High-carb diets are ideal for health.

Outline I. Rebuttal of Con II. Summary III. Links I. Rebuttal of Con I will devote this round to addressing Con's arguments. " Yet, he still managed to avoid mentioning anything about the government anti-fat campaign which occurred in the late 1970's" Con Pro: I don't know what your talking about with an anti-fat campaign. You haven't backed up your argument with enough outside sources for me to take this statement seriously. "The graph that was shown on my reference, clearly demonstrates that since about 1970, there has been an large increase in obesity and diabetes." Con Pro: I've seen other sources that confirm the same. Watch Forks Over Knives [17] and King Corn. [18] The amount of artificial sweeteners has increased dramatically. Corn is in just about every food. A third source of artificial sweeteners increasing is Christina Warinner's Ted video. [19] "This can be squarely blamed on the world government's and their anti-fat/protein campaign of the late 1970's." Con Pro: I have no idea what your talking about this world government anti-fat/protein campaign. More importantly, many high carb foods are unhealthy like HFCS soda, donuts, and trans fat laced pastries. If your making an argument that the anti-fat/protein campaign caused people to eat more of these foods I'll agree. I also agree that these foods are more detrimental to health than organic, grass-fed, and free roaming steak. I contend that slow cooked oats like rolled oats and steel cut oats are healthy. I also argue that whole fruits and vegetables are healthy. "Glycemic Index for Oats The glycemic index (GI) of cooked steel-cut oats is in the range of 42-50. The GI of oatmeal made from rolled oats is 51-63, with an average of 55. Instant oatmeal has a GI of 82." [20]. As you can see oats vary in health with steel cut being the healthiest, rolled average, and instant oatmeal unhealthy. Not all oats are created equal. "Thus, if you want your meat to do that, you need to put it to the side of your plate." Con Pro: I had to read your post carefully to understand what you are conveying. I think you mean these two sentences together. " On the other hand, the timing of what happens to food puts paid to this claim that meat does not get digested." Part about digestion and then "and are not specially kept aside to quietly rot. Thus, if you want your meat to do that, you need to put it to the side of your plate." Con In brief what Con is stating is that meat only rots if the meat is not eaten and gives the example of putting the meat to the side of the plate. I've read all of Cons statements and read through Cons links. I've noticed Con did not quote the abc website and thus is plagiarism, unless of course Con is the original author. "On the other hand, the timing of what happens to food puts paid to this claim that meat does not get digested. The human gut has all the enzymes needed to digest meat. The human gut is some 10 metres long. The food enters at your mouth where you chew it, and where your saliva adds a few digestive enzymes. Then, after transit via the oesophagus, this food ends up in the stomach. In the stomach, the enzyme (called pepsin) attacks the proteins in meat. It breaks down the long chains of amino acids into smaller chains. Typically, the food will stay in the stomach for between one half an hour and two and a half hours, before moving on to the next section, the small intestine. But the pepsin acting in the stomach digests only about 15 per cent of the protein. The small intestine does most of the digestion and absorption of what we eat. It takes some two to six hours to do so. In the small intestine, the pancreas pumps out various enzymes that break down the small chains of amino acids into even smaller chains. The cells lining the gut have microscopic fingers on them called microvilli. The microvilli walls have enzymes anchored or embedded in the actual walls. These enzymes start inside the body of the microvilli, and protrude through the wall of the microvilli into the hollow tube of the gut. When you eat food, these enzymes break down the chains of amino acids into tiny chains of three and two amino acids and, sometimes, even single amino acids. These are carried into the cells lining the gut and broken down (if necessary) into single amino acids. Then they are passed right through the cell out to the other side, and then into a vein that carries the individual amino acids to that big organ, the liver, for further processing. So, yes, our human gut actually has all the mechanisms needed for digesting the proteins of meat. The gut contents are then moved into the large intestine where water and some electrolytes are removed. The time taken for this transit is much greater, ranging from 14 to 80 hours. The various transit times are affected by many factors including genetics, quantity of fibre in the diet, the size of the meals, age, gender, smoking, exercise and so on. But in each part of the gut, the mushy contents tend to move through as a unit, similar to toothpaste being squeezed out of its container. They are thoroughly mixed in together before they eventually escape to the outside world. Those parts of the mush that were originally meat are not separated out, and are not specially kept aside to quietly rot. If you want your meat to do that, you need to put it to the side of your plate." Karl S. Kruszelnicki [21] Unless Con is Karl S. Kruszelnicki, Con has not given the author his fair due. Nevertheless, I will argue down Karl S. Kruszelnicki. Let's first look at a wolf, a wolf is more adapted to a carnivorous lifestyle than humans. Felines are even more adapted. Looks specifically at the teeth A jaguar's teeth are vastly different from ours. [22]. Including canine, incisor, and carnassial teeth. Wolves have the same three teeth + molars. [23]. Now compare this to human teeth. "Incisors (8 total): The middlemost four teeth on the upper and lower jaws. " Canines (4 total): The pointed teeth just outside the incisors. " Premolars (8 total): Teeth between the canines and molars. " Molars (8 total): Flat teeth in the rear of the mouth, best at grinding food. " Wisdom teeth or third molars (4 total):"[24] As you can see humans have incisor and canines, but no carnassial teeth. Now lets look at humans compared to other species. "Saliva CARNIVORE: No digestive enzymes HERBIVORE: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes OMNIVORE: No digestive enzymes HUMAN: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes " [25] " CARNIVORE: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach HERBIVORE: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach OMNIVORE: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach HUMAN: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach" [25] "Length of Small Intestine CARNIVORE: 3 to 6 times body length HERBIVORE: 10 to more than 12 times body length OMNIVORE: 4 to 6 times body length HUMAN: 10 to 11 times body length "[25]. As you can see I have proven humans are more similar to herbivores than omnivores. Not only that but humans have carbohydrate digesting enzymes. So lets assume humans can digest meat completely and it doesn't rot. This doesn't mean meat is the ideal food for humans. Kruszelnicki mentioned transit time. Well lets look at transit time for various foods. Water takes 0-10 minutes. Fruit 30-60 minutes and cooked meat 3-4 hours. From entering the mouth to exiting the stomach. [26]. " Here are the time sequences for different food groups: Water & Juices: 20-30 minutes. Fruits, Smoothies, Soups: 30-45 minutes. Vegetables: 30-45 minutes. Beans, Grains, Starches: 2-3 hours. Meat, Fish, Poultry: 3 or more hours." [27]. Clearly fruits and veggies have the advantage over grains. Grains in turn have an advantage over meat. Since grains, fruits, and veggies are all high in carbohydrates its clear that high-carb diets are ideal for health. II. Summary Con argues that there is a war on fat in the late 1970's. Yet, doesn't provide evidence if this war existed or not. Then Con, talks about the old food pyramid. We both agree that the pyramid puts too much emphasis on complex carbohydrates. Con and Pro differ in that Con thinks all carbohydrates are detrimental. Pro thinks that some carbohydrates are better than others. Specifically Pro thinks that donuts and instant oat meal are unhealthy. Yet, slow cooked rolled, steel cut oats, fruits, and vegetables are healthy. Con's does not give credit to Karl S.Kruszelnicki, yet passes his words as his own. Pro then proves that humans are closer to herbivores than to carnivores using transit time, teeth, saliva, intestine length, and stomach Ph to proof his or her point. Unless Con can provide additional evidence the choice is clear. High-carb diets are ideal for health. Vote Pro. III. Links 17. http://www.imdb.com... 18. http://www.kingcorn.net... 19. http://tedxtalks.ted.com... 20. http://lowcarbdiets.about.com... 21. http://www.abc.net.au... 22. http://www.thewildlifemuseum.org... 23. http://www.naturalworlds.org... 24. http://www.webmd.com... 25. http://www.ecologos.org... 26. http://www.raw-food-for-the-beginner.com... 27. http://www.cleanse-yourself-lose-weight.com...