100g of watermelon has a much higher glycemic index value

100g of watermelon has a much higher glycemic index value than, say,
blueberries. Watermelon will also cause more insulin to be released to
cover the glucose hit than blueberries, and therefore more likely to be
stored as fat.

And glucose is . . . a carb.

Remember, I'm talking generalities here, and as you say the path from
whole grains to glucose is shorter and more efficient than the path from
protein to glucose.

Yes, but as your valid closing paragraph states, many/most people make
wrong choices (as evidenced, for example, by the 2/3 obesity rate in the
U.S.). Beyond opening their eyes to the fallacies of the stereotypical
low-carb mantra ("If I avoid carbs I will be lean and healthy") and/or
starvation diets in place of exercise, there's not much we can do for
them except treat the overeaters' health problems and help obsessive
dieters count the raisins and peas they consume.

"MORE" likely, yes; I'm asking whether better diet may CONTRIBUTE an
appreciable part to modern man's increased longevity.

They come from the world's universities and hospitals and the studies
they produce. I'm at their mercy for data.

I agree the new food pyramid does exactly that, and it is my major beef
with the pyramid. But it's also one reason why I emphasize the
importance of relatively (to individual ability) hard physical work or
play in our lives. (The other reason is the many shortcomings of weight
control by food alone.)

And now that you mention triglycerides, let me ask whether they may
contribute to physical endurance in people whose cells burn fat before
sugar? I've asked that of many physicians and trainers with no answer
and minimal opinions.

Trichopoulou A, Psaltopoulou T, Orfanos P, Hsieh CC, Trichopoulos D.
Low-carbohydrate-high-protein diet and long-term survival in a general
population cohort.
[...]
I am very skeptical about this study.

Usually
low-carbohydrate-high-protein diet has meant and probably still means
high consumption of red meat

Is it not possible, even likely, that a significant part of modern man's
greater longevity compared to that of cave men is due to the
introduction of agriculture into our diets in the form of fruits,
vegetables, and whole grains, and the resultant displacement of some of
the sat fats?

I don't suggest that
anyone would completely cut out the carbs or even go below 22% of
energy from carbs,

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 04:44:32 +0200, Matti Narkia wrote:

I don't suggest that
anyone would completely cut out the carbs or even go below 22% of
energy from carbs,

That begs the question... Why on Earth 22 and not 20 or 25?

As for your question of longevity, we probably live longer now at
least partly for the same reasons, why the animals in the zoo
typically live longer than wild animals: we are better protected, we
are not hunted down by wild beasts, we get food even in the advanced
age, when we would no longer be able to hunt or gather our food, and
above all, we have medical care. I wonder how many of us would live to
the old age with no medical care at all?

Medical care includes vaccinations, antibiotics, and improvements in

On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 10:18:45 +0100, Enrico C
use_replyto_address@devils.com> wrote:

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 04:44:32 +0200, Matti Narkia wrote:

I don't suggest that anyone would completely cut out the carbs or even
go below 22% of energy from carbs,

That begs the question... Why on Earth 22 and not 20 or 25? :-)

Well, it probably could be as well 25% or perhaps even 20%, which are
near enough 22%. The reason for 22% is that it has been estimated that
in the preagricultural diet 22-40% of the energy came from the
carbohydrates: