"Natural part of the human diet" does not apply to grain-growing civilizations. Period. Those plants as grown in the fields did not exist prior. How many food riots can you name being for anything other than grain products? That is why I mention "lowest common denominator", it's the downright essential calorie-padding to make the population even remotely stable, and it took the introduction of the still carb-heavy corn and potato plants to start clearing that up by getting more food better than wheat out of less land.
Good thing we don't need to live on substinence-level diet, then. Not to mention that grains were far less popular as a food historically than commonly assumed. And societies which did have grain-heavy diet were invariably sick.
Grains were literally emergency food of the poor, empty calories to allow survival but not much else. A food for slaves, if you will. But when you look at periods where people were healthy (e.g. paleolithic, early Middle Ages - you can tell from height!) - these were periods where few to no grains were being eaten.
You said the carbohydrates themselves are toxic, following with a spiel about removing unprocessed fruits and vegetables improving your health. You are still trying to defend that with a goalpost shift to "too much", citing diabetes in the process.
And I am not wrong. Carbohydrates are a toxin. The end. They turn into sugar in body, and very quickly too.
Of course, as Paracelsus said, dose makes the poison. Banana or some grains here and there can be fine - body can handle a certain amount of
arsenic just fine, so some amount of dietary carbs are not an issue. But if you use carbs as a basis of your diet, you are literally killing yourself. And if you have a disease such as a metabolic disease or cancer, you
have to cut out all carbs, sugars and related stuff.
Not the point being made, it's countering you doubting anyone would ever overeat in the first place with a series of cases, in which festivals are but part of one out of four. Again, quit the goalpost moving.
I am not moving goalposts, you are just making shit up.
If you eat
proper food, you basically
cannot overeat because you will
throw up first. Satiety signals will be that strong. It is only empty calories like carbs which really allow for overeating in the first place.
Proper food + listening to your own body = health. The end. But grains are not proper food.
Which is not what you started with, is more of the "too much" bailey, and does not support the active avoidance of carbs.
"In excess" means "more than a proper amount".
"Proper amount" of grains specifically for human diet is
zero, or near enough to make no difference. Proper amount of
carbs is more difficult to determine, but it sure as hell does not support living only on processed food, or hell, even only on
fruit. And if you are not certain as to what you need or can get away with, carbs are literally one nutrient that is not necessary for good health. You need fat, you need protein... carbs are only "good to have" in certain contexts, but are not actually necessary. And can easily turn dangerous if you make them basis of your diet, or even just eat too much of them on a regular basis.
So are no small number of denser carb-based food items, like the potatoes I keep bringing up. Again, you've been trying to push "carbs are poison, avoid if possible" here, it has to actually be a consequence of carbohydrates in isolation.
Again, potatoes, are you just completely unaware of the existence of starches? They even specifically get metabolized into short-chain fatty acids only when uncooked, meaning that putting starchy vegetables in a stew specifically increases the energy from carbs.
Potatoes, particularly sweet potatoes, can be sating, yes. But they are also fairly nutrient-empty, and have high carb content. As a result, regular consumption of potatoes significantly increases risk of diabetes:
as well as of obesity, heart disease... "less toxic than grains" isn't exactly a good selling point.
So yeah, carbs are still poison. Whether it is simple carbs (sugars), complex carbs (starches), literally does not matter. You are making distinction where none exist, taking one aspect of a complex problem, and then saying "Gotcha!" when you are just factually wrong.
And why eat something if you don't
need to eat it?
Not substituting with nutrient-rich foods, none of this spiel about antinutrients and lack of satiety and insulin responses, just blunt "bread is toxic, get rid of it".
Get back in your fucking motte, I can read the previous pages. At this point with how you're flipping from "no I'm not talking about malnutrition" to "nutritional inadequacy is just another part of the same issue" in the same post I'm starting to doubt you're actually able to keep track of the conversation.
This is not my job, so no, I don't really care about keeping track of the conversation.
Everything I have written are facts, as well as related to each other. As I explained god-knows-how-many-times already: bread being toxic is
literally a consequence of everything else you consider "irrelevant spiel". Antinutrients, lack of satiety, insulin response etc, those are all different aspects of the same problem. You are only complaining because you don't understand the topic and more impotantly,
you don't care to understand it. You just want to defend your addiction.