Monday, November 27, 2006

Re: [rosacea] Re: Study: Low-Carb, CHD Unrelated

On 27/11/06 05:39, "Brady Barrows" <brady@mumbet.com> wrote:

> Dr. Cordain wrote the Paleo Diet, which is basically
> a high protein diet, similar to the Rosacea Diet. I
> don't agree with his theory completely, but I admire
> how a Ph.D. has come to the same conclusion about
> diet that I have. Historically, mankind has not
> eaten high carbohyrdate. It has only happened in the
> last couple of hundred years that carbohydrate has been
> proposed as the food to eat and that protein and fat
> should be pushed aside to an honorable mention.

It's not quite that clear cut, though, is it? I mean, it's not as though our
Palaeolithic ancestors had much choice about what they ate. Food was limited
by the local flora and fauna -- as it is for hunter-gatherers today. Some
would have eaten a diet based predominantly on hunted meat; others would
have relied more heavily on plant foods (including fruit) and insects, with
a little opportunistic hunting and scavenging. The continued existence of
our species is evidence of our ancestors' "success", but my understanding is
that that success was much more to do with their adaptability than with any
preference for low-carbohydrate foods.

And why focus on our Palaeolithic ancestors and ignore our Neolithic ones?
Agriculture, for all the problems it brought, did enable growing populations
to feed themselves and grow further, and high-carbohydrate foods have
constituted a substantial proportion of farmed foods for THOUSANDS of years.
Figs are thought to have been cultivated at least 11,400 years ago
<http://snipurl.com/13ecn>. They were followed, about a thousand years
later, by einkorn, emmer wheat and barley, and soon after that by peas,
lentils and vetches. Squash, yams, potatoes, rice, maize, quinoa, amaranth,
spelt, millet, cassava, sorghum, soy beans, bananas, oats, rye -- even the
"newest" of these staple high-carbohydrate crops has been cultivated for
over two thousand years. That's a big chunk of history.

I suspect that the continued existence of the human species will also depend
on our adaptability. A diet high in animal protein would not be sustainable
for the entire world's population. It would require too much land, water and
energy. We in the West do need to eat less -- less sugar, yes, I agree, but
less saturated fat and animal protein too, the evidence suggests. However,
in the UK and the USA in particular, we need to eat *more* fruits and
vegetables; if we did that I'm sure there'd be a significant reduction in
the incidence of various cancers. It may be that people with rosacea thrive
better on lower-carbohydrate, higher-protein diets. (I'm not convinced of
that yet, but I'm keeping an open mind.) But if that were so, then it could
simply be a consequence of our condition, not because a high-protein,
low-carbohydrate diet is inherently superior, as evidenced by its supposed
historical dominance.

Emma

__._,_.___
--
Please read the list highlights and FAQ: http://rosacea.ii.net
New ! Rosacea Support Resource Pages: http://rosacea-research.org/wiki
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
New Message Search

Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.

.

__,_._,___