On 12/06/2014 11:04 AM, Todd wrote:
On 06/11/2014 04:41 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Todd wrote:
On 06/10/2014 03:36 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Todd wrote:
On 06/10/2014 06:20 AM, David Hare-Scott wrote:


Sorry folks I couldn't resist the temptation. I know it's
puerile, like tapping on the cage in the reptile house. Todd didn't
disappoint, struck out like an Eastern Brown in an ants nest. I'll
try not to do it again. He might hurt his nose on the glass.

David


No, you just lost the argument and decided to insult me.

There was no argument.

The one about Diabetes being a rich world problem


How do you feed the world for the next 50 years without heavy
reliance on farming and consuming high carb crops?

D

Heavy reliance on farming and low carb crops.

-T

But the low carb crops don't produce nearly enough calories per acre, so
we would need many more acres that we don't have, see my reply elsewhere.

D

You have to do some work in hybridizing.

Sure - easy peasy.

Or grow something else
that isn't addictive.

Can you be more specific. Which fats do you say should be grown?

As for calories. Eat an avocado!

And how do you propose that anyone grows avacodoes in cereal producing
country?

I especially love the heirloom
varieties. Haas are bland and twice as expensive.

Here is a good run down for you on fat vs carbs:

On the other hand, gram for gram, fats provide more energy than
carbohydrates.

http://dl.clackamas.cc.or.us/ch106-07/carbohyd1.htm

The reason for this is the amount of oxidation that
takes place as these compounds are converted
to carbon dioxide and water. Carbon for carbon,
fats require more oxidation to become CO2 and H2O
than do carbohydrates. Roughly speaking, carbohydrates
already have one oxygen for every carbon atom, thus,
each carbon atom needs only one more oxygen and
each pair of hydrogen atoms needs one more oxygen.
However, almost every carbon atom in a fat molecule
needs two oxygens instead of just one additional one,
and each pair of hydrogen atoms still needs one more
oxygen. So, just from counting the number of oxygens
needed to be added, fats require about half again as
much oxygen for the same number of carbon atoms.
Because of this, the oxidation of fats takes longer,
but it also gives off more energy.

When comparing gram to gram, instead of carbon to
carbon, the effect is exaggerated. When you weigh a
carbohydrate, more oxygen is included in that weight.
When you weigh a fat, you get more carbon atoms per
gram and therefore, gram for gram, the fats will give
even more energy (over twice as much) than will the
carbohydrates. Generally, fats provide about 9
kilocalories per gram and carbohydrates provide
about 4 kilocalories per gram. (Using nutritional
units, that is 9 Calories/gram for fats and 4
Calories/gram for carbohydrates.)

Did you catch the part about "9 Calories/gram for fats
and 4 Calories/gram for carbohydrates"? That would over
double the calories you are looking for!

And where is the fat coming form? Specifically.

As far as your question as to what to replace grain with,
just look in your produce isle. If you have a Mexican
grocery store, there are even more options. (I have
a really great one filled with the nicest people.
Love them dearly. Lots of neat stuff!)

Jesus wept! Why on earth would you think David might have a Mexican
grocery store near him? What do you say can replace grain? Be specific
and if you don't know then say so because platitudes don't cut it.