Originally Posted by mm84321
Chicken can be consumed raw.
Go for it then. I think this statement from you pretty much sums it all up. Please cancel your health insurance though, other people shouldn't have to pay for your stupidity.
Obviously, human digestive systems differ from that of dogs.
Then why look at legumes, or other food in general, in terms of its toxicity to "most mammals". I was pointing out the glaring flaw in your logic, or lack thereof. Good to know you still aren't catching on....
Just because they have provided the backbone of the human diet for thousands of years does not mean that they are inherently healthy.
I...don't even know where to begin with this...
Given that billions of people currently consume lentils on a mass scale, and have been doing so for a period of probably more than 10,000 years (your number), they would have been naturally selected to die out or show other weakness. Instead, they thrive (China, India), have long life expectancies (Japan), and are less obese than say, Americans. The bottomline is, the overwhelming bulk of evidence is against the complete bullshit you've been touting
On an evolutionary scale, thousands of years is a rather short period of time. The advent of agriculture, roughly 10,000 years ago, saw a huge shift in the human diet from mostly plants and vegetables to grains. This shift paralleled a reduction in average human life span as well as body and brain size, increases in infant mortality and infectious diseases, and the occurrence of previously unknown conditions such as osteoporosis, bone mineral disorders, and malnutrition.
Everything underlined is false. Life expectancy has increased, human brain size has in some cases increased, but largely stayed the same, body size has increased, and agriculture is responsible not only for increase nutrition, but the growth of civilization itself.
With advancement in modern medicine, we now can live long enough to enjoy atherosclerosis, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes. Humans have simply not yet adapted to this diet.
Modern medicine has expanded our knowledge of nutrition, why some foods are healthy and others are unhealthy, especially in superfluous quantities. This is independent of "agriculture" and diet shifts that occurred in the stone age, as grains for the last 9900 years consisted of nothing more than the ground products of plants and seeds--which you claim make people "healthy". You are making up stuff to validate some absurd theory you concocted that ignores or conflicts with all that knowledge modern medicine has provided in the last 60 years.
I don't believe carbohydrates are evil, as long as they are consumed with the accompanied fiber that nature paired them with
, and are not processed or refined.
You mean like the pairing of starch carbohydrates with dietary and insoluble fiber...found in lentils
? Seriously, you considering soaking something in water counts as being processed or refined? Do you avoid water as well, because you know, it's soaked in water? Again, some logic would be nice.
A lot of the information I am reiterating comes from Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies
, by Dr. Jared Diamond and Richard Manning's Against the Grain
I'm going to refer to HB on Guns, Germs, and Steel. As for Manning? The guy is a quack--making claims based off no evidence, just wild theory that lacks any remote scientific evidence. I do appreciate his nostalgia for the American Prairie, but its akin to seniors' nostalgia for the "good ole days"--based off dreams, not reality. He makes large, generalized claims without an ounce of scholarship, and if it wasn't for the current market of agricultural conglomeration feasting off of subsidies for crops that we don't need, he would have no audience to pedal his fantasies.
Because I offer a contrary opinion I am trolling?
No, because most of what you have said has been contrary to established consensus, you've offered no rational scientific explanation or background for any of your claims, and what argument you have provided is without any rational thought. These are the hallmarks of a fool or a troll. There is so much terrible "broscience" (great term, whoever coined it) here on the health section of these forums that it is honestly not worth the time or effort of people who do know better to try and expound the fraud and lies correctly. Normally, researchers lament when people read wikipedia or do a 1-page google search and skim through a couple of sites and claim to be an expert on something--but here, that would be a welcome thing judging from all the stupid. OKay, sorry to be a douche...you aren't stupid, but perhaps too gullible. I would suggest if you have interest, don't read a pop book on nutrition, but go into a college bookstore and buy a health and nutrition textbook there. A lot of the pop books sell because they make Dan Brown-ish claims, without a shred of evidence to support them, just because it will sell better.