http://www.biblelife.org/myths.htm#medical
"Bonus Myth No. 11 - People Are All Different.

This myth is so rampant that it just had to be added to the list of
ten. The scientific design of the human body is held within very tight
restraints. People are not different in the manner claimed. Humans
react in the very same way when they are given the same environment,
same beginning health condition and same nutrition. People only appear
to be different because they have some have health condition which
restrict the normal scientific functions. A typical example is the
diabetic who attempts to go on the low-carbohydrate diet or eats a
large piece of high-sugar cherry pie with a glass of orange juice. They
react much differently than a healthy person. People think everyone is
different because someone developed a disease while another family
member does not. They don't realize that people in the same family can
sit at the same table and eat completely different meals as defined by
protein, fat and carbohydrate content. A person can go into a
restaurant and eat a low-carbohydrate dinner while others at the same
table are eating a very high carbohydrate dinner."

And, do not forget that these holy speak directly to God.  Perhaps,
because of all that DDT that the author personally came in contact with
during his youth?

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Just thought that you might want to know what YOUR Kind of KOOKs think
about your KIND of CRAP!

You are generalizing to the universe of people with different genes and
other biochemical factors...... all based on YOUR response.

There are smokers who are genetically programmed to be susceptible to
lung cancers readily induces, and smokers who will literally never get
lung cancer - just really dirty lungs with some ordinary cell damage.

One of those "lucky" smokers could generalize to the universe that
smoking doesn't cause cancers -- because he has been smoking for 45
years and doesn't have cancer or any cancerous signs.

That would be poisonous advice and generalization.

There are smokers who can go their entire life just puffing and inhaling
a few cigarettes per day and never get addicted to high cigarette
consumption.  I have worked with several of them, and my sister is one
of them.  To generalize from them and claim that anyone can smoke only a
few cigarettes per day is likely to be a dangerous and false generalization.

If you eat enough of anything, you will gain weight, unless you have the
genes that give great hormones such as HGH to burn off or excrete
(undigested) large quantities of food.

------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree that some or many food manufacturers are capable of doing all
sorts of unhealthy things in the search for profits.

The cigarette manufacturers did so for many years, and Reynolds Tobacco
branched out into the food industry, having seen the handwriting on the
wall.

As long as one sticks to natural whole foods over consumption really
is not an issue.  One good sized banana and I am halfway to being
full.  However for manufacturers of highly processed and refined crap
such as cookies, poptarts, soda, etc less filling means more profits.

They were common by the 60s.

Both.  Generally we eat too many carbs for our activity level.  Those with
certain genetics just get hurt quicker.

Correct.  And the old treatment involved cutting out carby foods.

Just look

Well, I don't disagree too much here :)

Okay, I don't disagree here with the last part. However, there is reason to
believe it's more prevalent, though it may not really be.

No, carbs are the problem in that we eat too many of them, because they are
cheap and taste good.  Fruits and veggies aren't carbs, they are food. But
when the diet is too rich in carbs and we are too inactive, we have
problems.  Transfats sure don't help, but there's no strong evidence that
links them specifically to T2 that I know of.  However, it wouldn't greatly
surprise me if they were part of the problem.

I'm not talking about genetic mutations.  I'm talking about variation in
genetic propensity for certain diseases. That's how hereditary is involved.
When larger portions of the population over consume carbs, the ones first
hit are those who have more disposition for diabetes.  Those traits are
passed along and when kids eat tons of sweets and sit on their butts, they
become T2s.

Not, fat isn't the problem. Carbs aren't the problem.  No carb is healthy or
unhealthy.  But over consumption is.  Combine that with lots of fat
(espeically transfats) and carby junk foods, you end up with what we have.

Yep and cases of Type 2 diabetes increased substantially in the 60's
and exploded in the 70's only getting worse as they become more
common.

So its genetics or carbs?

Type 2 diabetes has been with us for a long time as well.  Just look
at the rates of obesity climb as cheap soybean and other vegetable
oils have replaced healthier animal fats.

It may be a defect but there is no reason to believe that it is any
more prevalent in the population than it was 40 years ago when
reported cases were far fewer.  Environmental factors are playing a
huge role both in diet and exercise.

Carbs are not the problem.  Someone eating whole/real foods such as
fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains, and to a lesser extent
fresh meats and dairy are at little risk of developing T2 diabetes
carbs or not.

Genetic mutations do NOT occur that fast.  The only explanation is
environmental ones.

However people did not eat healthy carbs such as whole grains, fruits,
and vegetables but crackers and cookies.  Fat is not the problem and
neither are carbs.

Moron?

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/reviews/transfats.html
"Commercial production of partially hydrogenated fats began in the early
20th century and increased steadily until about the 1960s as processed
vegetable fats displaced animal fats in the diets of the U.S. and other
Western countries. Lower cost was the initial motivation, but health
benefits were later claimed for margarine as a replacement for butter. "

So transfats have been in diets for some 40+ years now.

No, but T2 tends to be more common in families that have as a common trait,
diabetes.

As transfats have been with us for a long time, I don't think it's simply
transfats, though they are part of the problem.
For kids, it's just the combination of poor diet, too little activity and a
genetic defect passed on.  Not all people are as suspectable to the effect
of carbs as others.  That why not all people get diabetes.

And upon what would you base your assumption?  How many populations have you
observed that existed under these circumstances?  You simply have no basis
to know what to expect. Why don't you just admit that you're clueless.

The rates of increase of T2 has been observed back since the days when low
fat was blessed and fat was cursed.  The fact that is showing up in kids now
is because it's more prevalent today in adults and kids today have Xbox,
etc, instead of bikes.

It is a contributing factor and yes supermarket food is a factor as
well.

Yes trans fats, HFCS all are commonplace now.

There is trans fat in fast food got it moron?  It is also in things
like cookies, crackers, and other processed crap.  However people have
been eating crackers, cookies etc with carbs for a looong time however
not with trans fats.  

Really? Adolescents with T2 diabetes  have been eating what has been
sold for the last thirty years?

Again how do you explain 8 year olds with T2 diabetes?  The build up
used to take forty years not 8.

ahh so now it is hereditary?  I did not realize you could have such a
big change in just a couple of generations.  Grandparents get diabetes
in their 50's and grand kids when they are 12 makes a lot of sense!
Its funny I would expect a more gradual progression of early onset T2
diabetes.

Funny because the worst junk food has been marketed directly to
children for a long time.  Cereal, crackers, cookies,candy, happy
meals all junk and have been eaten by children but children getting T2
is a new phenomenon unlike eating carbs.

I agree it is a major problem, but I'm asking why you think transfats cause
T2 diabetes.

Oh, so now you think fast food is the cause?  You do realize that transfats
show up on non-fast-food foods, right?  There is plenty of "fast food" at
the supermarket.

You're saying that the quality of junk foods has decreased?

What? And you think those same things aren't in supermarket foods?  Have you
read the labels on those cookies, crackers, and other processed crap?  Make
up your mind, is it transfats or fast food?

And you're right, things haven't changed that much in 30 years in
supermarkets, but the rates of increase in T2 have, because for the last 30
years people have been eating what's been sold for the past 30 years. Hence,
you're supporting the point.

Why does an increase in carb consumption have to mirror exactly the increase
in T2?  You feed generations of people the same foods and over time, you see
an increase in T2.  It's not as if you eat junk and become T2 the next day
directly as a result.  Things build up over time.

Are 8 year olds now being diagnosed with T2 diabetes

No, but 8 year old are the product of generations of people eating too many
carbs, and their bodies are becoming more prone to the disease.  And those
8-year olds are eating too many carbs.  If they weren't, they'd very likely
wouldn't become T2s.

Yes it is a major problem.  Hydrogenated soybean oil is poison.

If they are it is adopting the western tradition of fast food etc.

The substantial increases in the rates of type 2 diabetes can not be
attributed simply to increased carb consumption.  The aisles of the
average supermarket have not changed in 30+ years.  There has always
been a bread aisle, an aisle with cookies, crackers, and other
processed crap, an aisle of poatato chips, nachos, pretzels, etc.
There is not any more shelf space devoted to carbs than 20 years ago.
The quality of foods on the otherhand has decreased substantially.

People eat out a lot more eating the same crap hamburgers and fries
that are now cooked in toxic, rancid vegetable oils instead of lard.  

The rate of increase in T2 diabetes far outpaces any increase in carb
consumption. Are 8 year olds now being diagnosed with T2 diabetes
really consuming in 8 years the amount of carbs that a 45 year old
diagnosed with T2  consumed in 45 years a generation ago?

What?  Are you saying that transfats, hydrogenated oils, etc, cause type 2
diabetes?

Interestingly, the rates are increasing.

While a non-type 2 may not suffer from the types of BG elevations that type
2s do, it doesn't mean there isn't a small upward shift in levels, which,
over time, leads to T2.  Why it is that the numbers of T2s have increased
over time and continue to do so?

This would only be the case in a type 2 diabetic are you suggesting
the ancient egyptians were a bunch of type 2 diabetics?  Since whole
grains do not cause type 2 diabetes but trans fats, hydrogenated
vegetable oils, etc.  There are plenty of regions in the world with
diets full of grains that do not have type 2 diabetes.

I'd be happy to read any evidence you have showing that any animal
species adapted to a food containing substances completely foreign to
that species, that their bodies didn't need, that didn't suffer any ill
effects from the switch.

Well, that's a great opinion.  Bad weather for a few thousand years.
Yes, THAT must have been the cause of their horrible health.

Simple... elevated insulin levels.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8
57812&dopt=Abstract

A diet full of whole grains would cause a constant rise in insulin
levels as opposed to one with few or no grains that incorporates plenty
of animal foods and veggies.  Am I supposed to LOL here?  Seems like
that's what you do at the end of each post.

Max.

Who cares?  Animals basically adapt to their environment which often
is far from ideal.

what fruits and vegetables?!?! you are veering away from the LC
talking points.

well at least you dropped fruits but you should have said LC
vegetables.

really?  Lot of added sugar back then.

Intertesting as people are taller and fatter now as diets have only
gotten worse by these standards.

lack of exercise and increased use of dairy products

oxidized cholesterol from cooking meats and dairy

So far he has not shown any connection.  What was the weather like
during the time?  I am sure that must have been a factor as well.

Exactly what is the mechanish that causes  atherosclerosis from eating
grains? LOL

And they HAVE been.  Have you never read of the Ancient Egyptians?
They used grains extensively.  What happened to their health as a
result?  Let's see:

"Interview with Dr. Bass:
What is the "Paleolithic Diet"?
The Paleolithic Diet was the diet used by early man for hundreds of
thousands of years preceding 10,000 years ago. It is now called the
Hunter -Gatherer Diet.
It consisted of a small amount of fruit, mostly berries (in the North),
leaves and vegetables, nuts, fish, poultry & meat, occasionally eggs.
No grains or legumes were used until appr. 10,000 years ago, when men
began to settle in cities, plant crops, grains, legumes, and raise
animals for food. From a (hunter-gatherer) diet that was largely raw
and based on animal products and vegetables, man changed to a
(agricultural) diet that was high in carbs & sugars and cooked foods.
This began a period of degeneration, even though the food was whole,
natural and of high quality. As among the ancient Egyptians who were in
terrible health (mummies show obesity and diseases). Their diet was
based on fresh, organic vegetables and fruits - low-fat, but high in
grains."
http://www.drbass.com/primitive.html

Pay particular attention to that last sentence.  You weren't mummified
in ancient Egypt unless you were at least somewhat "well to do."  The
poor were just buried.

How about this paragraph?

"We know, from palenotologists' study of human remains from the ancient
past,
that when a culture begins to cultivate cereal grains they experience
substantial reductions in height, which is variously reported as 5" and
6"(2,4). Clearly, the reduction is substantial and significant. We
know,
too, that these remains demonstrate weaker bone structure (through
reductions in peak bone-mass) and evidence of articular damage(3).
Additionally, ancient Egyptians, who consumed a diet that would be
considered very "heart-healthy" in our culture, have left behind
mummies
which clearly demonstrate atherosclerosis (7). While the evidence from
the
ancients is compelling, there can always be counter-arguments and
debates
when we are reaching back as far as 10,000 years into the past. Yet a
few
marginal pockets of scientific enquiry have explored a few elements of
modern implications of this issue."
http://gluten-free.org/hoggan/dubious.txt

Yup.  Looks like grains didn't help those Egyptians at all.

Now let's look at your tomato logic.  You seem to think that, because
the tomato itself is a new food that humans have "adapted" to it.  The
notion is absurd.  1 - there's no possible way any species could adapt
to a really new food in 200 years.  2 - other than lycopene (a powerful
antioxidant) there's really nothing "new" to the human diet in a
tomato.  A quick review of the nutritional make up of the tomato
reveals that it is very similar to many of the fruits or veggies that
humans are already well adapted to eat.  This is in stark contrast to
wheat, which contains gluten... a COMPLETELY NEW and TOTALLY USELESS
compound in the human diet.

Also, as you pointed out, grains contain large amounts of fiber, which
you seem to think is a good thing... but high amounts of fiber have not
proven to be beneficial in the human diet.  Most studies I've seen
compare those eating fiber with those eating almost no fiber.  Of
course, those eating no fiber usually eat a SAD, so it's they're
usually poorly constructed studies to begin with.

Ergo, you're logic is totally flawed.  But hey, thanks again for
helping make a solid case against grains.

Max.

This felicitous hypothesis says that grains are the environmental
factor specific to agrarian societies that is responsible for diseases
of affluence.
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16336696

The above hyperlink writes about the hunter-gatherer myth.  In reality,
Hunter-gatherer societies simply cannot support the current world
populations levels. Give up growing grains and people would be starving
to death on a mass scale.

The easiest way to disprove this felicitous hypothesis is to point out
the obvious. In other words, if grains do cause diseases of affluence
then what should have happened over the last 10,000 years?

If grains were indeed the causative factor then accordingly as grains
in agrarian societies have been in their diet for some 10,000 years
these very same agrarian societies should have been suffering from
diseases of affluence for the past 10,000 years.  This clearly has not
been the case.  Furthermore, these same diseases of affluence should
logically be in a period of decline as man gradually has biologically
adapted to grains.  Or in other words, the worst case scenario for
diseases of affluence would have logically existed some 10,000 years
ago when man first started eating grains, rather than today.

Furthermore, throughout these past 10,000 years many agrarian societies
existed almost exclusively on grains.  Hence, these people would also
have logically experienced  the worst case scenario for diseases of
affluence.

Further, this very same academic paper contradicts the only logical
conclusion demaned by this felicitous hypothesis by saying point-blank
that "CHD was reportedly rare in developed populations until the early
1900s."

So, what happen in the 1900s?  I can tell you.  Food science developed
and accordingly a sudden surge in the widespread consumption of
refined-grain junk food took place.  So, if grains are to be blamed for
this post 1900 phenomenon then we are clearly talking about refined
grains rather than whole-grains.  Of course, there are other
possibilities too, such as global warming and modern stress.

Something else major happened.  Refrigeration was invented and our food
distribution system improved tremendously. In reality, modern
industrialized civilizations have had in the past 100 years more
variety in their agrarian diets than ever before. In reality, more
people are eating more meat today than they ever did during the past
10,000 years.

Furthermore, this paper presents only an untested and unproven
hypothesis.  I have easily proved this stupid hypothesis to be wrong.

As previously stated, the new world fruit/vegetable called the tomato
has been in the European diet for less than 200 years.  Yet, it is
clearly one of the healthiest foods in the human diet.  So, the notion
that 10,000 years is not long enough for humans to adapt to grains is
total nonsense. If you don't believe me, then why are you eating
tomatoes? Why do men eat tomatoes in order to protect themselves from
prostatic cancer?

Ergo, blaming grains in the Agrarian diet as the causative factor for
diseases of affluence hypothesis  is total bunk.  This theory is
actually arguing that diseases of affluence should be at their lowest
levels ever in the last 10,000 years of history.  Thus, those who are
promoting it have mush for brains and are promoting nothing but a fairy
tale.  Dream on people!!!

Who says so?  I do.
http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/whole-grains.html
--
John Gohde,
    Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is a biological factor of the
mind-body connection. Now, weighing in at 18 web pages, the
Nutrition of a Healthy Diet is with more documentation and
sharper terminology than ever before.
http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/

The above hyperlink writes about the hunter-gather myth.  Hunter-gather
societies simply cannot support the current world populations levels.
Give up growing grains and people would be starving to death on a mass
scale.

Furthermore, throughout these past 10,000 years many agrarian societies
existed almost exclusively on grains.  Hence, these people would also
have logically experienced the most acute levels of these diseases of
affluence.

Something else major happened.  Refrigeration was invented and our food
distribution system improved tremendously.  Modern industrialized
civilizations have had in the past 100 years more variety in their
agrarian diets than ever before. In reality more people are eating more
meat today than in the past 10,000 years.

Ergo, Grains in the Agrarian diet as the causative factor for diseases
of affluence hypothesis  is total bunk.  This theory is actually
arguing that diseases of affluence should be at their lowest levels in
the last 10,000 years of history.  Thus, who are promoting it have mush
for brains and are promoting a fairy tale.

This felicitous hypothesis says that grains are the environmental
factor specific to agrarian societies that is responsible for diseases
of affluence.
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16336696

The easiest way to disprove this hypothesis is to point out the
obvious.

If grains were indeed the causative factor then accordingly as grains
in agrarian societies have been in their diet for some 10,000 years
than these very same agrarian societies should have been suffering from
diseases of affluence for the past 10,000 years.  This clearly was not
the case.  Furthermore, these same diseases of affluence should
logically be in a period of decline as man gradually has biologically
adapted to grains.  Or in other words, the worst case of the diseases
of affluence would have logically existed some 10,000 years ago when
man first started eating grains rather than today.

Further, this very same academic paper contradicts this conclusion by
saying that "CHD was reportedly rare in developed populations until the
early 1900s."

So, what happen in the 1900s?  I can tell you.  Food science developed
and accordingly a sudden surge in the widespread consumption of
refined-grain junk food took place.  So, if grains are to be blamed for
this post 1900 phenomenon then we are clearly talking about refined
grains rather than whole-grains.  Of course, there are other
possibilities too, such as global warming and modern stress.

Furthermore, this paper presents only an untested and unproven
hypothesis.  I have easily this hypothesis to be wrong.

As previously stated, the tomato has been in the European diet for less
than 200 years.  Yet, it is clearly one of the healthiest foods in the
human diet.  So, the notion that 10,000 years is not long enough for
humans  to adapt to grains is total nonsense.

Who says so?  I do.
http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/whole-grains.html
--
John Gohde,
    Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is a biological factor of the
mind-body connection. Now, weighing in at 18 web pages, the
Nutrition of a Healthy Diet is with more documentation and
sharper terminology than ever before.
http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/