Thanks for bringing up context and the optional as well. I’d kind of lost track of that argument, but that’s how I started the whole thread.

But I’m not. Sure, our bodies are “designed” to process foods that our ancestors hunted and gathered. So what? Given my diet, my body seems to be doing a pretty capable job of processing what I eat and drink. I only qualify it with “seems” because I can’t say that I know how my organs look but I am healthy, of normal weight (not overweight), and in decent condition. Could I be in perfect health if I worked out three times a week, drank only water, ate only meat and other health foods, studied nutrition, pored over food labels, maximized my vitamin intake, and slept eight hours a night? Definitely, but *my* quality of life would suffer in so many respects.

That’s the rub. It’s optional once you get past the basic needs of life. But you don’t seem to regard it as such and so you take *every* opportunity to correct anyone who doesn’t follow a low-carb diet and browbeat them with talk of “serious scientific literature” touting the benefits of your approach. I’m sure that there’s ample support for your position and I’d be just as certain that it exists for the exact opposite of your diet. Because being conscientious about moderation, variety, and exercise will get you awfully far in being healthy. In the prehistoric times and in the Third World, one needn’t be conscientious because the facts of reality force a confrontation. In the First World, though, immoderation is prevalent and that leads to obesity and its concomitant problems.

What I would like to know is, what is the evidence for the “diseases of civilization” theory. I have never seen anything but bald assertions on this issue. (This is an honest question, please let me know where I can look.) If what you are saying is true, I would say that that consitutes evidence for the benefits of a pre-modern diet (although not proof – but sometimes you don’t need full proof to act on something). I already agree with you about diabetes, and that the medical “industry” is negligent in its dismissal of how diet affects health. (I think that is a problem of not enough “generalists” in medicine).

But the idea that moderate amounts of these “bad” foods can cause big problems in most people goes counter to the sum of all my other knowledge, especially the resilience and adaptiveness of the human body. As it is stated in what might be the exaggerated literature that I’ve read, it does not make sense.

I think a lot of my quesions will be answered by GCBC, so I’ll pick that up for my next read.