----- "Alec Wood" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: 
> Re: starch and sugar. The enzyme Amylase is present in human saliva 
> which begins the digestion and breakdown of starch and carbohydrates 
> in the mouth. The question is are we intended to eat starch only as 
> an emergency method of survival or eat carbohydrates everyday? 

I would say that the way we are put together suggests that carbohydrate was, in our past, valuable but relatively scarce. We are wired to like sweets and starches, and that motivates us to seek them out, even in environments where they are not plentiful. Why would carbohydrates be valuable? They are relatively dense sources of energy, and energy is life. Fat is even denser, of course. Although fat by itself is relatively tasteless, the presence of fat makes whatever it accompanies taste better, so we are also wired to like fatty foods, and therefore motivated to seek them out. 

Our consumption of fat is limited by our metabolism. We can only eat so much before we have to stop. Dietary fat plays a large role in satiety. We can consume large amounts of sugar and starch before we feel the need to stop, and even then we can resume eating them in an hour or so. Carb consumption is not as self-regulating as fat consumption is. I think the implication of this is that in the paleolithic world, carb consumption was limited by the world itself, so there was no need for us to adapt to it by self-limiting mechanisms. They were scarce enough that overindulgence simply wasn't an issue. 

As for how much carbohydrate we are "intended" to eat, I don't think there's any answer. We certainly don't need to eat some every day, but there's also no reason not to. To my knowledge, no one has yet offered any real support for the claim that all carbohydrates, in any amount, are deleterious to health. 

The way I see it, the purpose of a "diet" is to establish an equilibrium between body composition and appetite, and to promote health. I don't want to have to think about how much to eat, any more than a wild animal has to think about how much to eat. They eat as much as they need to. To me, the "right" amount of carbohydrate, or fat, or protein, is the amount that brings me closest to equilibrium, so that my appetite and body composition are essentially self-regulating. Since one of the most important things I can do to promote health is not be obese, if I can find this equilibrium I am promoting health in doing so. 

Since most or all of us have metabolisms that are out of equilibrium in various ways, it's to be expected that the diet that restores equilibrium, if it exists, will not look the same for each of us. I say "if it exists" because there's no guarantee that there is a path back to equilibrium from any metabolically broken state. 

Case in point: After regaining a lot of weight, I tried an all-meat zero carb diet for a couple of months. I found that I was compelled to eat very large amounts of meat, frequently. My appetite was huge. I didn't lose much weight, if any, in the course of two months of this. That is, my appetite and body composition remained out of equilibrium, or out of sync, if you prefer. Does that prove that there's something "wrong" with the zero carb diet? Not at all. It only proves that that diet wasn't the way to bring my appetite and body composition into equilibrium. It wouldn't matter if somebody discovered tomorrow that paleo humans and hominids ate nothing but meat for two million years. That discovery wouldn't make the diet work better. 

Todd Moody