Red Wine Scam?

"Roger Rabbit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Laurie said:

So, you are willfully ignoring the fact that we are frugivorous,
tropical apes, and are making believe, due to your cultural conditioning
that you never examined, that our species is 'omnivorous', and that
cooking
is somehow beneficial??

Frugivorous, tropical apes? I'll be sure to pass on your message to
our native Inuit people next time I'm north of 60°. ;o)

What we ARE (at the genetic/biocheical level) and what we DO (at the
cultural level) are quite different. Simple concept. Missed it??

Laurie

"Roger Rabbit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You're not one of those wacked out raw foodists by any chance? Please
say you aren't!

Let's see, ALL species of life on this planet, including ours, EVOLVED
on a raw diet, and humans are the only species that self-generates
"degenerative diseases" and significantly shortened life spans by consuming
cultural diets.
Are you foolishly claming that Nature is wrong, and has been for
hundreds of millions of years??

Laurie

Laurie said:

"Roger Rabbit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You're not one of those wacked out raw foodists by any chance? Please
say you aren't!

Let's see, ALL species of life on this planet, including ours, EVOLVED
on a raw diet, and humans are the only species that self-generates
"degenerative diseases" and significantly shortened life spans by consuming
cultural diets.
Are you foolishly claming that Nature is wrong, and has been for
hundreds of millions of years??

Humans are part of nature. Humans learned how to harness fire and how to
cook. Humans figured out how grow the variety of foods available to them
and over time we see those changes reflected in the evolution of [censored].
What isn't natural in that?

Vegetarian are we? ;o)

Laurie said:

"Roger Rabbit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Laurie said:

So, you are willfully ignoring the fact that we are frugivorous,
tropical apes, and are making believe, due to your cultural conditioning
that you never examined, that our species is 'omnivorous', and that
cooking
is somehow beneficial??

Frugivorous, tropical apes? I'll be sure to pass on your message to
our native Inuit people next time I'm north of 60°. ;o)

What we ARE (at the genetic/biocheical level) and what we DO (at the
cultural level) are quite different. Simple concept. Missed it??

Laurie

I was right! You ARE a vegetarian raw foodist!!! Tell me what I win!
:oD

Laurie said:

"Roger Rabbit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You're not one of those wacked out raw foodists by any chance? Please
say you aren't!

Let's see, ALL species of life on this planet, including ours, EVOLVED
on a raw diet, and humans are the only species that self-generates
"degenerative diseases" and significantly shortened life spans by consuming
cultural diets.
Are you foolishly claming that Nature is wrong, and has been for
hundreds of millions of years??

Laurie

No arguments from me Greg. Its as natural as chimpanzees discovering
that they could use twigs and sticks to extract termites from their
nests for consumption, I'd say. ;o)

Unfortunately Laurie thinks these poor chimps are fighting against
nature. Isn't it sad when your eating pattern becomes a religion? :o(

greg said:

Laurie said:

"Roger Rabbit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You're not one of those wacked out raw foodists by any chance? Please
say you aren't!

Let's see, ALL species of life on this planet, including ours, EVOLVED
on a raw diet, and humans are the only species that self-generates
"degenerative diseases" and significantly shortened life spans by consuming
cultural diets.
Are you foolishly claming that Nature is wrong, and has been for
hundreds of millions of years??

Humans are part of nature. Humans learned how to harness fire and how to
cook. Humans figured out how grow the variety of foods available to them
and over time we see those changes reflected in the evolution of [censored].
What isn't natural in that?

I think Laurie is confused. I'm sure she meant those little lemur-like
mammals that lived about 50 million years ago. They were frugivores I
believe. Or were they insectivores??? Damn, could she be wrong on all
counts? Did I mention she is a raw foodist vegetarian? :o.

TC said:

You will have to somehow convince us that there exists even a shred of
scientific evidence of man's supposed frugivorous nature. Good luck
with that, you will need it.

Your statement that humans are frugivorous, by itself, completely
anihilates any intellectual integrity you may be pretending to possess.
It clearly shows your abject ignorance.

BTW, I have read a significant number of bio-chem texts and I strongly
recommend that you do so as well before you further embarass yourself.

TC

Laurie said:

"TC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I am not pretending to be an authority on the physiological effects

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

alcohol, ...

You said: "Now I am *sure* that a bit of alcohol in one form or

another

Quoted message said:

can have some small positive effect on our physiology and I am *sure*

that

Quoted message said:

wine may have some as well"
Is there any particular reason you avoided the issue and can not

support

Quoted message said:

your claims?? Isn't "sure" and "may have" rather contradictory??

Quoted message said:

If you can't find it, that, my dear, is your problem.

And, if you can not support your claims made in public, it is not

only

Quoted message said:

your personal problem, my dear, but everyone's. What if people

actually

Quoted message said:

believed your unsupportable claims?

Quoted message said:

Frugivorous!!!! Bwah Ha ha ha ha.....

Is this really the best scientifically-valid rebuttal you can

think of?

Quoted message said:

All education is self-education; try some.
Precisely the kind of idiotic, juvenile, evasive, non-response,

rather

Quoted message said:

common to cultural-omnivores who are totally unfamiliar with their

own

Quoted message said:

physiology.
http://www.ecologos.org/anatomy.htm
http://www.ecologos.org/omni.htm

But, why don't you prove that humans are carnivores, as you

imply, and

Quoted message said:

offer some scientifically-credible physiological/biochemical

support??

Quoted message said:

Because you can not!
Do you deny that you are a frugivorous, tropical ape??
Is not YOUR DNA 98+% identical to chimps? Or, are you really not

Quoted message said:

human??

Quoted message said:

I partake of [alcohol] often.

While you are writing these nonsensical posts, no doubt. Sober

up and

Quoted message said:

crack a biochem book<G>.

Quoted message said:

The trick is in not overdoing it.

Well, guess what, biochemistry occurs on a molecule-by-molecule

basis,

Quoted message said:

so there is no lower, "safe" limit for toxins, as you state, or for

toxic

Quoted message said:

pollutants, as the EPA fantasizes.

Quoted message said:

too damned funny.... and idiotic... and *you* propose to lecture

*us*.

Quoted message said:

I am not 'lecturing' to anyone, I present well-support arguments

and

Quoted message said:

data to those who sincerely ARE interested in human diet.
You, clearly, are neither sincere (except in denigrating yourself

with

Quoted message said:

juvenile personal insults) nor are you interested enough in human
physiology/biochemistry to learn enough to write a coherent, credible

Quoted message said:

article, nor can you present a logical critique or other concepts.

Laurie

Our taxonomy more closely resembles that of a dog. Our dentition
includes teeth that can tear meat, albeit not as efficiently as a 100%
carnivore, and flat grinding molars. Vegetarians like to practice
creative taxonomy to suit their agenda. Its sad when ones diet becomes
a religion. :o(

greg said:

TC said:

You will have to somehow convince us that there exists even a shred of
scientific evidence of man's supposed frugivorous nature. Good luck
with that, you will need it.

There is a shred. We see it in the evolution of our teeth. But we are
more than that as well. That's why dentists are well employed.

Quoted message said:

Let's see, ALL species of life on this planet, including ours, EVOLVED
on a raw diet, and humans are the only species that self-generates
"degenerative diseases" and significantly shortened life spans by
consuming cultural diets.
Are you foolishly claming that Nature is wrong, and has been for
hundreds of millions of years??

compare the lifespan of a human with the lifespan of any other animal of
comparable size.
so much for shortened life spans.

and: who says we can't eat meat without cooking it first?

Quoted message said:

alcohool-wine? Why can't I just drink grape juice made from real
grapes (with Soda Water) and not concentrates and feel that I am
getting for myself the full advantage of the red grape/wine thing?

i can just answer one part of your question:
polyphenols (antioxidants found in wine) are also found in grapes, so eating
the grapes instead of drinking the wine should have roughly the same effect
concerning that.
however: one glass of wine is made up from quite a lot of grapes.. in the
end this will probably not be a diet anyone could follow through, and that
is probably also the reason why they talk about the red wine and not about
the grapes themselves every so often.

besides, of course, that finding fruit is good for your health is less
spectatcular than finding something supposedly bad (or bad actually,
depending on the ammount) is good for you.

MMu said:

Quoted message said:

Let's see, ALL species of life on this planet, including ours,

EVOLVED

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

on a raw diet, and humans are the only species that self-generates
"degenerative diseases" and significantly shortened life spans by
consuming cultural diets.
Are you foolishly claming that Nature is wrong, and has been for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

hundreds of millions of years??

compare the lifespan of a human with the lifespan of any other animal

of

Quoted message said:

comparable size.
so much for shortened life spans.

and: who says we can't eat meat without cooking it first?

Very good points.

Somehow these crackpots believe that raw-foodism equates to frugivism
and vice versa to the complete exclusion of any animal products. But
they conveniently ignore the Inuit and the Eskimos who ate primarily
raw animal-source foods, with no fuits or vegetables whatsoever, and
were one of the healthiest groups of people in the world. They were
virtually free of modern disease until they started eating a modern
diet which included the introduction of fruits and vegetables to their
diets. Now they are fast on their way towards being as obese and as
disease-ridden as the rest of the modern world.

My main point is that they were extremely healthy with little or no
fruits or vegetables in their diets. Their diets were primarily fats
and proteins and they were pretty much disease free.

Anyone who suggests that the only healthy diet is an entirely
frugivorous diet is living in la-la land.

TC

TC said:

MMu said:

and: who says we can't eat meat without cooking it first?

Most people eat "raw" meat in one form or another, whether they
realize it or not. Beef jerky isnt' cooked, it's dried...

Quoted message said:

Very good points.

Somehow these crackpots believe that raw-foodism equates to frugivism
and vice versa to the complete exclusion of any animal products. But
they conveniently ignore the Inuit and the Eskimos who ate primarily
raw animal-source foods, with no fuits or vegetables whatsoever, and

Nice concept, but that just is *not* true. The traditional
Eskimo diet *always* included significant plant matter.

Quoted message said:

were one of the healthiest groups of people in the world. They were
virtually free of modern disease until they started eating a modern
diet

I will agree with that. They didn't suffer heart diseases, for
example. (Cold water fish and marine mammals are all very high
in Omega 3 fatty acids.)

Quoted message said:

which included the introduction of fruits and vegetables to their
diets.

That of course is not correct. First, a "modern diet" did not
introduce fruits or vegetables, but it certainly has increased
the variety. The amount has only changed slightly though, as
they still eat a higher percentage of meat that most other
people.

But the health problems stemming from diet can be attributed to
*processed* foods and sugar.

Quoted message said:

Now they are fast on their way towards being as obese and as
disease-ridden as the rest of the modern world.

My main point is that they were extremely healthy with little or no
fruits or vegetables in their diets. Their diets were primarily fats
and proteins and they were pretty much disease free.

Their diets were *primarily* fats and proteins, but in *no* way
was it exclusive of plants. They've *always* eaten a variety of
fruits and vegetables.

Quoted message said:

Anyone who suggests that the only healthy diet is an entirely
frugivorous diet is living in la-la land.

I'll agree to that.

--
FloydL. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) [email hidden]

MMu wrote:
::: alcohool-wine? Why can't I just drink grape juice made from real
::: grapes (with Soda Water) and not concentrates and feel that I am
::: getting for myself the full advantage of the red grape/wine thing?
::
:: i can just answer one part of your question:
:: polyphenols (antioxidants found in wine) are also found in grapes,
:: so eating the grapes instead of drinking the wine should have
:: roughly the same effect concerning that.
:: however: one glass of wine is made up from quite a lot of grapes..
:: in the end this will probably not be a diet anyone could follow
:: through, and that is probably also the reason why they talk about
:: the red wine and not about the grapes themselves every so often.
::
:: besides, of course, that finding fruit is good for your health is
:: less spectatcular than finding something supposedly bad (or bad
:: actually, depending on the ammount) is good for you.

I recall that there is an Italian study which found also non-alcoholic
red wine beneficial, so that is a good option for people who don't like
to drink alcoholic beverages. As MMu said grapes or grape juice are not
as good sources of phenolic compounds as wine is. I drink non-alcoholic
red wine now and then.

--
Juhana

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 10:30:16 -1000 in sci.med.nutrition, "Laurie"
<[email hidden]> wrote,

Quoted message said:

Strange, PubMed, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi
comes up empty on a search for [alcohol "positve effect on physiology"]

You have to learn how to noodle the search engine. "alcohol" might
possibly be an OK search term, but in medical literature "ethanol" or
"ETOH" is much more likely.

And "positve effect on physiology" is so general as to be completely
useless. Even if you spelled it "positive" so it would match real
words. How many different ways could that be phrased?

Try again.

TC said:

Anyone who suggests that the only healthy diet is an entirely
frugivorous diet is living in la-la land.

TC

That would be La-La-Laurie. ;o)

rr