On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 22:35:25 -0500, Ron Hoggan, Ed. D.
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Is it so difficult to allow others to express their zero carb
> perspective?
Not at all. But if you don't like what's on, you can always change the
channel.
> You could, of course, start another listserv, but why not debate the
> issues instead of expressing intolerance?
It has been debated before, with the end result being to continue to
disagree. It's not a matter of intolerance so much as just getting tired
of it. My finger has hovered over the unsubscribe button more than a few
times, but I remain because there is good information here, and good
intent, even if it does wind up heavily slanted in one direction.
> ... bone health ...
I don't know enough about that to debate it. IMO, the best defense
against bone problems is weight-bearing exercise.
> On the other hand, many vegetarians from some parts of India (where
> there is abundant sunlight for making vitamin D) show clear signs of
> osteopenia and osteoporosis. According to the received wisdom you tout,
> ...
I don't think anyone has suggested becoming vegetarian. It's just the
"all carbs are evil" mantra that gets old. Maybe all carbs are evil for
some people, but that doesn't mean they are for everyone. I applaud those
people who have gone zero carb and it cured whatever ill they had. But
there are also people who have done the opposite. It's all anecdotal --
which is fine. But then it seems to go from that to "paleo man wouldn't
eat an apple if it was sitting in front of him because he ate nothing but
fat and organ meats".
Man is not a pure carnivore. He is an omnivore, a hunter-gatherer. He
"hunted" animals and "gathered" plants, fruits, nuts, seeds, roots,
insects, and so on -- clearly not zero carb. Does that mean that the
paleo diet *must* include carbs? Of course not. But it also means that
their complete exclusion is not a requirement either.
> Nobody has all the answers.
On that, I think we all agree. :-)
--
Robert Kesterson
[log in to unmask]
|
