The post you replied to is not correct. The fats you put on come from carbohydrates, and not necessarily from the fats you eat. If your blood sugar stays above a certain level, the body converts it to fat, and stores it as visceral fat -- hence the pot bellies seen in different kinds of pathological obesities.

Normally, complex carbohydrates are better than sugar, which is better than corn syrup. The reason is the time span over which the conversion to glucose and fructose occurs. Glucose and fructose is the form in which the body absorbs calories. Sucrose and complex carbohydrates cannot be absorbed by the body without being broken down into glucose and fructose.

The problem with corn syrup is that it is a glucose/fructose syrup, and has a very rapid absorption profile, and leads to very high peak blood sugar levels. High peak blood sugar levels lead to insulin resistence, and a poor metabolism of sugar. This leads to the excess sugar being converted by the body to stored fat.

So Pollan is right in saying that corn syrup is a major factor in early obesity, and in the currently occurring diabetes epidemic.

Small family farms account for most of the farms in the U.S. but produce a modest share of farm output. Average farm household income has been at or above the average for all U.S. households in recent years, with farm households receiving most of their income from off-farm sources (my emphasis).

I eat beef maybe once or twice a week, and that beef comes from the local ranchers' beef co-op, where the cattle are guaranteed to be raised only on natural grasses.

We do grow a large organic garden, so I'm mostly a vegetarian. Probably more so than most suburbanites.

It definitely isn't easy to make the switch away from processed goods due to the costs involved, I almost needed an adult diaper after handing over the loot for my bags of dried apricots, peaches and nuts. There was a time I'd sniff derisively at the sight of fat on a chop, now I deliberately select those very same cuts of meat and look forward to the assimilation process. Alas, without the formerly requisite mashed spuds.

Pus in the milk, flouride and chlorine in the water, trans fats, high fructose corn syrup...we're not men, we're a chemical imbalance.

The other thing that is clear is that the growth of cheap corn based foods is correlated with the increasing obesity in this country. Coincidence or causation?  You be the judge.

As a more general matter, you compare beliefs about food and nutrition with religious beliefs.  But what makes your own beliefs about food any less religious than those of Weston Price?

Well, I attempt to base my beliefs on science and logic.  But I was just trying to point out how emotional people are about food.  To answer your question more fully, the research I've read reveals that humans are biologically herbivores:  starch-digesting mouth enzymes, flat, wimpy teeth for grinding plants, long intestines and a not-that acidic stomach.  These are all key characteristics of herbivores.  We are genetically very close to primates, which are pretty well known to be herbivores (though chimps eat the occasional bug, and eat other chimps - but again, I'm talking biological, not practical).  Perhaps I am wrong but let me ask this: if we are omnivores, then why do diets high in meat and dairy cause such rampant disease?  All you have to do is study the history of heart disease to realize that meat and dairy are the main cause.  Basically, there are thousands of studies, i.e. it is well established nutritional science to say that meat and dairy increases the risk of cancer, diabetes, artery diseases, and on and on.      Frankly, disagreeing with the above statement is like rejecting evolution or gravity, IMO.  So where is the evidence of us being biologically omnivore?  What it tells me is that, clearly, either we are not omnivores, or we are the crappiest ones on the planet! :)  To address the hunter-gatherer proponents directly: sure, humans can eat meat, but our bodies are not designed specifically for it, as happens with true omnivores and carnivores.  Thus we cannot process that much animal products before our systems become overwhelmed.  For example, heart disease can be said to begin as soon as one starts eating meat and dairy - autopsies of young American soliders killed in battle showed that the build up of plaques were well begun, despite the young age of the fighting men (17-22?).  And that was in the 1940s or 50s - these men probably still ate a decent amount of vegetables, I would think.  Thus even on a supposedly "moderate" diet that included a some whole plant foods these guys had damage being wrought from their diet.  How could this be so if we are omnivores?  I must say, a pet peeve of mine is the "moderation" mantra that the government started.  Guess what? Moderation Kills.  The American Heart Association has a nice ol' moderation diet that still includes some meat and dairy - guess what studies show the results to be: people still get worse and die.  That's the poor state of government nutrition and "medicine", that patients follow the dietary protocol and are not healed.  Moderate smoking is unsafe, and so is moderate meat/dairy eating. The China study surprised even me with the results showing that there is no safe threshold when it comes to animal protein.  Even very small amounts of meat (amounts that would seem tiny here) significantly increased disease risk.  If we are biological omnivores, why is this so?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=331678&do pt=Abstract

Even so it's no longer really in our best interest to be a meat based society due to the energy inputs.  I do buy my cheese from a local dairy farmer who raises cows on hills not suitable for plowing.  This essentially converts solar energy via grass into useful food with essentially no fossil fuel input.  Others have reported eating locally grown grass-fed beef.  We should keep in mind that locally raised grass-fed beef or dairy will likely have less fossil fuel input per calorie than wheat shipped from Ohio to california.

Hard to say, was it my young age, all the physical activity, less food (I always thought carefully about the cost of my food purchases, I had to be careful) or that I'd not yet tipped the scales into insulin resistance, which is probably why I'm a bit overweight now? Almost all  Americans are to some degree insulin resistant, known as Syndrome X. That's why we have that characteristic American look, kind of well-padded and doughy.

It often takes more extreme measures to get the scales un-tipped, if you will. In fact, as Banting noted in his "human beans" observation, there are some foods you can eat while young, and won't be fattening, but if you eat 'em when you're older, they'll go right to your hips. This is like beans and horses, young horses can eat beans, but beans are not good for older horses - either makes 'em fat or gives 'em colic or both. And in the same way, a young active Chinese fellow may be able to eat bowls of rice and be fine, but the same fellow, older, may really put it on with the same diet - especially when you factor in that as we get older we're not generally working physical jobs and we can afford BEER. I sure ate my share of fish and rice or chicken and rice back in the day, but I was much more active, and this is an important point: it was a relatively small bowl of fish/chicken and rice. It would not be considered a meal these days, more of an appetizer.

I did my hour+ of exercise this morning, and even had my wildlife experience.  I didn't notice the swarm of bees on the back trail until they were bouncing off me.  I don't usually worry about that, having learned as a kid that swarms don't sting ... but I decided some time back that I should error on the side of caution, now that africanized bees have been caught north of me.  So I picked up the pace while trying to remember how many miles they'll follow you ;-).  They didn't, so either they weren't africanized or I was gone before they noticed.

eggs and 10-grain bread for breakfast and Vietnamese food (Bun) coming up for lunch ... fairly paleo and inexpensive.

When I was really little, I used to eat small baby leaves off of our avocado tree!

According to the paleodiet crowd, your still way to high. You need to eat foods that require no cooking at all, if you can handle raw meat and fish...

As I said before, I view the evidence as pointing towards our herbivorous roots.  But I have seen some interesting studies that hint that indeed, if animal products are eaten raw, chronic disease isn't caused.  Can't say the same about pathogens!  For example, it wasn't until milk began to be pasteurized that the related health problems seemed to occur.  I believe in South Africa there are some tribes who eat a curdled dairy product and don't have ill effects.  I guess I should say that nutritional science implicates cooked meat/dairy quite starkly, but I don't think the effects of eating raw animal products are understood well nor studied much - and for good reason IMO - we are biological herbivores who don't usually get excited over a freshly spliced open intestine such behavior is more in the realm of omnivores and carnivores!

which "China Study"... I do find it rather implausible the average Chinese office worker consumes more total calories than the average US office worker. But, on the other hand, I expect many of them still walk and cycle to the office rather than drive. At least compared to America.

Sorry I should have provided the link!  And yes, those are the results of the study, and the scientific credentials are solid too.  But the results don't get into the mainstream because it's bad for business.  

As they say on the site:

The New York Times has recognized the study (China-Oxford-Cornell Diet and Health Project) as the "Grand Prix of epidemiology" and the "most comprehensive large study ever undertaken of the relationship between diet and the risk of developing disease.

Ah, if only the Wall Street Journal had a positive review ;)

Some people are just completely wacko.....

;-)

The ability to digest cow's milk is rare in non Caucasians.

Working hypothesis is the long term practitioners of transhumance (drinking another animals milk among other things) are primarily Northern European and Mongolian.  the gene is dominant, so it spread to black slaves in the New World via interbreeding, whereas in Africa it is far less common.

When the US shipped milk powder to Bangladesh and Africa in the 60s, the rumour went round the Americans were trying to poison people.  Lactose intolerance is very common outside of Europe and North America.

Similarly the diet that Americans of European descent cheerfully consume (McDonalds, Pizza etc.) and do not grow fat, if consumed in moderation, causes the world's worst obesity problem in Micronesia.

The effect of that diet on even Hispanics with Indo-American blood is observedly quite devastating.

Similarly adult male Indians (from India) have an extraordinarily high incidence of diabetes.  Again the working hypothesis is that they have an inbuilt genetic ability to survive the recurrent famines (on average, about once every 7 years) in that part of the world. Their bodies 'hoard' calories, which means when they are exposed to too much food, they develop insulin resistance.

Canadian (white) military people living in Northern Canada amongst the Eskimos during WWII have been studied quite intensively.

The almost pure meat and fish diet led to very high levels of heart disease. The Eskimos amongst who they lived, had the same diet, but no elevated levels of heart disease.