who started carbs for breakfast?

Options
12346

Replies

  • digitalsteel
    digitalsteel Posts: 374 Member
    Options
    What the hell is breakfast? I don't eat it. I mean I do, but I eat it for lunch and I assume that's not what you mean.

    (seriously - the person who first thought "I guess I will have carbs for breakfast" was you know, everyone in the course of human civilization who did not HAVE any other food readily available besides a store of grains? Which is more or less all of human existance? Just like the person who woke up and thought "I will have protein and fat for breakfast!" is every hunter ever who only had dried meat because thats what they'd learned to store?)

    I do feel the need to point out that grains have only exsisted for about 10,000 years. Where as humans have been around for almost 2 million years.

    First check your sources on how long modern humans have been around

    Then read,

    The broad spectrum revisited: Evidence from plant remains. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 June 29; 101(26): 9551–9555.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC470712/?tool=pubmed

    Now, however, a collection of >90,000 plant remains, recently recovered from the Stone Age site Ohalo II (23,000 B.P.), Israel, offers insights into the plant foods of the late Upper Paleolithic. The staple foods of this assemblage were wild grasses, pushing back the dietary shift to grains some 10,000 years earlier than previously recognized. Besides the cereals (wild wheat and barley), small-grained grasses made up a large component of the assemblage, indicating that the BSR in the Levant was even broader than originally conceived, encompassing what would have been low-ranked plant foods. Over the next 15,000 years small-grained grasses were gradually replaced by the cereals and ultimately disappeared from the Levantine diet.

    wild grasses do not equal grains, plus they are focusing on asia on top of it, notice how asians tend to have lots of RICE, not GRAINS like we do here.
  • digitalsteel
    digitalsteel Posts: 374 Member
    Options
    Oh, and my bad... 5+ million years according to berkley.

    If you are unsure, perhaps you should brush up on your history

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
  • AlanAragon
    AlanAragon Posts: 17 Member
    Options
    Oh, and my bad... 5+ million years according to berkley
    The timeline argument is weak because it involves cherry-picking correlational factors (ie, grains) amidst a multitude of factors contributing to the so-called "diseases of civilization." But why accept a complex interplay of factors when you can point the finger at a single scapegoat?
  • digitalsteel
    digitalsteel Posts: 374 Member
    Options
    Oh, and my bad... 5+ million years according to berkley
    The timeline argument is weak because it involves cherry-picking correlational factors (ie grains) amidst a multitude of factors contributing to the so-called "diseases of civilization." But why accept a complex interplay of factors when you can point the finger at a single scapegoat?

    Do you have something better to offer? or are you just in denial.
  • armaretta
    armaretta Posts: 851 Member
    Options
    Oh, and my bad... 5+ million years according to berkley.

    If you are unsure, perhaps you should brush up on your history

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
    Modern humans around for 5 million years? That is utter nonsense.

    Also, wikipedia? Really?

    I quit
  • AlanAragon
    AlanAragon Posts: 17 Member
    Options
    Oh, and my bad... 5+ million years according to berkley
    The timeline argument is weak because it involves cherry-picking correlational factors (ie grains) amidst a multitude of factors contributing to the so-called "diseases of civilization." But why accept a complex interplay of factors when you can point the finger at a single scapegoat?

    Do you have something better to offer? or are you just in denial.
    Your accusation of denial is a perfect example of the unobjective religious zeal I mentioned earlier. You can choose to ignore the plethora of labor-saving technologies, TV, internet, rise in sit-down jobs, etc that have contributed to a historically recent & massive sedentary shift which is foundational to cardiometabolic disease. but alas, it's way easier to blame it solely on grains, isn't it? Good thing you're in no position to be taken seriously. The last thing the public needs is further immersion into ignorance & confusion via unscientific preachers.
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options
    What the hell is breakfast? I don't eat it. I mean I do, but I eat it for lunch and I assume that's not what you mean.

    (seriously - the person who first thought "I guess I will have carbs for breakfast" was you know, everyone in the course of human civilization who did not HAVE any other food readily available besides a store of grains? Which is more or less all of human existance? Just like the person who woke up and thought "I will have protein and fat for breakfast!" is every hunter ever who only had dried meat because thats what they'd learned to store?)

    I do feel the need to point out that grains have only exsisted for about 10,000 years. Where as humans have been around for almost 2 million years.

    First check your sources on how long modern humans have been around

    Then read,

    The broad spectrum revisited: Evidence from plant remains. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 June 29; 101(26): 9551–9555.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC470712/?tool=pubmed

    Now, however, a collection of >90,000 plant remains, recently recovered from the Stone Age site Ohalo II (23,000 B.P.), Israel, offers insights into the plant foods of the late Upper Paleolithic. The staple foods of this assemblage were wild grasses, pushing back the dietary shift to grains some 10,000 years earlier than previously recognized. Besides the cereals (wild wheat and barley), small-grained grasses made up a large component of the assemblage, indicating that the BSR in the Levant was even broader than originally conceived, encompassing what would have been low-ranked plant foods. Over the next 15,000 years small-grained grasses were gradually replaced by the cereals and ultimately disappeared from the Levantine diet.

    wild grasses do not equal grains, plus they are focusing on asia on top of it, notice how asians tend to have lots of RICE, not GRAINS like we do here.

    Wheat and barley aren't grains? And if rice isn't a grain what is it?
  • digitalsteel
    digitalsteel Posts: 374 Member
    Options
    Rice grows naturaly, it is the seed of the monocot plants. Wheat and barley are man made hybrids that never would have existed if not for us.
  • raystark
    raystark Posts: 403 Member
    Options
    <snip>
    When will we ever collectively learn that what works for one will not work for all?

    Yup
  • AlanAragon
    AlanAragon Posts: 17 Member
    Options
    Rice grows naturaly, it is the seed of the monocot plants. Wheat and barley are man made hybrids that never would have existed if not for us.
    Your argument makes no sense at all. Are you in favor of avoiding all human technology, including all modern supplements and medical therapies?
  • digitalsteel
    digitalsteel Posts: 374 Member
    Options
    Rice grows naturaly, it is the seed of the monocot plants. Wheat and barley are man made hybrids that never would have existed if not for us.
    Your argument makes no sense at all. Are you in favor of avoiding all human technology, including all modern supplements and medical therapies?

    I suppose that depends on what it is... Your telling me you like the toxins found in grains? I avoid them for the same reason I avoid transfats.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    Rice grows naturaly, it is the seed of the monocot plants. Wheat and barley are man made hybrids that never would have existed if not for us.

    How many natural foods, grains or not, that we eat today are exactly as they were a million years ago? I'll give you a hint. It's < 1.
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options
    Rice grows naturaly, it is the seed of the monocot plants. Wheat and barley are man made hybrids that never would have existed if not for us.
    Your argument makes no sense at all. Are you in favor of avoiding all human technology, including all modern supplements and medical therapies?

    I suppose that depends on what it is... Your telling me you like the toxins found in grains? I avoid them for the same reason I avoid transfats.

    I thought you ate Primal, do you eat grassfed beef?
  • digitalsteel
    digitalsteel Posts: 374 Member
    Options
    Exclusivly from 8oclockranch
  • katatak1
    katatak1 Posts: 261 Member
    Options
    I would love bacon, eggs and cheese for breakfast every morning, but I don't want to deal with the mess of cooking every morning.

    An asiago cheese bagel is my typical breakfast. Buy them at the grocer, store them in the fridge, pop one in the microwave for 20 seconds... good to go.

    There's an easy way to do eggs, bacon, etc with no mess. Preheat oven to 350, get a muffin pan and spray with PAM. Chop up some cooked bacon, green peppers, onions and cheese and put tablespoon in each muffin cup. Mix 6 eggs and a carton of EggBeaters and then pour into muffin cups. Cook for 30 minutes. Dump them out, put in ziplocks, freeze. Each morning, pop one or two or ten in microwave for 3 minutes. Quick and easy, no mess. I make 2 dozen at a time and put 3 to a ziplock. Between 75 and 125 calories depending on how much cheese, etc. I use eggbeaters (egg whites) to keep calorie count down.

    This is... genuis. I don't eat meat, but I'm going to totally try this!
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options
    Exclusivly from 8oclockranch

    Isn't grassfed beef higher in trans fat then other types of beef?
  • digitalsteel
    digitalsteel Posts: 374 Member
    Options
    Your right. I should specify, transfats made by man. the trans fat in ruminant animal products is CLA, naturally occurring trans fats are good for you. Plus they have antibacterial properties. But like grains that are man made, transfats that are man made are bad.

    http://www.t-nation.com/readArticle.do?id=1365312&cr=
  • katatak1
    katatak1 Posts: 261 Member
    Options
    wild grasses do not equal grains, plus they are focusing on asia on top of it, notice how asians tend to have lots of RICE, not GRAINS like we do here.

    Wheat and barley aren't grains? And if rice isn't a grain what is it?

    What? How can anyone claim rice isn't a grain? That's like, something I learned in 5th grade. They're all from the family Poaceae (I was a botany minor in college) and they are refined by removing layers, typically through a mill. If it's got a caryopsis, it's technically a grain. Now not all grains are edible, but all the cereal grains are. That includes grains like rice, wheat, barley, etc. So yes, wild grasses DO equal grains. They may not all be edible grains, but they are grains none-the-less. The only way wild grasses don't count as grains is if someone chooses to apply the term "grass" to similar plants that belong to the families of juncaceae (rushes) and cyperaceae (sedges). Those are often mislabeled as grasses, but no one actually consumes them, so I doubt the source you guys are referring to made that mistake.
  • SilentRenegade
    SilentRenegade Posts: 245 Member
    Options
    I find this evidence fairly interesting. http://www.gnolls.org/1086/the-lipid-hypothesis-has-officially-failed-part-1-of-many/

    You may also want to check out some of the articals here if you want more in depth details http://www.gnolls.org/
    I'm pretty sure gnolls are a hyena-humanoid beast in Azeroth. I wouldn't take dietary advice from them

    HAHAHAHA... sorry, that was the best, haven't seen a WoW reference on here yet. :flowerforyou:
  • AlanAragon
    AlanAragon Posts: 17 Member
    Options
    Rice grows naturaly, it is the seed of the monocot plants. Wheat and barley are man made hybrids that never would have existed if not for us.
    Your argument makes no sense at all. Are you in favor of avoiding all human technology, including all modern supplements and medical therapies?

    I suppose that depends on what it is... Your telling me you like the toxins found in grains? I avoid them for the same reason I avoid transfats.
    Toxins, haha. Do you purposely ignore the research indicating the neutrality &/or health-promoting effects of grains in order to not anger the gods of your anti-grain religion? Good thing most of the longest-living, healthiest populations on this planet do not live by the rules of your religion. Even the bulk of controlled trials do not support your fear of grains, and we're talking about diets that aren't even optimized from a macronutritional standpoint. Folks who preach dietary extremes are simply ignorant of the totality of the scientific evidence, and it's obvious that you're one of them. And once again, I'm happy to see that majority here are not taking you seriously - especially after your selective definition of what's a grain & what's not. I would be impressed to find out that you are not a troll. Good luck with your goals in 2012, just don't expect to create many converts to your doctrine.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories