Originally Posted by teaser
I don't eat low carb because my ancestors ate low carb. I eat low carb because, unlike the SAD, this diet doesn't seem to be making any obvious attacks on my health and well-being.
That seems fair. However even though that is not the reasoning behind your eating LC, it turns out that you are eating closer to how your ancestors ate than how the general population currently eats.
I may be fortunate in that I don't have any obvious conditions such as celiac. I am a bit older than you and can look back at my direct ancestors and see people who ate "normally" - meat with plenty of fat attached and eaten (and for that matter, gravy), some vegetables (but might see the salad I eat for lunch to be "excessive"), sweets in moderation (after Sunday dinner perhaps, but certainly not every day and not driving around in one's car). Pie crusts were definitely made from lard well into the 80s (probably till lard could no longer be found).
These family members were both thin (on my dad's side) and heavier (on my mom's side). From what I can remember, they all ate about the same. I would hazard a guess that my mom's side was genetically destined to be heavier. They were certainly no more gluttonous or sloth-like than members of my dad's side.
Perhaps you object to Nina Teicholz's phrasing - I think she is simply trying to summon up a general way of eating that those not as obsessed with food/nutrition as people who while away their days on this board can understand. Perhaps she is paraphrasing Michael Pollan who has been showered with acclaim for his idea of eating food your grandmother would recognize (though MY grandmothers would NOT recognize the idea of eating mostly plants). In my mind, she is leading us to eat the REAL way our grandmothers/great-grandmothers ate: 3 square meals a day, each with plenty of protein and fat, and limited carbs. No soft drinks. No vegetable oils (admittedly that goes further back than MY grandmothers). Limited refined sugars. No endless snacking.
This book is not perfect. Even I, a more casual and optimistic reader of it, found some factual errors. But nothing that negates her entire message. In her acknowledgements, she mentions Gary Taubes as one of the people that read part or all of her manuscript before publication. If he can live with her "plagiarism" then so can I.