On Jul 20, 11:16*am, Tadas Blinda <tadas.bli...@lycos.es> wrote:
> On Jul 20, 12:11*pm, "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr."
>
>
>
>
>
> <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 19, 10:44*pm, Tadas Blinda <tadas.bli...@lycos.es> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 20, 12:27*am, "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr."
>
> > > <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jul 19, 1:25*am, Vienalga <vienalga_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 17, 6:21*pm, "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr."
>
> > > > > <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > "...especially with Kazakhstan being
>
> > > > > > Russia's closest friend and ally."
>
> > > > > ..And producer of the best Potassium in the world.
>
> > > > Why are you so concerned with Potassium? Hypertention? Try eating more
> > > > bananas.
>
> > > No use unless there is a corresponding decrease in sodium intake:
>
> > > "People trying to control hypertension often are advised to decrease
> > > sodium, increase potassium, watch their calories, and maintain a
> > > reasonable weight.
>
> > > For sodium-sensitive people, reducing sodium is a prudent approach to
> > > reducing the risk of hypertension. The recommendation for daily sodium
> > > intake is 1,500 to 2,300 mg a day.
>
> > > The amount of potassium in the diet is also important. Potassium works
> > > with sodium to regulate the body’s water balance. Research has shown
> > > that the more potassium and less sodium a person has in his/her diet,
> > > the greater the likelihood that the person will maintain normal blood
> > > pressure. However, the evidence does not suggest that people with high
> > > blood pressure should take potassium supplements. Instead, potassium
> > > rich foods should be eaten everyday.
>
> > > A newer area of interest is the relationship between calcium and high
> > > blood pressure. People with a low calcium intake seem to be at
> > > increased risk for hypertension. Everyone should meet the Dietary
> > > Reference Intake (DRI) for calcium every day. For adults, this is
> > > 1,000 mg per day. For adults over 50, 1,200 mg is recommended.
>
> > > Maintaining a reasonable weight is important to minimize the risk of
> > > several major diseases, including hypertension. For people who are
> > > overweight, even a small weight loss can dramatically reduce or even
> > > prevent high blood pressure. "
>
> > > I buy a salt substitute which is 100% potassium chloride, no sodium at
> > > all. *I can enjoy tomatoes sprinkled with salt with no guilty
> > > conscience.
>
> > > What I can't enjoy are all the delicious Lithuanian suasages, hams and
> > > smallgoods. *Not only are they brimming with NaCl, they are also chock-
> > > full of saltpetre (sodium nitrate — NaNO3) which has other bad
> > > effects. *But giving it up turned out by be easier than I thought.
> > > Like with most challenges in giving up certain things, you just face
> > > up to it with a positive attitude, telling yourself that this thing
> > > isn't central to your existence and it's no big deal to live without
> > > it. *(And one trains oneself not to think about it.)
>
> > When I encounter a tasty but salty sausage, I simply eat it with a big
> > ripe unsalted tomato. What's the point of denying *small pleasures in
> > life, especially since most "healthy food" campaigns turn out to be
> > mistifications, like the good old USDA claim that people should give
> > up protein-rich foods for starches - cereals, pasta, bread, potatoes
> > and other empty glycemic calories. You know, the ones that have made
> > Americans as obese and diabetic as we are. Just look at the USDA "food
> > pyramid" scheme:
>
> > Code:
Content visible to registered users only.
>
> > Feels like we live in a dark medieval *age.
>
> I don't know all the medical ins and outs of the subject, but the fact
> is that just about everywhere at all times, carbohydrates (cereals,
> grains and their products such as breads and pastas and gruel) have
> formed the bulk of human diets.
>
No. All these starches came to human diet very recently, and our
bodies are not good at dealing with them. The traditional human diet
is similar to that of chimps and our other primate relatives: fruits,
meats, fish, nuts, veggies.
Code:
Content visible to registered users only.
.
Original Human 'Stone Age' Diet Is Good For People With Diabetes,
Study Finds
ScienceDaily (June 28, 2007) — Foods of the kind that were consumed
during human evolution may be the best choice to control diabetes type
2. A study from Lund University, Sweden, found markedly improved
capacity to handle carbohydrate after eating such foods for three
months.
During 2.5 million years of human evolution, before the advent of
agriculture, our ancestors were consuming fruit, vegetables, nuts,
lean meat and fish. In contrast, cereals, dairy products, refined fat
and sugar, which now provide most of the calories for modern humans,
have been staple foods for a relatively short time.
In a clinical study in Sweden, the research group has now compared 14
patients who were advised to consume an ‘ancient’ (Paleolithic, ‘Old
stone Age’) diet for three months with 15 patients who were
recommended to follow a Mediterranean-like prudent diet with whole-
grain cereals, low-fat dairy products, fruit, vegetables and refined
fats generally considered healthy.... At the end of the study, all
patients in the Paleolithic group had normal blood glucose.
"If you want to prevent or treat diabetes type 2, it may be more
efficient to avoid some of our modern foods than to count calories or
carbohydrate," says Staffan Lindeberg. This is the first controlled
study of a Paleolithic diet in humans.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adapted from materials provided by Lund University.
Code:
Content visible to registered users only.
.
The Late Role of Grains and Legumes
in the Human Diet, and Biochemical Evidence
of their Evolutionary Discordance
Timeframe for cereal grain domestication. There are 8 major cereal
grains which are consumed by modern man (wheat, rye, barley, oats,
corn, rice, sorghum, and millet) [Harlan 1992]. Each of these grains
were derived from wild precursors whose original ranges were quite
localized [Harlan 1992]. Wheat and barley were domesticated only
~10,000 years ago in the Near East; rice was domesticated
approximately 7,000 years ago in China, India, and southeast Asia;
corn was domesticated 7,000 years ago in Central and South America;
millets were domesticated in Africa 5,000-6,000 years ago; sorghum was
domesticated in East Africa 5,000-6,000 years ago; rye was
domesticated ~5,000 years ago in southwest Asia; and oats were
domesticated ~3,000 years ago in Europe.
How recent in the human evolutionary experience is grain consumption
in terms of our total dietary experience? The first member of the
human genus, Homo, was Homo habilis who has now been dated to ~2.33
million years ago (MYA) [Kimbel et al. 1996]. Homo erectus appeared in
Africa by about 1.7 MYA. Archaic Homo sapiens has been dated to
600,000 years ago in Africa and to about 400,000 years ago in Europe
or perhaps earlier [De Castro et al. 1997].
Anatomically modern Homo sapiens appear in the fossil record in Africa
and the Mideast by about 90,000-110,000 years ago and behaviorally
modern H. sapiens are known in the fossil record by ~50,000 years ago
in Australia and by about ~40,000 yrs ago in Europe.
The so-called "Agricultural Revolution" (primarily the domestication
of animals, cereal grains, and legumes) occurred first in the Near
East about 10,000 years ago and spread to northern Europe by about
5,000 years ago [Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1993]. The industrial
revolution occurred roughly 200 years ago, and the technological
revolution which brought us packaged, processed foods is primarily a
development that has occurred in the past 100 years and has seen
enormous growth in the last 50 years.
Processing technology required. Clearly, grass seeds have a
worldwide distribution and would have been found in most environments
that early man would have inhabited. However because almost all of
these seeds are quite small, difficult to harvest, and require
substantial processing before consumption (threshing, winnowing,
grinding, and cooking), it would have been virtually impossible for
pre-behaviorally modern humans (circa 35,000-40,000 years ago) to
exploit this food source.
Primate digestive physiology. The primate gut is not
equipped with the enzyme systems required to derive energy from the
specific types of fiber which predominate in gramineae. Consequently,
unless cereal grains are milled to break down the cell walls and
cooked to crystallize the starch granules (and hence make them more
digestible), the proteins and carbohydrates are largely unavailable
for absorption and assimilation. Thus, until the advent of regular
fire use and control (as evidenced by hearths ~125,000 years ago), it
would have been almost virtually energetically impossible for our
species to consume cereal grains to supply the bulk of our daily
caloric requirements.
Repercussions of antinutrient load. As has been
suggested by John Yudkin almost 30 years ago, cereal grains are a
relatively recent food for hominids and our physiologies are still
adjusting and adapting to their presence. Clearly, no human can live
on a diet composed entirely of cereal grains (for one thing they have
no vitamin C). However, that is but one consideration, since eating
raw cereal grains (as well as cooked cereal grains) wreaks havoc on
the primate gut because of the high antinutrient content of grains.
When cereal grain calories reach 50% or more of the daily caloric
intake, humans suffer severe health consequences. One has to look no
further than the severe pellagra epidemics of the late 19th century in
America and the beri-beri scourges of southeast Asia to confirm this.
Excessive consumption of whole-grain unleavened breads (50-60% of
total calories) commonly results in rickets [Robertson 1981; Ewer
1950; Sly 1984; Ford 1972, 1977; MacAuliffe 1976; Hidiroglou 1980;
Dagnelie 1990], retarded skeletal growth [Reinhold 1971; Halsted 1972;
Sandstrom 1987; Golub 1996] including hypogonadal dwarfism, and iron-
deficiency anemia (will provide the references upon request). The main
lectin in wheat (wheat germ agglutinin) has catastrophic effects upon
the gastrointestinal tract [Pusztai 1993a]. Additionally, the
alkylrescorcinols of cereals influence prostanoid tone and induce a
more inflammatory profile [Hengtrakul 1991], as well as depressing
growth [Sedlet 1984].
In other words, not only grains are unnatural for humans, but their
worst part is the tauted fiber, which is a totally foreign and
offensive substance to the human stomach.
>
>*WHat is certain is that most humans
> in most places eat far too much meat: and those who aren't yet doing
> so are desperately wishing that they could, and soon as the standard
> of living rises in their country they start doing so.
> 
Re: Indians and Africans grateful to Britain for civilising them? Re:Europe and Russia. 
Linear Mode
