How do I avoid simple sugars?

I destroyed my guts on "complex carbs." They are hell on your GI
tract. I almost died. Now I only eat "simple carbs," but the trick is
to make your own, this way you can put more cinnamon and less sugar,
for example, in your breads. Also, eat small amounts of nutritional
yeast and a good fat source like butter, coconut oil, dark chocolate,
full fat yogurt or similar dairy, with the simple carbs and you don't
have to worry about gylcemic index or insulin index nonsense. More to
be worried about is oxidative stress, which can come from too much
oxidized cholesterol or unsaturated fatty acids. Search my other posts
for specifics. Just search this group for montygram.

montygram said:

I destroyed my guts on "complex carbs." They are hell on your GI
tract. I almost died.

Please explain. The only way complex carbs would be "hell on your GI
system" is if you _suddenly_ switched from a no/low-fiber diet to the
recommended high/higher fiber diet. (If you think your expirence was
bad, try going from the higher/high-fiber diet to snacking on some
highly processed, high-fat food.) To make the switch to more complex
carbs, the "trick" is to slowly increase your consumption.

Quoted message said:

Now I only eat "simple carbs," but the trick is to make your own,

this

Quoted message said:

way you can put more cinnamon and less sugar, for example, in your
breads. Also, eat small amounts of nutritional yeast and a good fat
source like butter, coconut oil, dark chocolate, full fat yogurt or
similar dairy, with the simple carbs and you don't have to worry

about

Quoted message said:

gylcemic index or insulin index nonsense.

I agree the glycemic index thing is over blown. Most times you sit
down to eat, you eat more than one type of food -- often a mixture of
high and low glycemic foods -- so they balance and slow down the
effects of the higher glycemic foods. And unless you have a medical
condition, _natural_ high glycemic foods are not going to harm you.

"Only eat simple carbs" What foods? Please define.

Never exclude complex carbs. They are the most important foods in our
diet.

I don't think I would recommend full-fat products. While there's some
debate they give you a greater sense of satiety, the other side of the
coin is they pack many more calories and saturated fat than their
lower-fat counterparts.

Patrick

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

And unless you have a medical
condition, _natural_ high glycemic foods are not going to harm you.

The natural high glycemic foods are high glycemic foods. They will harm you
just as much as processed foods.

There is not special about natural.

Jeff

"Paul Kossa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I know "simple sugars" are not the best carbos to eat. Thing is, I'm
no nutritional scientist, so just how in the heck am I supposed to
know if the carbs in a particular food are "simple" or "complex?!" (I
notice on the food labels for carbs, they have "fiber," "other carbs,"
and "sugars." Am I right in assuming that "sugars" is a reference to
the simple carbs . . . or is there something else I should be looking
for?)

You're correct.

Digestable carbs come in groups two groups sugars &starches. Sugars are
simple carbs; complex carbs are starches (other carbs) and fiber, which is
carbohydrate which can't be digested. I guess because complex carbs includes
starches, they decided to call digestable starches "other".

Good information on nutrition include:

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/wh-nutr.html

Beware of those sites selling diets or drugs (including herbs and vitamins
and minerals).

Jeff

Jeff said:

Quoted message said:

And unless you have a medical
condition, _natural_ high glycemic foods are not going to harm you.

Quoted message said:

The natural high glycemic foods are high glycemic foods. They will

harm

Quoted message said:

you just as much as processed foods.

Quoted message said:

There is not special about natural.

Jeff,

There's a huge diffence between natural and unnatural. Man has been
living and thriving on natural foods since... well, the begining of
man. The introduction of unnatural foods is what has caused us
problems.

Natural high glycemic foods like carrots and corn are not going to harm
you, unlike high-glycemic, high-fractose corn syrup.

Patrick

Combining foods with reasonable sugar content (I use Rapadura organic
sugar, not garbage like high fructose corn syrup) and very high
saturated fatty acid content (and low unsaturated fatty acid content)
has been great for me, plus the evidence demonstrates that oxidative
stress is the key to "chronic disease," not highly saturated fats like
coconut oil (Sri Lankans and others have just about no chronic disease
until they switch from coconut to the highly unsaturated oils in the
Western diet). This is even true of heart disease, where oxidized
cholsterol (called oxysterols) causes a chronic inflammation in the
interstitial spaces in the arteries. Saturated fatty acids don't
oxidized cholesterol, whereas polyunsaturates do, especially when
plenty of iron is present.

I ate a diet of legumes, whole grains, nuts, and seeds for years, and
it caused stomach discomfort, but I didn't think much of it, since
everyone else I knew had worse problems. Then I lost the ability to
digest food, and went from 130 pounds to about 98 in less than a year.
Only by doing my own research (and I'm a professional researcher, so it
was easy for me) did I learn about the nonsense that "health gurus" are
preaching these days. I'm currently writing a book about the so-called
French Paradox diet, which is what I'm eating these days. I make
breads with butter, Rapadura sugar, unbleached organic flour, and
liqueur, for example. I'd never go near whole wheat flour again. You
don't need to protect your gut with "fiber" if there is no oxidative
(or other) stress placed on it. So you can eat reasonable amounts of
quality sugar (after al, that's what your brain runs on), but replace
some of it with herbs and spices that are high in antioxidants, which
will help your gut, not hurt it.

And my glucose went from 94 on the supposedly healthy diet to 75 on the
French Paradox diet, though "saturated fat" is supposed to be "bad" for
diabetes. As I've posted before, lard is 39% saturated, chicken/turkey
is around 27-28%, and even Brazil nut fat is about 25%, whereas coconut
oil is 92%. People on coconut oil diets should be dying all over the
place of diabetes and heart disease, and yet according to WHO
statistics and other studies, it is virtually unknown in peoples who
use such fats as dietary staples. However, refined olive oil and lard
are used in studies to test the antioxidant properties of herbs and
spices. Why? Because they go rancid so quickly. You couldn't do this
study with coconut oil because you'd have to wait forever to go rancid,
and rancidity is the key point (lipid peroxidation). This is why
vitamin C has been touted for many years now.

For example, from www.sciencedaily.com:

1/12/2005
Discovery Shows New Vitamin C Health Benefits

CORVALLIS - Researchers in the Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State
University have made a major discovery about the way vitamin C
functions in the human body - a breakthrough that may help explain its
possible value in preventing cancer and heart disease.

The study, which explores the role of vitamin C in dealing with the
toxins that result from fat metabolism, was just published in a
professional journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

It contradicts the conclusions of some research that was widely
publicized three years ago, which had suggested that this essential
nutrient might actually have toxic effects.

The new OSU study confirmed some of the results of that earlier
laboratory study, which had found vitamin C to be involved in the
formation of compounds potentially damaging to DNA. But that research,
scientists say, only provided part of the story about what actually
happens in the human body.

The newest findings explain for the first time how vitamin C can react
with and neutralize the toxic byproducts of human fat metabolism.

"This is a previously unrecognized function for vitamin C in the human
body," said Fred Stevens, an assistant professor in the Linus Pauling
Institute. "We knew that vitamin C is an antioxidant that can help
neutralize free radicals. But the new discovery indicates it has a
complex protective role against toxic compounds formed from oxidized
lipids, preventing the genetic damage or inflammation they can cause."

Some earlier studies done in another laboratory had exposed oxidized
lipids - which essentially are rancid fats - to vitamin C, and found
some reaction products that can cause DNA damage. These test tube
studies suggested that vitamin C could actually form "genotoxins" that
damage genes and DNA, the types of biological mutations that can
precede cancer.

But that study, while valid, does not tell the whole story, the OSU
researchers say.

"It's true that vitamin C does react with oxidized lipids to form
potential genotoxins," said Balz Frei, professor and director of the
Linus Pauling Institute, and co-author on this study. "But the process
does not stop there. We found in human studies that the remaining
vitamin C in the body continues to react with these toxins to form
conjugates - different types of molecules with a covalent bond - that
appear to be harmless."

In human tests, the OSU scientists found in blood plasma
extraordinarily high levels of these conjugates, which show this
protective effect of vitamin C against toxic lipids.

"Prior to this, we never knew what indicators to look for that would
demonstrate the protective role of vitamin C against oxidized lipids,"
Stevens said. "Now that we see them, it becomes very clear how vitamin
C can provide a protective role against these oxidized lipids and the
toxins derived from them. And this isn't just test tube chemistry, this
is the way our bodies work.

"This discovery of a new class of lipid metabolites could be very
important in our understanding of this vitamin and the metabolic role
it plays," Stevens said. "This appears to be a major pathway by which
the body can get rid of the toxic byproducts of fat metabolism, and it
clearly could relate to cancer prevention."

Oxidation of lipids has been the focus of considerable research in
recent years, the scientists say, not just for the role it may play in
cancer but also in other chronic diseases such as heart disease,
Alzheimer's disease, and autoimmune disorders.

The toxic products produced by fat oxidation may not only be relevant
to genetic damage and cancer, researchers believe, but are also very
reactive compounds that damage proteins. For instance, there's a
protein in LDL, the "bad" cholesterol in your blood, which if damaged
by toxic lipids can increase the chance of atherosclerotic lesions. In
continuing research, the OSU team plans to study the role of this newly
understood reaction between vitamin C and toxic lipids in
atherosclerosis. In clinical studies they plan to examine the blood
chemistry of patients who have been diagnosed with coronary artery
disease, compared to a healthy control group.

"In the early stages of atherosclerosis, it appears that some of these
toxic lipids make white blood cells stick to the arterial wall, and
start an inflammatory process that ultimately can lead to heart disease
or stroke," Frei said. "When we better understand that process and the
role that micronutrients such as vitamin C play in it, there may be
strategies we can suggest to prevent this from happening."

The new findings, the OSU scientists say, also point to new biomarkers
that can be useful in identifying oxidative stress in the human body.
They may provide an indicator of people who may be at special risk of
chronic disease.

montygram said:

Combining foods with reasonable sugar content (I use Rapadura organic
sugar, not garbage like high fructose corn syrup)

Good stuff. As is blackstrap molasses, honey, and maple syrup.

Quoted message said:

and very high
saturated fatty acid content (and low unsaturated fatty acid content)
has been great for me, plus the evidence demonstrates that oxidative
stress is the key to "chronic disease," not highly saturated fats

like

Quoted message said:

coconut oil (Sri Lankans and others have just about no chronic

disease

Quoted message said:

until they switch from coconut to the highly unsaturated oils in the
Western diet). This is even true of heart disease, where oxidized
cholsterol (called oxysterols) causes a chronic inflammation in the
interstitial spaces in the arteries. Saturated fatty acids don't
oxidized cholesterol, whereas polyunsaturates do, especially when
plenty of iron is present.

I don't have a problem with coconut oil either (in moderation), as long
as it's in its natural form and not hydrogenated.

Quoted message said:

I ate a diet of legumes, whole grains, nuts, and seeds for years, and
it caused stomach discomfort, but I didn't think much of it, since
everyone else I knew had worse problems.

That's odd. I've been eating all this for 20 years and never a
problem.

Quoted message said:

Then I lost the ability to
digest food, and went from 130 pounds to about 98 in less than a

year.

And it was diagnosed as being caused by eating these natural foods in
their natural state? It wasn't maybe an allergic reaction from one of
them...?

Quoted message said:

Only by doing my own research (and I'm a professional researcher, so

it

Quoted message said:

was easy for me) did I learn about the nonsense that "health gurus"

are

Quoted message said:

preaching these days.

I've been reading on nutrition for 20 years, and dispite what the
latest fad diets say, it all comes back to eating natural foods in
their natural state, variety, and moderation in everything. Follow
those three simple rules and I think anyone will be just fine.

Following these three rules has worked for me. Here's my proof:

Physically I was never genetically gifted, just average build and
height. Never great at sports. And I was junk-food junky growing up.
By the time I was twenty years old, I had borderline hypertension and I
had had severe liver damage... you could say I was pretty much a wreck
physically. Then I started trying to turn things around. I started
working out a little and eating better, made some progress but it was
tough going. Then I read a book by David Reuban called "Everything You
Always Wanted To Know About Nutrition." I incorporated much of what he
said into my diet (and I continued reading everything I could from
other sources.) After I made the dietary change to natural foods,
working out was SO much easier. My energy level increased
dramatically.

I worked out a lot through my twentys, but in my thirties I got away
from it to spend more time with my kids/family (and because I tore up a
knee). I just got back into the gym in early 2002. I worked hard to
rehabilitate my knee, and by late '03 I was finally (after 10 years)
able to run again without any pain or discomfort. By January '04, I
was running a mile and a half in 10 minutes flat. Last March I
completed a half marathon, without really training to do one (never ran
more than 6 miles at a time before) and I ran it in 1 hour 48 minutes.
Later in the year I ran a grueling (in hot weather) 4.4 mile run with a
7:13 pace. Now this week my mile and half pace is a 9:39, and I don't
run much... maybe a couple times a week, maybe. I'm coming up on my 42
birthday, I'm 5' 9", 170 pounds, my waistline is less than 31 inches,
and my resting heart rate is in the 30s. On top of this, when I'm with
my kids, who are now 20 and 18 years old, people always ask if I'm
their brother or my daughter's boyfriend. I think the natural diet is
working for me.

Patrick

Where is this oxidized cholesterol coming from?

Zee

A couple good nutrition sites:

Harvard School of Public Health
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/

Berkeley Wellness Letter
http://www.berkeleywellness.com/html/fw/fwNut03Carbs.html

Zee

Quoted message said:

Combining foods with reasonable sugar content (I use Rapadura organic
sugar, not garbage like high fructose corn syrup) and very high
saturated fatty acid content (and low unsaturated fatty acid content)
has been great for me, plus the evidence demonstrates that oxidative
stress is the key to "chronic disease," not highly saturated fats like
coconut oil (Sri Lankans and others have just about no chronic disease
until they switch from coconut to the highly unsaturated oils in the
Western diet).

How about "essential fatty acids"?
Your body surely didn't start to build membrane proteins and
prostaglandins/leukotrienes out of saturated fats.

Quoted message said:

everyone else I knew had worse problems. Then I lost the ability to
digest food, and went from 130 pounds to about 98 in less than a year.

If this effect is caused by eating legumes, whole grains, seeds etc. why
doesn't everyone get those symptoms who eats them?
What was the medical explanation for you loosing your "ability to digest
food"?
(I mean.. lack of proteases, lack of lipase, lack of bile acids, ..?)

Quoted message said:

Only by doing my own research (and I'm a professional researcher, so it
was easy for me) did I learn about the nonsense that "health gurus" are
preaching these days.

What was your source of information - studies, reviews maybe, textbooks -
when you made your research? .. Not some kind of pseudo-science
nutritheology books I hope.

simple sugars (which means either one or two sugar molecules connected) in
foods are mostly plain "sugar" ("sucrose", "saccharose". a dimer of glucose
and fructose).

other more common simple sugars in food are:
lactose (in milk, a dimer of galactose and glucose)
maltose (in refined products sometimes, a dimer of two glucose molecules)
fructose (in fruits and a monosugar used instead of "sucrose" in sweetened
foods)
glucose (in some drinks; "bloodsugar" is glucose)

Paul Kossa said:

I know "simple sugars" are not the best carbos to eat. Thing is, I'm
no nutritional scientist, so just how in the heck am I supposed to
know if the carbs in a particular food are "simple" or "complex?!"

(I

Quoted message said:

notice on the food labels for carbs, they have "fiber," "other

carbs,"

Quoted message said:

and "sugars." Am I right in assuming that "sugars" is a reference to
the simple carbs . . . or is there something else I should be looking
for?)

Technically speaking, sugars are simple carbs and starches are complex
carbs. The difference being that simple carbs are comprised of single
separate molecules while complex carbs are strings of simple molecules
hooked together to form a long chain of connected molecules. Both are
high glyceamic. Both will raise your blood glucose levels beyond what
is considered normal.

When you are told to eat complex carbs it is because some egghead
figures that your system has to break down the starches to its simple
molecules first so it is implied that it will take longer to digest
complex carbs than it will to breakdown simple sugars. This is
nonsense, some complex carbs have a higher impact on blood glucose
levels than simple sugars.

Neither of these terms are directly applicable to the good carbs like
good whole food fruits and vegetables. Fruits and veggies are not
entirely made up of simple or complex carbs. Some may contain simple
sugars, some may contain complex starches, some may contain both. But
they all contain great nutrition like needed vitamins and minerals.
Sugars and starches contain little or no nutritional value.

The easiest way to aproach this is to avoid *added* carbs. Read the
labels for added sugars and starches and avoid any food that contains
them. That is difficult to do because, chances are that if the food has
a label on it (ie. it is a maunfactured food), it will contain added
carbs or fillers or preservatives, etc.

The best bet is to just eat fresh food and produce. If you are reading
a label, chances are that there is a better option in a fresh whole
food. Instead of frozen chicken fingers, cook a fresh chicken. Instead
of a can of peas eat a fresh salad. The fresh whole foods are full of
nutrition. Once a food has been processed, manufactured and packaged it
has lost a lot of nutrition and gained a lot of added sugars and
starches.

TC

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jeff said:

Quoted message said:

And unless you have a medical
condition, _natural_ high glycemic foods are not going to harm you.

Quoted message said:

The natural high glycemic foods are high glycemic foods. They will

harm

Quoted message said:

you just as much as processed foods.

Quoted message said:

There is not special about natural.

Jeff,

There's a huge diffence between natural and unnatural. Man has been
living and thriving on natural foods since... well, the begining of
man. The introduction of unnatural foods is what has caused us
problems.

No, the introduction of so much food into our mouths and decreased physical
activity are two of the problems. Natural or not, the body turns food in fat
if you don't use it up. There is no evidence that what you call "natural" is
any better than what you would say is not natural.

Quoted message said:

Natural high glycemic foods like carrots and corn are not going to harm
you, unlike high-glycemic, high-fractose corn syrup.

Incorrect. Sugar is sugar. And "high-fractose" corn syrup is just an extract
of something natural.

Jeff

Quoted message said:

Patrick

"MMu" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Combining foods with reasonable sugar content (I use Rapadura organic
sugar, not garbage like high fructose corn syrup) and very high
saturated fatty acid content (and low unsaturated fatty acid content)
has been great for me, plus the evidence demonstrates that oxidative
stress is the key to "chronic disease," not highly saturated fats like
coconut oil (Sri Lankans and others have just about no chronic disease
until they switch from coconut to the highly unsaturated oils in the
Western diet).

How about "essential fatty acids"?
Your body surely didn't start to build membrane proteins and
prostaglandins/leukotrienes out of saturated fats.

While I can not speak for monty, I see this as an issue or proportions.
It Monty clearly believes that a higher proportion of fatty acids
can be saturated than commonly claimed. If one is going to
fry, coconut is a very reasonable choice. Understand I am
not big fan of prolonged frying with all the browning.
I hope he doesn't fry with butter. Butter in frying would
result in oxysterols, not good. It would fine of rice
or vegetable after they are done.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

everyone else I knew had worse problems. Then I lost the ability to
digest food, and went from 130 pounds to about 98 in less than a year.

If this effect is caused by eating legumes, whole grains, seeds etc. why
doesn't everyone get those symptoms who eats them?
What was the medical explanation for you loosing your "ability to digest
food"?
(I mean.. lack of proteases, lack of lipase, lack of bile acids, ..?)

Quoted message said:

Only by doing my own research (and I'm a professional researcher, so it
was easy for me) did I learn about the nonsense that "health gurus" are
preaching these days.

What was your source of information - studies, reviews maybe, textbooks -
when you made your research? .. Not some kind of pseudo-science
nutritheology books I hope.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

montygram wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

I've been reading on nutrition for 20 years, and dispite what the
latest fad diets say, it all comes back to eating natural foods in
their natural state, variety, and moderation in everything. Follow
those three simple rules and I think anyone will be just fine.

Following these three rules has worked for me. Here's my proof:

Physically I was never genetically gifted, just average build and
height. Never great at sports. And I was junk-food junky growing up.
By the time I was twenty years old, I had borderline hypertension and I
had had severe liver damage... you could say I was pretty much a wreck
physically. Then I started trying to turn things around. I started
working out a little and eating better, made some progress but it was
tough going. Then I read a book by David Reuban called "Everything You
Always Wanted To Know About Nutrition." I incorporated much of what he
said into my diet (and I continued reading everything I could from
other sources.) After I made the dietary change to natural foods,
working out was SO much easier. My energy level increased
dramatically.

I worked out a lot through my twentys, but in my thirties I got away
from it to spend more time with my kids/family (and because I tore up a
knee). I just got back into the gym in early 2002. I worked hard to
rehabilitate my knee, and by late '03 I was finally (after 10 years)
able to run again without any pain or discomfort. By January '04, I
was running a mile and a half in 10 minutes flat. Last March I
completed a half marathon, without really training to do one (never ran
more than 6 miles at a time before) and I ran it in 1 hour 48 minutes.
Later in the year I ran a grueling (in hot weather) 4.4 mile run with a
7:13 pace. Now this week my mile and half pace is a 9:39, and I don't
run much... maybe a couple times a week, maybe. I'm coming up on my 42
birthday, I'm 5' 9", 170 pounds, my waistline is less than 31 inches,
and my resting heart rate is in the 30s. On top of this, when I'm with
my kids, who are now 20 and 18 years old, people always ask if I'm
their brother or my daughter's boyfriend. I think the natural diet is
working for me.

Patrick

Congratulations! Everyone should have such a story. I'm just curious if
you take any antioxidants along with your natural diet?

René

MMu said:

Quoted message said:

Combining foods with reasonable sugar content (I use Rapadura

organic

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

sugar, not garbage like high fructose corn syrup) and very high
saturated fatty acid content (and low unsaturated fatty acid

content)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

has been great for me, plus the evidence demonstrates that

oxidative

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

stress is the key to "chronic disease," not highly saturated fats

like

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

coconut oil (Sri Lankans and others have just about no chronic

disease

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

until they switch from coconut to the highly unsaturated oils in

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Western diet).

How about "essential fatty acids"?
Your body surely didn't start to build membrane proteins and
prostaglandins/leukotrienes out of saturated fats.

Don't get him started on that. He doesn't believe in them. He appears
to have a unique physiology that doesn't need essential fatty acids and
is deranged by complex carbohydrates.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

everyone else I knew had worse problems. Then I lost the ability

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

digest food, and went from 130 pounds to about 98 in less than a

year.

Quoted message said:

If this effect is caused by eating legumes, whole grains, seeds etc.

why

Quoted message said:

doesn't everyone get those symptoms who eats them?
What was the medical explanation for you loosing your "ability to

digest

Quoted message said:

food"?
(I mean.. lack of proteases, lack of lipase, lack of bile acids, ..?)

Quoted message said:

Only by doing my own research (and I'm a professional researcher,

so it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

was easy for me) did I learn about the nonsense that "health gurus"

are

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

preaching these days.

What was your source of information - studies, reviews maybe,

textbooks -

Quoted message said:

when you made your research? .. Not some kind of pseudo-science
nutritheology books I hope.

Pretty much. His ideas on fats and membranes are fringe at best and
he's shown he doesn't understand the basic biochemistry many times in
the past. His classic technique is to rail against modern textbooks and
then quote ancient textbooks to support his arguments. He particularly
likes demolishing old theories with his own, even those those old
theories had been superseded already anyway.

MattLB

TC said:

Sugars and starches contain little or no nutritional value.

This isn't entirely correct. Sugar in the form of Blackstrap molasses
and Maple syrup are nutritious, and starches in the form of potatoes
and whole grains are very nutritious.

Patrick

Jeff said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> And unless you have a medical condition, _natural_ high
> glycemic foods are not going to harm you.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The natural high glycemic foods are high glycemic foods. They
will harm you just as much as processed foods.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There is not special about natural.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There's a huge diffence between natural and unnatural. Man has
been living and thriving on natural foods since... well, the
begining of man. The introduction of unnatural foods is what has
caused us problems.

Quoted message said:

No, the introduction of so much food into our mouths and decreased
physical activity are two of the problems. Natural or not, the body
turns food in fat if you don't use it up.

This is true.

Quoted message said:

There is no evidence that what you call "natural" is any better
than what you would say is not natural.

Jeff, the fact is the butterballs you see are not eating natural foods.
You don't see them stocking their shopping carts with sweet potatoes,
oranges, Brazil nuts, plain non-fat yogurt, spinich, real maple syrup,
apricots, salmon steaks, Quinoa, green tea, kiwis, whole-wheat bread,
brocolli, black-eyed peas, almonds, brown rice or blackberries in their
simplest forms. Instead, what you'll see is them wheeling out of the
grocery store is the unnatural foods like soda, chips, ice cream,
prepacked dinners, hot dogs, fruit punch/drinks, candy bars,
sugar-based breakfast "cereals", and fruit chews.

Now don't you agree my "natural" foods are better than unnatural? And
that these folks would lose weight with just the simple introduction of
natural foods into their diets?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Natural high glycemic foods like carrots and corn are not going
to harm you, unlike high-glycemic, high-fractose corn syrup.

Quoted message said:

Incorrect. Sugar is sugar.

You're mistaken. Carrots are not sugar they're carrots, and peas are
not sugar they're peas. Both carrots and peas are very good for you.
And no one should stop eating either of them because they're
"high-glycemic."

Quoted message said:

And "high-fractose" corn syrup is just an extract of something
natural.

And used in many unnatural foods to make them palatable... no thanks,
I'll pass...

Patrick

What makes non-fat yogurt or whole wheat bread any more natural than ice
cream or chocolate bars for that matter? These are the most processed, man
intervened, products consumed today.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jeff, the fact is the butterballs you see are not eating natural foods.
You don't see them stocking their shopping carts with sweet potatoes,
oranges, Brazil nuts, plain non-fat yogurt, spinich, real maple syrup,
apricots, salmon steaks, Quinoa, green tea, kiwis, whole-wheat bread,
brocolli, black-eyed peas, almonds, brown rice or blackberries in their
simplest forms. Instead, what you'll see is them wheeling out of the
grocery store is the unnatural foods like soda, chips, ice cream,
prepacked dinners, hot dogs, fruit punch/drinks, candy bars,
sugar-based breakfast "cereals", and fruit chews.

Quoted message said:

Patrick