Hi Trish,
Several forces have aligned to result in the current unfortunate state
of misinformation dominating this field:
1. Because agriculture served as the foundation of modern civilization,
it came to be seen as having only a positive impact on people and their
health.
2. As we began to learn a bit about nutrition, we soon learned that fats
provide 9 calories per gram while proteins and glucose only provide 4
calories per gram. Thus, if one wants to lose weight (and oversimplifies
the issue) then carbs and protein make much better sense than fats. The
thinking was that we can "fill up on" carbs and proteins. Little thought
was given to the dynamics caused by elevated insulin resulting from the
increase in carb consumption.
3. Until quite recently, the dietetics community considered carbs
essential for brain function, and hence, essential for survival.
4. In Lieb's report on Sfeansson and Anderson's meat only diet (JAMA,
July 6, 1929) Lieb states " It is a traditional belief that a high
protein intake leads to high blood pressure, arteriosclerosis or
nephritis. Among physicians it has almost become a dietetic dogma to
reduce or eliminate entirely the intake of meat whenever diets are
prescribed."
5. In the same paper Vilhjalmur Stefansson is quoted saying "Unless it
is religion there is no field of human thought in which sentiment and
prejudice take the place of sound judgment and logical thinking so
completely as in dietetics."
6. Of course, Gary Taubes focuses on Ancel Keys as a major contributor
to the misinformation that currently dominates this field. Taubes also
gives considerable credit to Senator McGovern and his Senate
sub-committee that acted as something like a sledge hammer as it imposed
Keys' ideas on the American public. Unfortunately, Keys also had the
science all wrong. You would think that since Keys had only used data
from countries that supported his claims, although he had data from 7
other countries that did not support his position, that he wouldn't be
so quick to believe his own construct. In fairness, I think he believed
in his theories so much that he believed that he was just providing data
to support the "truth" as he saw it and ignoring the data that didn't
support it.
An Archaeologist friend of mine offered the following suggestion: "Just
imagine chewing and swallowing a nice juicy grasshopper, then follow it
with a crunchy june bug with a green, slimy filling, and I think we may
agree that there are some huge cultural inscriptions on our
consciousness that interfere with clear and logical thinking about
nutrition." Apparently many indigenous people considered both
grasshoppers and june bugs to be delicious and ate them with great
relish. While I disagree vehemently with the pseudo-science that
continues to dominate the field of nutrition, I also recognize that it
is difficult to break away from our acculturation. Our religious
teachings, the school classroom, and even post-secondary instruction
tell us about the wonders of agriculture and its impact civilization.
And that means that we may be headed toward the social collapse that
has repeatedly been visited on cultures that became excessively reliant
upon grain cultivation (Think Egypt, Maya, Sumeria, etc.). And our
refined sugars may get us to collapse a little faster than the usual
historical trends.
In summary, like Keys, I think that most of these people really believe
the used oats they are peddling. For the most part, they have just not
given the kind of thought to healthy eating for humans that most of our
list members have given to this topic.
End of my ranting response to your rant. :-)
Peace to you too.
Best Wishes,
Ron
On 24/01/2011 2:47 PM, Trish Leon wro
> I just don't understand how "modern medicine" and government have been able to mislead the people by putting forth their food agendas, which have been poisoning us for decades. Obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and unknown other diseases are all a result of the toxic grain/carb based food pyramids. Makes me rather perturbed to think about it.
>
|
