than it is to count calories and portion
sizes, and it makes for a much more enjoyable eating experience in the
long run.  In the short run, any change from the customary will be
uncomfortable.  That's the nature of biological organisms and their
homeostatic adaptation mechanisms.

>Despite
that they matured earlier and had a wonderful time with endlessly
available food, they also became obese, cholesterol (LDL) rose, and they
all finally got a nasty dose of bovine TB.

"Despite" is the wrong word and shows the cultural bias of the
researcher.

This early maturation is a pretty universal sign of degeneration.  The
"common wisdom" has it that the continuing decline in the age of human
puberty in Western cultures over the past century, especially in the US,
is due to better nutrition, when in fact it is due to the exact opposite
cause.

My young nephew undertook a cleverly considered science project for an
elementary school biology class.  Not knowing what the result would be,
he raised two groups of common beetles in aquariums on ad libidum
feedings of identical foods, the only difference being that one group had
its drinking water spiked with caffeine.  The result of the experiment
was that the caffeinated beetles became much more active than the
controls (one might say hyperactive), grew faster, matured sooner,
reproduced earlier -- and DIED earlier!

Those of you who are home gardeners or farmers will recognize the old
farmers' aphorism, "The stressed plant goes first to seed."

Yes, under physiological stress, biological organisms mature and
reproduce at earlier ages.  It applies to plants, insects, animals, and
humans alike.

Probably Nature's way of saying, "Hey, this organism isn't going to last
very long!  We'd better hurry up and get it reproducing ASAP before it
keels over."

>I know that one can hold up
hands in horror and say humans were responsible for the waste, but the
baboons CHOSE to eat this food, because it was an easy life. We humans do
much the same.

Alas!  Would that we humans were more intelligent and farsighted than
baboons!  This world would be a much better place.

Bob Avery


PS I would like to thank the moderator for allowing some discussion here
for a change.  It's nice to see the list coming to life again.