Someone who reads this newsgroup sent me a link to a study, which
containted the following:

"The global pattern of varying prevalence of diseases of affluence,
such as obesity, cardiovascular disease and diabetes, suggests that
some environmental factor specific to agrarian societies could
initiate these diseases...

We propose that a cereal-based diet could be such an environmental
factor. Through previous studies in archaeology and molecular
evolution we conclude that humans and the human leptin system are not
specifically adapted to a cereal-based diet, and that leptin
resistance associated with diseases of affluence could be a sign of
insufficient adaptation to such a diet..."

Many are swayed when they read such things, but notice that there are
tremendous assumptions being made here, and an apparent ignorance of
other factors that are known, such as the role played by arachidonic
acid and/or its metabolites in "chronic disease," which is understood
down to the molecular level.  In fact, on CNN's "Larry King Show" on
Friday, the "experts" could all agree that "simple carbs" are really
dangerous.  I decided to test this kind of "good carbs," "bad carbs"
notion personally.  After ridding my body of AA, I started to eat more
and more simple carbs, rich in sugar.  I always eat a lot of protein
with these items, and I also eat a reasonable amount of fat, but it's
much more saturated and much lower in PUFAs than what is common for
the "typical American."  My diet produced fantastic results.  I had
been looking for a much better diet since my teens, when I had
gastrointestinal problems, but by my mid 30s, after many years on a
vegan diet, I again found myself facing a serious disorder apparently
related to diet.  Now, I eat only three times a day, only get hungry
if I go about five hours without food, and have seen all my chronic
problems and "diseases" disappear.  I also find that I don't have to
wash my hair very often, my cuts don't get inflamed, and I have yet to
have a cold or flu in about four years, despite having many ill people
around me now and then, and the fact that I always used to get at
least two colds a year (and they didn't go away quickly either).

It took me a long time to understand how to conceptualize the evidence
comprehensively, so if you go to my free site, take your time, and
don't expect to understand everything at once.  Basically, much ill
health these days if related to damage done to important biomolecules
by free radicals, and rancid fats ("lipid peroxidation" at the
molecular-level) is often to blame.  Because polyunsaturated fatty
acids are very susceptible to this (though it makes oil painting
possible), they should be kept to a minimum in your diet, whereas
saturated fatty acids are resistant, and there is no problem with have
a diet rich in saturated fatty acids.  In nations like the USA,
however, it is not easy to have such a diet, because most food items
that are called "saturated fats," like lard, are not that saturated,
and have quite a bit of PUFAs, and so it's a semantic issue that leads
to dangerous food choices.  Many "monounsaturated fats" are also
potentially dangerous, and even olive oil is it if it low quality, if
you use it in high-heat cooking, or if it starting to "go bad."

Another important thing is to rid your body of arachidonic acid, which
has been called "essential," despite this being refuted directly at
M.I.T. in the 1940s.  This will occur on the diet I advocate, but it
takes about two years, so in the meantime, all kinds of temporary
rises or declines in various markers are possible.  In my case, my HDL
went from 40 to 63, which many "experts" apparently think is
impossible to acheive with only a change in diet.  It makes sense to
eat an antioxidant-rich diet in the meantime; in my case, I consumed
prunes, raisins, dark chocolate, and white tea on a regular basis.

My site is at:  http://groups.msn.com/TheScientificDebateForum-

You can see that full study at:  http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6823/5/10