On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 22:42:15 EST Sheryl Canter <[log in to unmask]> writes:

> are a macronutrient that we need in order to live.

On the contrary.... we do not NEED carbohydrates for anything.   The body
can obtain all it needs from animal protein and fat.  Yes, some
carbohydrate foods bring good things like vitamins, minerals, and fiber,
but the carbohydrates are simply NOT necessary to support a human body.
 When concentrated or refined, they DO represent a very concentrated form
of fuel, but that's as likely to be a problem as a benefit.

> When children don't get adequate
> carbohydrates, they fail to grow.

And what constitutes "adequate" carbohydrates...   a natural paleolithic
diet, devoid of starches and grains, with only NATURAL seasonal fruits
(not the hybrid sugar bombs that pass for modern fruit), or piles of
sugar frosted flakes, loaves of puffy white bread, and gallons of
Coca-Cola?

Maybe children on the latter diet will grow to a larger stature, but is
that necessarily healthier?



> If you don't get the carbohydrates you
> need,
> your body will crave them. I'm not talking about addictive
> craving--I'm
> talking about "body wisdom" craving.  These are different, and if
> you become
> attuned to your body you can tell them apart.

Nonsense...  when you give up these unnatural foods, and get over the
initial "detoxification," there are NO physical cravings.  As with any
other long established habit, there can be psychological cravings, but
that's another matter.

> I believe you are incorrect about this. It is most definitely
> possible to
> lose body fat without being in ketosis. Ketosis does not occur
> whenever the
> body metabolizes fat. Ketosis occurs when the body does not get
> adequate
> amounts of carbohydrates, and must find energy elsewhere. Yes,
> ketones
> indicate that the body is burning fat, but in a desperate sort of
> way. You
> have to eat fewer than 30 grams of carbohydrates per day to trigger
> ketosis.
> I have lost significant amounts of weight (fat) in the past without
> reducing
> my carb intake at all.  According to your theory, this should not be
> possible.

You are incorrect, but it's not my place to reeducate you.  How do you
KNOW your fat loss did not involve the production of ketones?  Wer you
using test strips or blood tests?  Even some people on very lowcarb plans
don't produce excess ketones in levels hing enough to give much of a
reading on a test strip, but they're still there at some level...  Go
read some of the reputable lowcarb plans, or read up on basic metabolism.
 If you lost fat, then it WAS converted to ketones whether you know it,
or like it, or not...  I did not say it was impossible to lose weight
without restricting carbs...  it most surely is possible, but only by
restricting CALORIES.  That usually requires restricting fat AND protein,
and while you will lose fat, you will also lose MUSCLE, which sets you up
for even more problems on the next cycle...

> There is much debate about whether being in ketosis is healthy or
> not. My
> view is that dropping a macronutrient to the point where the body
> initiates desperate measures is probably not good.

There you go again...  tell us what body process depends on this
essential "macronutrient."  And again... anybody who debates that
"ketosis" is unhealthy is simply ignorant... sorry, but that's the simple
truth.  Some confuse it with ketoacidosis, which is a dangerous condition
of runaway metabolism in diabetics, but it has no connection with this
form of "benign dietary ketosis" as Dr. Atkins calls it.


> Loren Cordain
> believes the paleo carbohydrate intake was about 40% of calories.
> Boyd Eaton, in his book "The Paleolithic Prescription", gives a similar

> estimate.
> It's true that some hunter gatherers living in extreme climactic
conditions
> (like the Eskimos) eat extremely little carbohydrate, but these are
> the exception, not the rule.

Pick a climate, pick a diet composition...   On one end you might come up
with 40%, but when it drops to virtually zero, AND the population
thrives, your theory of a necessary "macronutrient" pretty much falls
apart.  And that's the second time you mentioned the Inuit... if you're
trying to prove the rule by showing an exception, you're not doing it
very well...  What about them?  How did they survive and THRIVE in such a
harsh environment without this important macronutrient?

But... in climates which provided a greater abundance of "paleo carb"
foods, I'm sure they were eaten, and enjoyed, as much as possible.  Of
course they still would not have been eating grains of any kind, or
starchy roots, or anything resembling modern fruits (in sugar content or
availability).  I have no doubt that if these items were eliminated from
the modern diet, there would be only a tiny minority of humans who would
become so metabolically damaged as to have to worry about restricting any
of the remaining food choices.
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.