Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="whatisitgoodfor" data-source="post: 1247415" data-attributes="member: 932">As seen in LightPhoenix's last post:That's pretty impressive. You actually EAT sulfa drugs, penicillin derivatives etc.I was referring to FOOD allergies, not other types of allergies. Food allergies typically come about due to over exposure, as opposed to other allergies which frequently are due to non-typical personal biochemistry.I'm not sure what the exact numbers are (they weren't published in the study I was looking at) but before we start arguing over what percent equates to a fad diet, I want to see what percentage of Americans ever actually managed to follow a low-fat diet. However, my personal feelings on it are that if 15% of people are following a major life change (which eliminating the basis of your diet would qualify for IMO) then it really isn't a fad anymore. Excuse for not getting into the chemical details. While those are the actual molecules that your body uses for energy, they are charged (converted from a low energy form to a high energy form) using blood sugar. So in essence, the amount of readily available energy can be approximated by the amount of free blood sugar.I'm also kind of curious as to why your bodily functions would care in any way how much energy was wasted in getting the blood sugar ready for glycolysis?While it is true that your body does waste a lot of energy in converting storage media (fat, glycogen, and to some extent protein) into glucose ready for glycolysis, this is simply the "Caloric Advantage" that Dr. Atkins refers to in his book. This is what allows a person on a low-carb diet to eat 2000 calories a day and lose weight faster than a person on a low-fat diet eating 1200 calories a day. (if you want the citation information for that information, I can get it to you, but I don't keep it at work.)Anyway, you are refering to blood borne carbohydrates, which your body does need. I was actually talking about dietary carbs, which your body most assuredly does not need. (I am conceding though, that I should have explicitly stated where I was refering to dietary and where to blood carbs.)The 10k years that have passed since humans have lived that lifestyle are pretty insignificant on an evolutionary time scale. Of course that 10k years only applies to people descended from Mesopetamians (sp?). Other cultures have even shorter time scales all the way to Native Americans who have only been living with agriculture on a large scale for less than 500 years. As to the species of bacteria living in our guts, they freqently change. Considering that babys are born without any significant cultures in their gut, I somehow doubt that it would be too much effort to obtain the correct pro-biotics in our guts. I'm not sure what "functional changes to facial muscular and skeletal structure<s>" you are referring to. The muscular and skeletal differences between races of humans today are as great as the differences in muscular and skeletal differences between humans today and humans 10k years ago. In short, there haven't been any significant biological changes to humans in the last 10k years. </s><s></s><s>BTW, you're right about the degree. I've still got about 18 hours left to go for my undergrad in BioE. (If you're actually curious, I'm doing research into bioelectrics.)</s></blockquote>

Verification