From: kenl@origami.cc.bellcore.com (Ken Lehner)
Subject: Re: VEGETARIAN DIET
Keywords: nasty_useless_name_calling, triathlete_experience_with_breakfast 
Organization: Bellcore
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 14:46:58 GMT

In article <hctn+3q.strnlght@netcom.com>, strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
|> 
|> Dyer continues to get it wrong through ignorance. He accepts all but
|> two of the Diamond's principles after previously all but calling them
|> crackpots. This shows he was ignorant of what he was attacking.

Hmmm.  Seems to me that he accepts all of the principles which are
becoming common knowledge, and dismisses those principles which he feels
lack any scientific basis.

|> 
|> He continues to mock two of their principles--eating fruit on an empty
|> stomach, and eating nothing but fruit and fruit juices til noon.
|> 
|> The second is based on energy considerations. The body is still in its
|> elimination cycle in the morning, and one is starting one's day.
|> Fruit/fruit juice goes almost directly into the intestines and takes
|> little energy (compared to carbohydrates or proteins) to digest. This

Double hmmm.  Consider me ignorant, but I always (well, not always)
thought that fruit/fruit juice IS carbohydrate.  It does contain sugar,
and isn't that a carbohydrate?  If it isn't that or protein, just what is
it?

|> frees more energy for mental and physical functioning. Anyone who has
|> eaten a typical high-carbohydrate breakfast knows how logy and tired
                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> it makes one, as energy is diverted to digestion. It makes most so

My personal experience says otherwise.  I'm a triathlete, and I associate
with many outstanding athletes (I aspire to be half as good as ANY of
them!).  One of the best I know normally eats spaghetti for breakfast.
(Elbows, cottage cheese, and beans.  Ugh.) He's the guy who, following
our 100mile bike ride, ran a half-marathon for training.  (When Shop-Rite
had a "3lbs of pasta for $1" sale, he bought over 60 lbs).  But I digress.
It's my experience and observation that the more complex carbs eaten at
breakfast, the more energy I and my friends have all day.  I'll eat my two
or three oversized bagels, and come lunch break I'm ready for a long run
or a hard swim practice.

Note on argument style:  saying things like "anyone who has...knows" has
no true value.  I react to statements like that and "everyone knows...",
"it's a well-known fact that..." with immediate suspicion.  Stick to
personal observations (and avoid generalizations based on those
observations), and published studies, please.

|> tired that the mid-morning coffee break (to jack up one's system with
|> caffeine) has become an institution. Those who follow the Diamond's
|> recommendations are full of energy in the morning and don't need the
|> artificial stimulus of caffeine. One of the biggest hypes in the
|> country is the "eat a good breakfast" campaign of the dairy and meat
|> industries.

"Eat a good breakfast" has nothing in common with the dairy and meat
industries.  Another note on argument style:  Don't use misdirection in
your argument against a carbohydrate b-fast by trying to link it to the
evils of dairy and meat products.

I wouldn't be surprised if the "full of energy" reaction to this diet
system (with which I am not familiar) is simply the result of a low-fat
diet.  I know I feel like a slug if I eat too much fat.

|> 
|> Dyer is again simply ignorant about uric acid. Studies show that the
|> body can process 8 grains--the amount of uric acid in a 1-1/2 to 2
|> ounce portion of meat--per day. The rest stays in the body and can
|> irritate tendons and joints and cause arthritis. Carnivores have an
|> enzyme humans lack, which can process much larger quantities of uric
|> acid.

Simply stated, keeping to facts (I don't know if they are true or not).
Better!

|> 
|> Lastly, Dyer attempts an ad hominem appeal to authority by claiming
|> the Diamonds are considered crackpots by "nutritionists and others
|> in the scientific community". This is simply false in its implication.
|> Many are ill-educated in nutrition, and many nutritionists have
|> vested interests to defend. Nevertheless many nutritionists and
|> scientists support the Diamonds' work, and as physicians are seeing

Just curious:  why state that many nutritionalists and scientists support
the Diamonds work, when you state that many are ill-educated in nutrition
and/or have vested interests?

|> Thus Dyer's ignorance is further underlined. I repeat: his forensic
|> technique is name-calling as a substitute for facts in an area he
|> appears not to understand.
|> 

Why resort to name-calling yourself?  If your facts are sound, and your
argument is well-presented, people are fully capable of agreeing with you
based on what you say.  It's amazing how many people on the net (Dyer
himself, whoever he is!) get emotionally involved in their postings.

|> That's just one more stupid ad hominem attack based on ignorance and a
|> total lack of evidence.

Again, if you are correct in your evaluation of Mr. Dyer, why not let
other people come to the same conclusion by themselves?  Excuse me for
being over-sensitive, but I've seen too many Quayle-Bush sound bites
lately... :^(