I'm having a great amount of trouble talking myself back onto a low-carb diet. So I came here for some back up. Does somebody have my back???

Anyhow.... when it comes to major diet plans, I am familiar and have read (if not tried) most of them.

Alot of the argument for LC comes from an evolutionary viewpoint. Don't get me wrong, I'm a smart, educated woman, but I don't exactly believe in evolution. Let's just say I believe in intelligent design. I mean, I believe humans and other creatures have evolved, but I don't buy into the we all came from goo theory. I believe God designed us, put us here.

If you read biblical accounts, man ate everthing. Meat, fruits, vegetables, bread. Granted it wasn't the refined s**t that we call food today, but it was inclusive.

I was just reading the post about low-carb not being sustainable for the "world at large". And it's true. Scientifically speaking, producing meat depletes the earth and it's resources. Not to mention the horrors of pollution and the meat markets.

So I feel all in flux. Science vs. religion??? I have trouble reconciling the stuff in my head. I truly believe that we can choose a diet that will bless our bodies and the earth. But I know the diet that blesses my body (low-carb) doesn't bless the earth. And the diet that truly blesses the earth (vegetarian) does not bless my body. And although I know some of you do it, I have not been able to eat vegetarian low-carb.

This is long and windy. Any input?

Two words...food chain. The grass grows, the herbivores eat it, the carnivores and omnivores eat them. Granted, we have scewed the ratios somewhat, however I happen to believe human lives take a far greater toll on the natural world than cows.

I also happen to believe evolution and religion need not be incompatible.

Cori
I'm not going to debate evolution with you. But here's some food for thought. No, humans did not eat everything when they were first here. What you ate, what your diet was like depended on where you lived, i.e. Maoris--meat, milk and blood; Eskimos--meat and blubber; Amazon natives--meat and native foods. None of these were big fruit and veggie eaters and none had grain. In fact, grain is a very recent introduction and processed foods an invention of the late nineteenth century. So your reasoning is based on a fallacy.

Also, the vegetables you're thnking of as man's natural diet, a lot of them don't exist in other parts of the world and never did. The vegetables we eat today, for the most part, are very Western culture and new world. There was a study that the varied diet that earlier man ate has shrunk by about 60-70%. In this more varied diet man ate not only more naturally but according to the seasons and what foods were available. A bounty of foods and rich ones were available only on special days. During the middle ages, European man ate mostly meat and unprocessed grains and the grains were sparing.

So pick your spot and you will find that human's natural diet, in that spot, varied greatly from place to place and region to region. That's why I like the Metabolic Typing diet. It explains that humans are one of three metabolic types, carbo, protein and mixed. How well you do on any eating program or diet is determined by which type you are. It also illustrates what moving from their native diets, however spare and leaning toward protein or carbs, to the so called "healthy" diet of the industrial world does to these peoples' health.

I agree that agribusiness as it exists now is not sustainable. However there are other ways to have sustainable agriculture and meat production. It is a nice idealistic stance to take that we should all become vegetarians. However, as it would improve tremendously the health of those of us who are meant to eat that way, it would only deter the health of those who are not.

I am not Christian and therefore have no input as to whether we were "placed here" by someone. I am not even going to get into how many times the Bible was rewritten and translated and rewritten and translated, etc. (by men I might add). Who's to say what was actually in "the first edition?"

But I believe that we need to care for our mother (earth) and I try to buy only organic sustainable produce, dairy, eggs and meat. There is plenty available in my area and although it is a bit more expensive (at least the meat is) I feel like I am at least trying to do my part.

If I am correct, didn't Atkins say in NDR that if you can, try and buy organic meats anyway?

Hey Cori-

Actually in the Garden of Eden-God tells Adam and Eve they are to be stewards of the animals. Not to eat them willy nilly. In Deuteronomy, God specifically tells people not to eat pork. There are lots of conflicting eating messages in the Bible-depending on which quote you choose-that seem to support carnivore eating or vegetarian eating. I am not aure how you would reconcile all that.

I am a vegetarian low carber, but I don't have a problem with other people eating meat. I just choose not to do it. I would think that going free range, hormone free would be the best bet for both you and the earth, though. The more that we all buy those products, the cheaper they will become. Soy is another alternative that can replace meat in a meal even if you don't want to become a vegetarian.

As far as evolution is concerned-I am not going to get into a debate with you about that either-since human evolution is what I do for a living, obviously I accept it. I will say this though, science and religion do not have to be mutually exclusive. Actually, science has nothing whatsoever to say about God-he is an untestable hypothesis. We cannot measure him or take his blood or test him-so therefore he is beyond scientific knowledge. Science can only gather knowledge about the world at hand that we can feel and touch and test.

Cori,
you said;
>Scientifically speaking, producing meat depletes the earth and it's >resources. Not to mention the horrors of pollution and the meat >markets.

Even if this is true, it has to do with bad farming practices and not a reason why humans shouldn't be eating meat. The solution is to improve farming practices.

I have very little control over farming practices. I have every bit of control over what I put into my mouth.

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The xians I know see little or no distinction between God and God's word. They feel that to betray or doubt one is equivalent to betraying or doubting the other.

They would urge you to flee from any belief system that does not exalt the Word, regardless of how nice it was to God and neighbor.

"inspired" in the context you used can mean two very different things: 1) "Loosely based on an idea by", or 2), "Filled with divine spirit". You appear to support the former = a looser relationship of scripture to reality, one that would allow for any convenient interpretation needed. The other explanation is not yet "mainstream", but given the changing demographics of xianity, it soon will be: fundamentalism is growing at rapid rates while your more liberal school is wasting away.

As for Jewish thought on the bible...see this link.



Touting "love thy neighbor" while ignoring the rather unloving behavior of believers is the source of our anxiety over xian hypocrisy. Pat Robertson is leading an aptly-named "prayer offensive" to unseat SCOTUS Justices by calling disease down upon them. Just can't see that as loving, sorry. Even though I know such prayers are empty efforts god-wise, in the human world they might "inspire" zealots toward violent measures.

Thank you GotBeer, you are my hero!

I don't have to worship you, do I?

PS Have you read The DaVinci Code? Very very interesting theological discussions...

Gotbeer

>John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with >God, and the Word was God.

>The xians I know see little or no distinction between God and God's >word. They feel that to betray or doubt one is equivalent to betraying >or doubting the other.

Well fundamentalist Christians generally don't interpret the Bible according to the way credible Scripture Scholars do. Perhaps, you shouldn't paint with such a broad bursh.

The above verse, is the inspired word "about" God, not direct words from God. The inspired word is divinely inspired, so it is the true word of God in it's meaning and can only be interpreted through the people and events which they are part of, i.e., the above verse was speaking about Jesus, being the "Word." Jesus did in fact, became flesh and testified to his divine origin. "Before Abraham was, I AM."


>Touting "love thy neighbor" while ignoring the rather unloving behavior >of believers is the source of our anxiety over xian hypocrisy.

Unloving behavior of others down in past history, was not in my original post, it was pointed out as a means of attack, from what I can see. Hence, no point in debating it, the person has her own agenda she is following which open dialog isn't part of.

Of course there are those who did not follow the gospel as Jesus taught it. Jesus himself was condemned to death by those who were suppose to know the Scriptures and to be people of God. Does this make what Jesus and the rest of the Scriptures false?

If it does, then the Declaration of Independence is also false document, as well as the US Constitution, because some of the framers like Jefferson, owned slaves and the US Government has not always lived according to those documents.

However, we know the words of the Declaration of Independence are true. We also know the words of the Gospel are true, and despite the fact there are those who did not live by it. However, there were many who did, including people who lived in our own time, such as Mother Teresa.

You have a problem with fundamentalist Christians. Don't put me in the same box with them, we are different.

It is clear even though you are very educated, that you have no real understanding of spiritual things. The verse above is talking about Jesus.
The word in this context is Jesus. Below are a couple of verses that clarify.

1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word,
and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Rev 19:13 And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood:
and his name is called The Word of God.

And I have one more verse for you gotbeer:

Gal 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth,
that shall he also reap.

God bless,
happyhat

And eat.

While it's true that the Biblical accounts of diet did include fruits, grains, vegetables and meat it says nothing about the proportions in which those foods were eaten. Was it equal portions of each, heavy on the meat, heavy on the fruits and veggies or heavy on the grains? I'd also like to point out that the "Biblical" diet isn't necessarily a guarantee of good health. Obesity was not unknown even then (take Eli the priest, for example). When mummies from Egypt are examined from that time period, they found evidence of obesity and heart disease and those folks weren't exactly eating Twinkies and Ding Dongs, either. With the exception of grains that could be stored, the fruits and vegetables that were eaten were dependent on what was in season and on what you could grow yourself or afford.
What we do know is that even though all the food groups were eaten, those that ate them also lived a very strenous lifestyle. The average person worked hard from morning to night at physically demanding tasks. They walked pretty much everywhere they went unless you were wealthy enough to own a donkey. Today, most of us don't live those kinds of lifestyles, so it's difficult to apply that type of eating pattern to a culture that is much more sedentary. I could probably get away with eating a lot more carbs than I do if I were to get a job that involved heavy physical exertion for 10-12 hours a day and walked everywhere I went too.

IMHO, grain (with the exception of the Exodus)...was not the main food in the biblical diet. My belief is that fish dominated the biblical diet. In one passage god tells the people to eat bread in the morning and fish in the evening.

He is telling them to load up on carbs before they start working. But, he's also telling them to avoid carbs at night (when they are more likely to store them). The amount of bread they probably ate in the morning was probably burned off by Dinner time.

It is my opinion that grain was a one meal a day thing...not the 6-11 servings the USDA is trying to pass off on us. In addition, the fruits and vegetables found in that region (olives, etc...) of the world are very healthy and contain good fats. It is clear, at least in my mind that while the biblical diet was higher than Atkins in carbs, that is was still relatively high in fat and protein and low in carbs compared to the diet the USDA is pushing on us.

Glad to see everything has remained civil here. I sometimes feel bad that the diet which is so good for me relies on cows and pigs living short miserable lives. As a Christian, I believe that knowledge is part of the Fall of humanity - knowledge of good and evil, life and death. A cat or a wolf just eats, doesn't reflect. We do. Just this evening my sort-of-vegetarian wife was reading some item about how awful commercial meat farming is. We agreed that getting organic, free range stuff, bison, etc. would be so much more responsible. But hey, I'm already spending big bucks on my healhty lc lifestyle, so going to free-range stuff would be a still greater hit to the not very thick wallet. Also, don't forget that a huge area of land cannot raise grains and stuff but can raise beef ( or goats or bison) so the argument for ecological vegetarianism can be disputed.