Peter Rouse wrote:
Peter Rouse wrote:
It is natural. We evolved that way. Being attracted to sweet tastes is as old as taste buds. Honestly, try reading some science before you pretend to know everything.
"Sweetness" is like any other taste - the body tries to desire what it needs. If you're blood sugar is low, yea you might want sweeter things, just like craving salt or anything else. Where it goes wrong is when you chronically shove something unnatural into the system.
If it wasn't, we would not exist to be talking about it. Animals who did not try to eat every calorie dense thing they could get a hold of were less likely to reproduce. It's natural selection. It's not like animals millions of years ago could go down to Whole Foods and buy food whenever they felt like it. It was slim pickings. You got your energy or you died and that was that. Try "The Selfish Gene" and "The Greatest Show on Earth", 2 excellent books on evolutionary biology by Richard Dawkins. Honestly you are in serious need of a proper education. Seriously try doing some reading. You can make up for a lot with a few good books.
Again, no, there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. Your statement doesn't even make any sense. Fat is more calorie dense than sugar anyway.
It makes sense for sugar to not make you feel full, though, which I think maybe is what you were trying to get at. Since fruit is rare and spoils rapidly, best to eat it when you can, as much as you can.
It is your post that doesn't make any sense. I really don't understand what you are even arguing, as before you said it wasn't natural to desire sweetness, but then advocate here in this post. Are you still arguing that pre-civilization, humans didn't take advantage of all available calories they could? (minus grains and dairy obviously). And guess what- there's an entire field of study contrary to your position (it's called biology). Fat is more calorie dense than sugar, true, so by that logic, humans should only be eating the fattest meats then right? Well...I guess fish and chicken wouldn't qualify then. Oh wait...we have this uncanny ability to adapt to our environments, and realized that in order to survive pre-civilization eras, we had to make use of whatever resources we had. And as humans we noticed these delicious tasting, often brightly colored, things hanging off trees and bushes that we might not have been able to survive on, but they sure were enjoyable to put in our mouths. That is when our diets became optimal, not living entirely off animal flesh.
You know nothing of the evolutionary process of humans. For one it talks approximately 100,000 years to alter the human genome by 0.01% (not taking into account epigenetics).
I wonder how the eskimo managed to survive then? Or the Masai, or the many native tribes around the world.
Hahahaha. What does your percentage of time to alter human genetics have to do with anything? Oh my god this is simply silly. Take the population of the world that's in environments without vegetation, and then take the population of the world that's in environments with vegetation (and account for the fact humans evolved IN TROPICAL CLIMATES), and enough is said. I do CLEARLY admit that humans can survive on a incredibly low to no carb diet, but am pointing out IT ISN'T OPTIMAL.
I didn't realize Africa was considered tropical...
It's not optimal? Let's look at one study of Eskimos over a 42 year period on native diet - in 42 years 1 case of CHD.... 1 single case. Do you have any idea of the rate in the US alone?
This depends on the individuals biochemistry - that had developed over 100,000's of years.
Take a look at the book "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" - based on a study of native diets at the beginning of last century.
Fuel wise animal meat was always the prime choice - this is a scientific fact - all you have to do is look at the systems of the human body and they are designed as a meat eater. How primates are vegetarian? So why are humans any different.
Only in times of limited meat did humans look at surviving on other sources - and this was not optimal for human health. How many vegans do you know of that live past 100. Every single one of these people have eaten meat during their lifetimes.
By the way no one was talking about low carb. We were discussing need for sweet taste - tribes that also include some root vegetables into their diets may in fact do better on a slightly higher carb intake due to the adaption of their oxidative systems through the krebs cycle. You also must take into account their autonomic nervous system dominance.
If you want I can break this down far deeper if you like. I have advanced degree in biochemistry and Ph.D in physiology - I have been researching this stuff half my life.
I do want this broken down further because at this moment, I do not believe that your arguments are Ph D worthy. This certainly makes more sense than some of your previous posts, but here's my criticisms-
Ok, look up what Africa was like when humans evolved from it. It was tropical.
One case study, in which you do not even provide in your post, as complete and absolute truth that it is optimal? Does this study even take into account variables such as that they might not have lived as long to not see the diseases we are afflicted with in modern society, that primarily come with age? Oh and speaking of that...using modern US diet as a reference point is not what I am advocating. I am arguing more a paleo type diet.
Once again, I am not arguing for veganism or vegetarianism, simply a sweet craving is the result of our and our evolved ancestors desire for fruit cosumption, and that it is optimal to eat fruits and veggies.
Oh, and you would argue that these sweet tastes could come from an animal source? If you are arguing against sweet tastes, and the argument of eating nothing sweet, then you are arguing low carb, because many fruits and veggies that we consume now that we don't consider sweet our caveman like ancestors would, simply because they weren't exposed to sugar as much as we are and haven't become as desensitized (spelling) to it as we have. And fruits that you are arguing against are just as, if not more nutrient dense than most root vegetables.