Amadeus:
>Anyone with a full scale carbohydrate disorder ("diabetic") may no longer
>be
>able to handle even natural food properly. Others with only slighter
>symptoms would IMO benefit greatly by natural eating.

I'm NOT diabetic (but, in all likelihood, would've earned this title
eventually).  I do, however, have problems with carbs.  Major problems.
Only by drastically reducing carbs and completely eliminating sugar and
grains have I been able to achieve good health.  Blood pressure; down.
Weight; down.  Mood and energy; up (by leaps and bounds on both counts).
Menstrual cycle; regulated (averaged 46 days per cycle previously, now a 31
day average and a 'margin of error' of no more than 3 days).  Insomnia; out
the window.  If I eat too many carbs, even 'good' carbs by paleo standard, I
get puffy, crabby and sleepy.  You're idea of 'natural eating' would make me
a fat, mean bitch who, very likely, would be unable to conceive.  But hey,
nobody'd wanna dance the tango with me anyway so I guess that doesn't count.
  Even a little bit of fruit gets me out of whack!

Does everyone fit into this category?  No.  But most of us agree that your
diet wouldn't work for us.  Carbs are NOT the best source of energy.  Not
for humans.  Again, they are not required to sustain life; fat and protein
are.  Calling them a nifty energy source in light of this is fuzzy math if
ever I've seen it.

By the way, I've been unable to gain access to my tucked away-studies.
You'll have to wait until next week.  The Cordain study is huge; I may have
to simply cut-and-past the conclusion.  I can send it to people personally
but please wait until I post the conclusion before asking for it; I don't
have it here at the office.

Dori Zook
Denver, CO

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.