We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
For better or worse we have had a massive experiment in the U.S. for the last 70 years or so (and to a lesser extent all of the 1st world as well). We have food abundance, good health, growing longevity and the freedom to eat poorly or healthy. Is there a epidemic of diabetes as is often claimed? No in fact the rate of diabetes has remained unchanged. We do have better tests to identify it so more diabetics are identified earlier in life. And we do have greater populations of certain minorities whose diabetes rate is double of more of what European descendants is. But the rate has remained the same and this in spite of food abundance and over-consumption of carbs.
But there is an obesity epidemic we are told and this must be because of carbs. But we all eat the same food and yet we aren't all obese. How could that be? Carbs cause obesity the pundits say and yet there are thin people all around us. In fact most of us aren't obese and most of use eat "too many carbs". So that can't be the cause. But it is also true that again there are minority groups with twice the obesity rate of people of European decent and conveniently these minority groups percentage of the population is dramatically increasing. So is it the carbs or genetics?
Perhaps it's genetics. It certainly seems to be true that obese people tend to have obese relatives and certain ethnicites tend to be more obese then others. Then there is the abundant food. It is certainly obvious that someone who is genetically predisposed to be 50 lbs overweight can achieve that goal if there is abundant food. It seems to me that the primary and probably only cause of obesity is genetic.
The body converts carbohydrates to glucose. The body then burns glucose. Complex carbohydrates serve the body best and if found in nature, have the added benefit of delivering nutrients not found in the typical processed diet.
The body can run on fat but only as the inefficient energy storage it so obviously is: The body stores energy as fat against periods of insufficient carbohydrate and nutritional intake.
What Bliss keeps mistakenly promoting is a starvation diet rich in animal fats and random, typically processed sugars, in the presence of which carbohydrates - especially processed simple carbs - do indeed go to the waistline.
What Bliss misses is that this strategy is unhealthy, as any rational analysis shows. Bliss avoids such an analysis by confining the study, such as it is, to the narrow range of carbohydrates within an already wrongly normalized Western diet.
It should be clear that removing this artificial condition shows that fat-less, sugar-less diets rich in natural, live nutrition exhibit markedly different results. There carbohydrates have none of the disadvantages Bliss likes to claim they do.
The vegan can load as much bulk carbohydrate intake as he or she wishes. It's the fat in such a diet that alters the body's response to it.
Bliss champions an unhealthy, quasi-starvation diet that overreacts to the natural hunger of dietary insufficiencies by loading foods rich in appetite control. Fat and sugar are primary suppressors but as primaries they run exactly counter to the healthful - and naturally weight-controlled - diet. Consume them and then watch the carbs wreck your bathroom scale. Nobody ever cited studies of the cancer-fighting properties of bacon and eggs, pizza, and French vanilla ice cream, but we have well documented the cancer-fighting properties of curcumin, resveritrol, watercress, kale, spinach, radicchio, and so on.
It's rather remarkable to find a blogger first champion the reductionist humanism that favors ancient, even primitive instincts in man - man does not love so much as man ruts and reproduces in a rote, survival-driven society - and then advocate for the manufactured diet of refined, unbalanced, low-nutrition foods associated with sophisticated modern cultures.
Rather, the same mind in mind that has him typically ascribing to hundreds of higher purposes, principles, ideals, planes, and spiritual ascendencies should be sufficient by now for him to reason out what constitutes a healthful diet.
America in 2014 is not that diet. Anti-carb dogma is just that.