On 12/06/2014 6:33 AM, Todd wrote:
On 06/11/2014 04:35 AM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
songbird wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
...
How do you feed the world for the next 50 years without heavy
reliance on farming and consuming high carb crops?

the same way it was done before much of the
current nonsense came along. diversity, smaller
farms and people working together as an actual
community.


There just won't be enough food. What is so hard to understand about
2/3 of the worlds food calories come from carbohdrates, mainly grain
grown on farms? If you stop doing that what do they eat? Do it like it
was done before? What was that, when? When the entire world population
was a few million? How does that scale up to 7 billion? Where does the
land come from?

i've seen good results here on not much room
at all, no reason it can't work on a larger
scale other than needing more people who would
want to do it. enough people get hungry enough
and perhaps they will want to do it too.


Stop with the idealism for a second, take a breath and look at the
figures. You and Todd are both in fantasy land.


D


Hi David,

I just don't see it. That same farm land can grow other crops.

No it can't. Country where wheat and sheep are produced cannot grow
vegetables. Our land, where we currently produce beef cattle, could not
grow vegetables. We also cannot grow grapes successfully either.

It's all abbut the class of land (which relates to the quality of the
land) and rainfall/water. The former is not high quality enough for the
production of vegetables and the latter is just plain old deficient.


The techniques Songbird and I talk about can incorporated
in various degrees.

Think of this, the California wine industry has almost
completely switched to organic techniques. The reason being
that the entire vineyard is consistent, one end to the other.
They no longer have one end that is more sour than the
other, etc.. And, they get a higher yield. Cheaper
too.

So basically, if we are to feed more people, this is an
idea that is coming. It is a matter of practicality, not
idealism.

That paragraph makes no sense.

On 12/06/2014 12:39 PM, Todd wrote:
On 06/11/2014 07:13 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Todd wrote:
On 06/11/2014 04:21 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Todd wrote:
On 06/11/2014 04:35 AM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
songbird wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
...
How do you feed the world for the next 50 years without heavy
reliance on farming and consuming high carb crops?

the same way it was done before much of the
current nonsense came along. diversity, smaller
farms and people working together as an actual
community.


There just won't be enough food. What is so hard to understand
about 2/3 of the worlds food calories come from carbohdrates,
mainly grain grown on farms? If you stop doing that what do they
eat? Do it like it was done before? What was that, when? When
the entire world population was a few million? How does that
scale up to 7 billion? Where does the land come from?

i've seen good results here on not much room
at all, no reason it can't work on a larger
scale other than needing more people who would
want to do it. enough people get hungry enough
and perhaps they will want to do it too.


Stop with the idealism for a second, take a breath and look at the
figures. You and Todd are both in fantasy land.


D


Hi David,

I just don't see it. That same farm land can grow other crops.
The techniques Songbird and I talk about can incorporated
in various degrees.

At last some engagement!

Those other crops (which other crops are they?) cannot produce
anything like the calories per unit area that grains do. It's all
about the efficiency to harvest sunshine. We are running out of
arable land and losing much constantly while every day there are a
few million more mouths to feed. Aside from the obvious that we
cannot keep reproducing ourselves to extinction this implies the
need for more food per acre of land not less.

Have you read about the green revolution? Start with Wikipedia. For
the current situation go to the FAO they have been grappling with
this for decades. Those are the kinds of figures that make your
scheme impossible to apply generally. As Fran said, what you
suggest is only possible in rich societies.



Think of this, the California wine industry has almost
completely switched to organic techniques. The reason being
that the entire vineyard is consistent, one end to the other.
They no longer have one end that is more sour than the
other, etc.. And, they get a higher yield. Cheaper
too.


Assuming that what you say about yield and cost are true about
California wine you cannot extrapolate this to your scheme to do away
with carbohydrates as a major component of the world's diet. For a
start their measure of success is to produce quality wine not feed
the maximum people per acre.

So basically, if we are to feed more people, this is an
idea that is coming. It is a matter of practicality, not
idealism.

No it isn't. You merely assert your case but I need you to produce
some evidence.


Just out of curiosity, do you use compose in your garden
or ammonium nitrate? Which gets the better, more consistent
yield?


I am mainly organic but I would describe my approach as eclectic
with a bias towards recylcling and away from introduced inputs. I
have no need of ammonium nitrate as I can get N from manures. But I
will use Potassium sulphate as there is no other practical way to
get K into my soil.

This is not relevant as I am not trying to feed a family on my vege
plot. Let us not get too distracted by the specifics of my garden, you
need to show how the world can still eat by doing away with 2/3 of
its calories that come from carbohydrates. And show the FAO how to
find a way to feed those millions of poor buggers who already don't
get three squares most days. And the millions extra that will be
born daily until we get means of population control other than
starvation and war. David

Hi David,

Replace those calories with fat. It is the idea fuel
for humans. And more calories per weight than carbs.
Plus, no Diabetes. Hybridize the high carb foods
for fat. Not addictive either, so there will be special
interests and corrupt government agencies kicking
and scratching not to do it.


What fat, where from, how much, what density of calories per acre can it
yield? Did you even look at the FAO site?

Don't mistake initial iterations as the final end product.
As we say in engineering: iterate, iterate, iterate. You
would be amazed at what humans can do when they put their
minds to it. We will find a way. Unleash the human spirit
and you'd be surprised at ways we find to farm and do other
things. Songbird's stuff may seem silly at first glance,
but that is not the way to look at it. The way to
look at it is that it is an initial iteration. Say
to yourself "I wonder if this can be improved on by ...".
Look at Songbird as a pioneer (who takes the arrows).


You haven't even got to the feasibility study level how can you be
talking about iterations.

For example, we Nevadans benefit from world class
cantaloupes grown in the "desert". (I get to eat a half
of one at a sitting.) Definitely not "arable land", if
your were to believe the naysayers.


Irrelevant, nothing like the density of food required and needs
extensive irrigation which is getting more scarce by the day.


As far as those starving in the world, you will find
it is far more a product of stifling the human spirit
(Socialism) than any other reason. Were free markets are
allowed, supply and demand shift resources around automatically.


Idealogical clap-trap doesn't feed people. If you have been driven off
your land and your sons forced into the army you don't give a shit about
whether the warlord is a socialist, a martian. You don't care if they
are philosophers or just of another tribe that thinks your tribe is scum
to be cleared so they can take over.

By the way, "Starvation" is one of the methods "the most"
brutal empire in the history of the world used to
subjugate the populace (the Soviet Union). Mainly so they
could not fight back. So, your war argument doesn't hold.
Starving people don't go to war -- they can't.


I didn't say starving people go to war. You have this grossly over
simplified (like the rest). Famine and war go together, each is a
common cause of the other.

So, how will the problem be solved? Easy. The human
spirit: the free and open exchange of goods and services
between consenting parties.


The last translates as "I haven't a clue how to do it in practice but I
have much pious hope"

I think we leave it there (as predicted) there is no progress.

D

D,

You are just frustrated because I am not agreeing with
your argument.

If he's anything like me he's probably frustrated by your failure to
demonstrate that you have any capacity for critical analysis or ability
to read and absorb anything that is not the latest fad in new age
fluffyness.

On 12/06/2014 6:41 AM, Todd wrote:
On 06/10/2014 10:21 PM, Fran Farmer wrote:
On 11/06/2014 8:36 AM, 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.

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

There will be no sensible response. As a beef producer (grass fed only)
and someone who comes from a long line of potato growers and from an
immediate family that owned a free range poultry business, I know that
access to the type of food that Todd keeps wittering on about is both
expensive and scarce even in first world societies.

We first worlders are OK, stuff the rest of the world....................


Hi Fran,

It truly is more expensive. As techniques develop, and
demand increases, and alternative marketing vehicles expand,
price will come down. It is also cheaper to buy it directly
from the farmer or a CO-OP. The "pick your own" farms
want $2.00/lb for tomatoes, where as the supermarket
wants $4.00/lb for organic.

Also, it is not scarce in the United States. If it
is scare where you hail from, then you should be able
to get a reasonable price for your product. Supply and
demand. So, I do not understand your argument.

No you don't but then I'm beginnign towonder if that is jsut willful
obtuseness on your part.

As for the "First Worlders", there are some that incorrectly
believe that they are the ones with the Diabetes as they are
the ones that over eat.

The WHO reports that T2 diabetes is happening in places where obesity
and falling levels of physical activity occur.

On 06/11/2014 09:15 PM, Fran Farmer wrote:
I just don't see it. That same farm land can grow other crops.

No it can't. Country where wheat and sheep are produced cannot grow
vegetables. Our land, where we currently produce beef cattle, could not
grow vegetables. We also cannot grow grapes successfully either.

It's all abbut the class of land (which relates to the quality of the
land) and rainfall/water. The former is not high quality enough for the
production of vegetables and the latter is just plain old deficient.

Hi Fran,

You are correct. And, I also think you misunderstand me.

What I meant was that where wheat is grown, other
crops can be substituted. Depends on consumer demand.
Wheat farmer don't make squat off of wheat. Who grows
wheat in the desert anyway? That is for livestock.

By the way, you can grow hemp on the same land as
wheat with half the water and apparently, if you listen
to their advocates, make twice the money per acre.

Where sheep and cattle are typically raised (my Nevada
for example), the ground is only capable of producing
cellulose (grass). The livestock then converts it
into food for us.

But not always, you aught to try some of Fallon's
cantaloupes. Grown right in the middle of the desert.
(No doubt livestock scat has a great deal to do with
it.)

In California's central valley (over the hill from
us, the land of fruits and nuts -- I wonder if Higgs
will catch that), they have all kinds of vegetables,
wheat, etc., all mixed together.

On full circle farms, the do grow cows, sheep,
turkeys, chickens, vegetables, and grass. But,
that is on land with more water than our desert.

By the way, Fallon is about and hour and half
drive away. None of us here can grow a cantaloupe
for our lives! Life is cruel that way.

-T

Thank you by the way. Ranching in very difficult
work and you don't get paid squat for it. Grass
fed too! I have a lot of admiration for what you do.

Speaking of Fallon, Mori-Lahatton runs a ranch
and his own butcher house. Grass fed only. He
says he only gets 2 lbs a day versus 3 lbs a
day with the chemicals. His cows are allowed to
walk around and are not penned up where they can
only lift theirs head up and down to eat.

He hangs his beef the old fashioned way. Tastes
so good, you would not think it was the same
animal as in the grocery store! And he and
his whole family work the butt off.

On 06/11/2014 09:31 PM, Fran Farmer wrote:

You are just frustrated because I am not agreeing with
your argument.

If he's anything like me he's probably frustrated by your failure to
demonstrate that you have any capacity for critical analysis or ability
to read and absorb anything that is not the latest fad in new age
fluffyness.

Apparently, I am frustrating you for the same reason.

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.

On 12/06/2014 3:39 AM, Higgs Boson wrote:
On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:45:24 PM UTC-7, Fran Farmer wrote:


Don't you have any sidewalks in your suburb?

Not in suburb. Very small city on the Pacific(Santa Monica) right next to very big city, Los Angeles. Yeah, we have sidewalks, traffic lights; the whole enchilada. But plenty of places to walk, esp. the sea cliff Promenade.

(In some huge LA shopping malls, people -- women? older -- have regular walking groups. Partly social, I would assume? But in this nice climate, why walk indoors?)

In my tiny city we have overbuilding, courtesy of idiot contingent on City Council, resulting in even more traffic, also from people coming in from outside to work in high tech, medical, other (it's a desirable area). I'll often walk downtown or if backpack overloaded,take the bus,just not to deal with parking.

You asked about sidewalks. One street in ritziest part of town, has no sidewalks! I kid you not! Those fortunate souls need never be crude pedestrians. I vaguely understand that in the next county the car-oriented, sterile fortress suburbs often have only driveways; no sidewalks

You are correct in that one can fit in a 10-15 min. fast walk as you described; just takes determination. I go forth inspired!

LOL. Glad to hear that you are inspired :-)) I went for a walk this am
with a group of women and a bunch of dogs. I took my dog but left him
in the car as he gets anxious if expected to walk in unknown territory.
We mostly walked in the middle of the road even though there were
footpaths - it's great where I live as a couple of cars during the day
is a traffic jam. After my walk, I left my car where it was and went to
check out a house that may be coming on the market (we're thinking that
we need to downsize soonish) and then I walked on to the library. I was
glad that I had my backpack as I'd gone to pick up only 1 book I had
ordered in on interlibrary loan and left with about 8 more books - a
couple of really interesting looking gardening books amongst them.

Now you've got me wondering about one of my favourite rollicking yarn
type authors - I can't recall if she wrote abut Santa Monica or some
other west coastal area.

Just did a google - it was Santa Teresa she writes about.

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 9:57:25 PM UTC-7, Fran Farmer wrote:
On 12/06/2014 3:39 AM, Higgs Boson wrote:

On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:45:24 PM UTC-7, Fran Farmer wrote:





Don't you have any sidewalks in your suburb?



Not in suburb. Very small city on the Pacific(Santa Monica) right next to very big city, Los Angeles. Yeah, we have sidewalks, traffic lights; the whole enchilada. But plenty of places to walk, esp. the sea cliff Promenade.



(In some huge LA shopping malls, people -- women? older -- have regular walking groups. Partly social, I would assume? But in this nice climate, why walk indoors?)



In my tiny city we have overbuilding, courtesy of idiot contingent on City Council, resulting in even more traffic, also from people coming in from outside to work in high tech, medical, other (it's a desirable area). I'll often walk downtown or if backpack overloaded,take the bus,just not to deal with parking.



You asked about sidewalks. One street in ritziest part of town, has no sidewalks! I kid you not! Those fortunate souls need never be crude pedestrians. I vaguely understand that in the next county the car-oriented, sterile fortress suburbs often have only driveways; no sidewalks



You are correct in that one can fit in a 10-15 min. fast walk as you described; just takes determination. I go forth inspired!



LOL. Glad to hear that you are inspired :-)) I went for a walk this am

with a group of women and a bunch of dogs. I took my dog but left him

in the car as he gets anxious if expected to walk in unknown territory.

We mostly walked in the middle of the road even though there were

footpaths - it's great where I live as a couple of cars during the day

is a traffic jam. After my walk, I left my car where it was and went to

check out a house that may be coming on the market (we're thinking that

we need to downsize soonish) and then I walked on to the library. I was

glad that I had my backpack as I'd gone to pick up only 1 book I had

ordered in on interlibrary loan and left with about 8 more books - a

couple of really interesting looking gardening books amongst them.



Now you've got me wondering about one of my favourite rollicking yarn

type authors - I can't recall if she wrote abut Santa Monica or some

other west coastal area.



Just did a google - it was Santa Teresa she writes about.

I'm not sure there IS such a place. What is author's name?

G.

On 12/06/2014 8:13 AM, Todd wrote:
On 06/10/2014 10:31 PM, Fran Farmer wrote:

As is obesity and falling rates of physical activity according to the
WHO.

"Obesity" is from the excess consumption of
carbs. To get fat required high blood sugar
and insulin (the fat hormone).

You can't get fat off of fat (keytones). Fat is use
or lose.

I had to learn all this stuff after getting
diagnosed.

Obesity has a variety of causes and is not due to just high blood sugar.
The correlation between obesity and T2 diabetes is well documented in
the US by the CDC and in the rest of the world by the WHO.

Todd wrote:
You are just frustrated because I am not agreeing with
your argument.


Just in case you are honestly puzzled about why you annoy the shit out of
most people it is because you never actually make a case for your opinions
but waffle on as if you have said something meaningful. You did this with
climate change and you started doing it with T2D. I called a halt in both
of these because you flatly refused to produce an argument or listen to one.

Then foolishly I tried again. My fault, I thought you deserved a chance,
that you might have learned something. I was wrong. Sorry everybody.

You simply don't understand what it means to produce a reasoned case
supported by evidence. You continually give vague and irrelevant opinions
as if they are useful facts. You studiously ignore any requests for
specifics. You shift the goalposts. You cherry pick your data. You
indulge in wishful thinking and call it explanation. You have all the
arsenal of weapons of the true zealot who is totally immune to reasoned
discourse.

So yes I am frustrated and so is Fran. No, the frustration has nothing to do
with agreeing with your view of the world, I don't get frustrated with
people just because they hold different views, I try to learn from them.

The problem is your UNWILLNESS TO JUSTIFY your different views, that is
supremely frustrating because nobody can learn anything. But I am probably
wasting my time typing as that distinction will be lost on you too. Back to
gardening. Please.

D

On 06/11/2014 09:34 PM, Fran Farmer wrote:
Hi Fran,

It truly is more expensive. As techniques develop, and
demand increases, and alternative marketing vehicles expand,
price will come down. It is also cheaper to buy it directly
from the farmer or a CO-OP. The "pick your own" farms
want $2.00/lb for tomatoes, where as the supermarket
wants $4.00/lb for organic.

Also, it is not scarce in the United States. If it
is scare where you hail from, then you should be able
to get a reasonable price for your product. Supply and
demand. So, I do not understand your argument.

No you don't but then I'm beginnign towonder if that is jsut willful
obtuseness on your part.

You said the stuff was scarce. I told you that is the
USA is was not. Just more expensive. I buy it
all the time. Nothing obtuse.

And I repeat, grass fed beef, if it is scarce in your
parts, why are you not getting a better price for it?
Is your government imposing some kind of artificial
prince controls?


As for the "First Worlders", there are some that incorrectly
believe that they are the ones with the Diabetes as they are
the ones that over eat.

The WHO reports that T2 diabetes is happening in places where obesity
and falling levels of physical activity occur.

Be careful of such political correctness. WHO would
never call out the folks that brought us T2. Everybody
waxes everybody palms. Its in the air. Its because
you are lazy and fat. Just be careful of what the
special interests. I was and am still ****ed at
how much money is being make off us T2's.

I will repeat what I wrote you about the Hanza:

There is a nice article on the Hadza over at:
http://originalpeople.org/hadza-people-diabetes/

Many in public health believe that a major culprit is
our sedentary lifestyle. Faced with relatively few
physical demands today, our bodies burn fewer calories
than they evolved to consume — and those unspent calories
pile up over time as fat. The World Health Organization,
in discussing the root causes of obesity, has cited a
“decrease in physical activity due to the increasingly
sedentary nature of many forms of work, changing modes
of transportation and increasing urbanization.”

This is a nice theory. But is it true? To find out,
my colleagues and I recently measured daily energy
expenditure among the Hadza people of Tanzania, one
of the few remaining populations of traditional
hunter-gatherers. Would the Hadza, whose basic way
of life is so similar to that of our distant
ancestors, expend more energy than we do?

Our findings, published last month in the journal
PLoS ONE, *indicate that they don’t*, suggesting
that inactivity is not the source of modern obesity.

-T

On 06/11/2014 09:48 PM, Fran Farmer wrote:


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

Any kind that doesn't come from a test tube.


As for calories. Eat an avocado!

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

Grow cows. I love to eat cows too. What a silly argument.


And where is the fat coming form? Specifically.

Anywhere natural. Cows, avocados, coconuts, etc.. This isn't
rocket science.

Jesus wept! Why on earth would you think David might have a Mexican
grocery store near him?

Hmmmmmm.. Maybe because he is from the Peoples Republic
of California. (I may have him mixed up with Higgs.)

You don't know much about California or the United States.
Mexico is our neighbor. Nevada and California have little
Mexican Grocery stores all over the place. The rest of the
country in varying degrees too.

What do you say can replace grain? Be specific
and if you don't know then say so because platitudes don't cut it.

Do you ever go to a grocery store? Just look in the
produce section. Would you like a specific list of what
I eat?

By the way, I eat ZERO grains. They will first maim me then
kill me. And I am just fine.

Feed the grains and the rest of the plant to cows. I will eat
the cows!

-T

On 06/11/2014 10:26 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Todd wrote:
You are just frustrated because I am not agreeing with
your argument.


Just in case you are honestly puzzled about why you annoy the shit out
of most people it is because you never actually make a case for your
opinions but waffle on as if you have said something meaningful. You
did this with climate change and you started doing it with T2D. I
called a halt in both of these because you flatly refused to produce an
argument or listen to one.

Then foolishly I tried again. My fault, I thought you deserved a
chance, that you might have learned something. I was wrong. Sorry
everybody.

You simply don't understand what it means to produce a reasoned case
supported by evidence. You continually give vague and irrelevant
opinions as if they are useful facts. You studiously ignore any
requests for specifics. You shift the goalposts. You cherry pick your
data. You indulge in wishful thinking and call it explanation. You
have all the arsenal of weapons of the true zealot who is totally immune
to reasoned discourse.

So yes I am frustrated and so is Fran. No, the frustration has nothing
to do with agreeing with your view of the world, I don't get frustrated
with people just because they hold different views, I try to learn from
them.

The problem is your UNWILLNESS TO JUSTIFY your different views, that is
supremely frustrating because nobody can learn anything. But I am
probably wasting my time typing as that distinction will be lost on you
too. Back to gardening. Please.

D

Oh brother David. You are just not use to dealing with others
who disagree with you. No argument or reference would
rise to meet your standards. You just know you are right
and other who disagree with you annoy you, references, studies
or no references or studies. If we don't agree with you,
we are "Deniers". At times, you are not always a gentleman
about it either.

Yes, now back to gardening. By the way, thank you for the
help with the zukes. You are a treasure trove of information.

You are from California, aren't you? Fran wondered why
I though you'd have a Mexican grocery store near by.
Might have got you mixed up with Higgs.

-T

Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.
--Mark Twain

On 12/06/2014 8:11 AM, Todd wrote:
On 06/10/2014 10:31 PM, Fran Farmer wrote:
"Hunter-gatherers" ate whatever they could get their hands
on. And when it was available, they always ate too much.
They also had a lot more variety than we do today. A "well
balanced diet" and didn't even realize it. And no T2 Diabetes.

Where is your cite to prove that there was no T2 diabetes amongst hunter
gatherers?

Hi Fran,

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Diabetes%2...er%20gatherers

You didn't actually read the cites there did you? Or if you did, you
clearly didn't understand the more scholarly ones that show that there
is a genetic preponderance amongst hunter gatherers to develop type 2
diabetes and why that is so.

Hint: That preponderance has NOTHING to do with carbohydrates or the
consumption of them.

There is a nice article on the Hadza over at:
http://originalpeople.org/hadza-people-diabetes/

Many in public health believe that a major culprit is
our sedentary lifestyle. Faced with relatively few
physical demands today, our bodies burn fewer calories
than they evolved to consume — and those unspent calories
pile up over time as fat. The World Health Organization,
in discussing the root causes of obesity, has cited a
“decrease in physical activity due to the increasingly
sedentary nature of many forms of work, changing modes
of transportation and increasing urbanization.”

This is a nice theory. But is it true? To find out,
my colleagues and I recently measured daily energy
expenditure among the Hadza people of Tanzania, one
of the few remaining populations of traditional
hunter-gatherers. Would the Hadza, whose basic way
of life is so similar to that of our distant
ancestors, expend more energy than we do?

Our findings, published last month in the journal
PLoS ONE, indicate that they don’t, suggesting
that inactivity is not the source of modern obesity.

Studies on the Inuits and the Aleuts too. Returning
to their ancestral diets gets rid of the diabetes.

Unfortunately for Diabetics, they are suffering from a
lot of fat bigotry. T2 Diabetes is a simple injury
caused by consuming unnatural amounts of carbohydrates.

There is absolutely no evidence to support that claim. There ARE lots
and lots sites and cites that say that but not one I've yet read could
be considered to be reputable or withstand even basic scrutiny.

You can heal from it, but you have to stop the insult
that caused it in the first place.

Do you actually read what you write to see if it makes any sense?

Here is the thing about fat bigots. They see the
human body as, what we call in engineering terms,
an "open loop" system. It is not. It is one
of the most complex and wonder "closed loop" system
ever created. And being "closed loop", your body
compensates. This is why you can stand on two feet.
This is also why skinny people don't get fat when they
over eat.

The Fat Bigots want Diabetes and obesity to a
"character flaw" in those they "condescend" on.
It is a failure of the control system involved
in the closed loop to compensate. The only
"character flaw" is the bigotry.

You do write a lot of drivel that has nothing to do with what is being
discussed. You might make more sense if you bothered to try to
understand what is being said to you, what you are being asked and why
you are being asked something but more especially you might have a
better understanding if you bothered to actually READ your own cites.

YOU gave cites that show that hunter gatherers have a known
preponderance for developing T2 diabetes.

Their tendency to develop T2 diabetes once they follow a first world
diet has nothing to do with just eating carbohydrates ACCORDING TO YOUR
OWN CITES.

And if you really do insist on being all Paleo because you still choose
to believe it, then you will also stop stuffing your face to excess and
you will get out and do some exercise.

The reasons why you should stop the excess stuffing of your face and get
out and do some exercise are listed in those very Paleo cites YOU gave.
Read them.

On 12/06/2014 3:51 PM, Todd wrote:
On 06/11/2014 10:13 PM, Fran Farmer wrote:
On 12/06/2014 8:13 AM, Todd wrote:
On 06/10/2014 10:31 PM, Fran Farmer wrote:

As is obesity and falling rates of physical activity according to the
WHO.

"Obesity" is from the excess consumption of
carbs. To get fat required high blood sugar
and insulin (the fat hormone).

You can't get fat off of fat (keytones). Fat is use
or lose.

I had to learn all this stuff after getting
diagnosed.

Obesity has a variety of causes and is not due to just high blood sugar.
The correlation between obesity and T2 diabetes is well documented in
the US by the CDC and in the rest of the world by the WHO.

The fat bigots and the special interests would have you
believe that.

Do you read what you write to see if it passes the logic or sanity test?

"Fat bigots" say that high blood sugar is the cause of obesity? These
mysterious "special interest" unknowns are involved in some conspiracy
saying that the only cause of obesity is high blood sugar.

By the way, the initial stages of T2, the insulin
resistance causes you to put on weight. They
didn't mention that, did they. It is all
part of their cover up. "Oh you have T2
because you are fat!" It is the other way around.

All those people conspiring.


By the way, thank you for the Australian doctor
who went up against the special interests and
got ulcers treated as an infection.

You should have heard the name calling from the
medical community! They made a lot of money off
of treating but not healing ulcers. But the guy
persevered and we now can finally treat ulcers.
(Herbalists always could, but they are just
"wack jobs" you know.)

And another conspiracy theory.

Same thing is going on here with T2. We need
an Australian doctor to come here and set
the special interests right again.

You'd probably not like most Aussie Doctors. They'd tell you to get
real and stop seeing conspiracies everywhere.