All the information on carbohydrate can be found, or referred to, in Gary Taubes' book, Good Calories Bad Calories. Basically, it's a research paper collating the last 150 years of nutritional science. It can be summed up in one sentence:

Carbohydrate drives insulin drives fat accumulation.

This is not true, there is 0% obesity in rural china, where the diet averages less than one chicken nugget work of meat a day.

Since I am currently traveling to an overseas university in a non-English speaking country, where I have no way of getting that book, why don't you cite some of the research he includes in the book.

It seems rather contradictory that you would choose to use a more detailed classification system for fats but not know that carbohydrate is what causes obesity. If you know Ancel Keys and the lipid hypothesis, then you know where the idea that "olive oil is good, animal fat is bad" comes from.

Caloric restriction has the same effect as carbohydrate restriction. By cutting calories, we invariably cut carbohydrate. Anyway, I don't believe in this zero rate of obesity in rural China. They suffer the same diseases of civilization we do, just less so. If they suffer those diseases, obesity is inevitably one of them.

I should have been more specific. Saturated fat from animals fed grains seems to be unhealthy, saturated fat from animals grazed seems to be healthy. So I don't think it is fat coming from animals or vegetables that makes it healthy. Ia m not saying there is no classification system, I am just saying that one doesn't seem to work given the saturated fat is associated with heart disease in the U.S., but not in France. I am not suggesting that "olive oil is good, animal fat is bad."

I won't quote the book, it contains over 100 pages of bibliography. But I'll point you to this forum for a chapter by chapter summary:
http://forum.zeroinginonhealth.com/...play.php?fid=11
Posts that start with "GCBC chapter xx".

I have zero known allergies, no breathing issues whatsoever. And I believe I have sensitivities to all grains. And again, I have a very high fat diet, which means I am absorbing more of my vitamins from my food sources. Since I eat at least one avocado a day, and several eggs, I do get quite a bit of vitamin e. Plus the coconut oil does reduce the actual need for it (though of course, it's still needed).

The thing is, I break out when I get my period. This is common for women, and generally is hormonal in nature.

Again, I think being low fat really interferes with our body's abilities to absorb nutrients from our food. I think that wheat further leeches nutrients. And people who are eating traditional diets (with exceptions where they deliberately fatten) generally are fit and healthy. Some of those diets include natural grains, some don't.

But this refined diet we've been on has definitely ruined many people's metabolism and created sensitivities that people who have not been exposed to of course won't have.

There's little difference between the fat from a grain fed animal and the fat from a grass fed animal. The main difference is in the quantity of fat.

But "olive oil is good, animal fat is bad" is precisely what it's all about. Our perception of what's good and what's bad influences our consumption of these products. For example, red meat is associated with colon cancer and all kinds of diseases. We've been saying that red meat is bad for over 30 years because of its high saturated fat content. Thus, those who are careful about their health don't eat it or eat little red meat. And those who don't care eat more red meat.

The reality is that those who care about their health do a thousand other things that are actually good for them thereby overcoming whatever benefit they might have lost by avoiding red meat. And those who don't care smoke, drink, work in toxic environments, etc and overcome whatever benefit they might derive from eating red meat. After 30 years, we do a study and look at how much red meat people eat. Surprise, we find that those who eat less red meat are healthier than those who eat more red meat.

Self fulfilling prophecy. Our perception of whatever we consume influences our consumption.

Indeed, we now view sugar as "not so bad and probably not as bad as red meat". Thus, we eat a whole lot more of it now that ever before.

Vitamin E has also been shown to help with PMS symptoms, link bellow. The vitamin E content of eggs is much lower that it was when animals were fed grains. We are all eating much less vitamin E than our ancestors did. What you listed would not provide a sufficient amount. Remember, feeding animals commercial grains cuts vitamin E content by over 75%.

I agree with you that a refined diet is responsible for sensitivities. Dr. William Rea, who wrote a 4,000 page four volume work on chemical sensitivity, found that nearly all of his 40,000 patients had vitamin deficiencies, higher levels of pesticides in their blood, and food sensitivities. He achieved nearly a 100% success rate in treating people who stayed with his program. It basically consistent of targeting supplementation, nutrient tailored organic food diets and chemical avoidance. You can read most of his books at books.google.com. These people had much worse food sensitivities that I assume you do, and they recovered when they stuck to his program. You can also google his clinic, I think he has the largest practice for the treatment of chemical injuries in the U.S.

I don't think our problem is insufficient fat, fat consumption has increased significantly since 1900. They type of fat, and the nutrient quantity of the fats are not the same. We are eating much fewer nutrients, and we are using them to deal with more toxins.


Vitamin E Helps PMS:
http://www.project-aware.org/Managing/Alt/pms.shtml

Quoted for truth.

If a person has a low tolerance for reading, I'd suggest reading only the first chapter of Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories. It's titled "The Eisenhower Paradox". You'll get all the info you need on how the above situation developed.

No, not even 1900 Americans got the majority of their calories from grains or fruits and vegetables.

thank you Mary, I'll be sending that link on to a few people

the Bad carbs that cause weight gain are indeed grains, but also refined sugars. Not having read your book, I don't know how you treat the subject of sugars. You should be aware however that concurrently with the advent of cheap and affordable refined flours in the mid 1800s, was also the suddenly available and affordable table sugar which became prevalent in the common man's diet. Suddenly poor people could become as fat as the rich had previously --and so they did.

And to add a cherry on the cake so to speak--now the 20th century saw the rise of HFCS to replace table sugars in processed foods. HFCS is even more glycemic than sucrose. Surprise--it made us even fatter than sucrose when we all ate the HFCS supplemented diets of the 1990s.

It is hard to separate the evils of refined grains from refined sugars, as their prevalence in the American diet both rose together. It baffles me that you have left out the sugar side of the equation so to speak.

Very well said - and I agree!

Good point - low-fat diets hamper our ability to absorb nutrients.

In 1909, Americans got the majority of their calories from carbohydrates. This is based on United States Agriculture Department Data. See page 3, table 1, of the Article Nutrition in the United States, 1900 to 1974 (link bellow). Of course, not all of those calories were from grains, these were about 40% of our calories at the time. In 1909, grain consumption was falling, it fell to about half the 1909 rate and stayed there until about the 1980s, when it started to rise. However, as of 1996, per capita consumption of grains was 100 pounds per person per years lower than in 1909. (see USDA factbook, link bellow, second to last table). During the period obesity exploded in the U.S.grain consumption declined, and meat and fat consumption rose.

When people talk about increased consumption of grains, they mean since the 1970s, since the 1910s and 1860s, grain consumption has fallen. In the longer term, grain consumption has fallen. Do you dispute the USDA data?

Nutrition in the United States, 1900 to 1974:
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/c...Part_2/3246.pdf

USDA Agriculture Factbook, 1998:
http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/fbook98/ch1a.htm