This forum is archived information and is no longer active.
Started by Edward Smith, September 24, 2009 · 79 Replies · 27,396 Views
Adrien,
Just some specificity here. The Swiss in Price's study didn't eat cereal products, they supplemented their diet of meat, dairy and vegetables with one --- whole rye bread. The Scots didn't eat cereal products: they supplemented their fish-based diet with one, a whole oat. They were not eating grain-based diets.
Egyptian mummies show massive and catastrophic examples of tooth decay as well as other diseases of bone degeneration. Their diet was hugely wheat-based.
j
Thanks for the discussion guys.
We all would benefit building a wiki-like website contributed by members of this community (and a few communities not too far from here) where the information & debate often presented here could be dealt with in an organized and synthetic manner... but I am not well versed in internet technology so would not know where to start.
Any ideas ? Does this place exist already ?
I don't think wikipedia deals well with issues as controversial as nutrition.
jasonmstein said:Adrien,Just some specificity here. The Swiss in Price's study didn't eat cereal products, they supplemented their diet of meat, dairy and vegetables with one --- whole rye bread. The Scots didn't eat cereal products: they supplemented their fish-based diet with one, a whole oat. They were not eating grain-based diets.
Egyptian mummies show massive and catastrophic examples of tooth decay as well as other diseases of bone degeneration. Their diet was hugely wheat-based.
j
I apologize for the enormous hole I'm going to blow in the wheat = tooth decay theory.
It is well known that the egyptians put sand in with the grains as they were being ground into flour. This helped them grind finer flour and greatly sped up the process. The sand cannot be completely removed from the flour with ancient technology, so despite their best efforts they were chewing on sand, silica, natural glass. Glass, if you check, is a 5.5 on the Mohs hardness scale, while tooth enamel is a 5. That means that glass, sand, silica, etc will erode tooth enamel. Due to these facts it is no surprise that the egyptians suffered from so many cavities - they were literally sanding their teeth when they ate bread and other flour products.
If you don't understand the necessity of adding some sand to the grain, go buy some whole grain and a mortar and pestle. Put half of the grain in and grind it. It takes a while, it's pretty hard to get flour from grain. Now, empty the mortar and put in the second half of the grain. This time, put maybe 15-25% sand, by volume compared to the grain, into the mortar and grind with the pestle. You will find the process goes much, much faster. Now try your best to separate the sand from the flour. You'll get quite a lot if you vibrate the pestle and allow the sand to sink to the bottom, but the small pieces will still be in the flour. To test this, take a small bit and chew it. Gritty, huh. You think if you ate that for 20 years you'd have tooth decay? You bet you would. I've done this, and was quite surprised at how much difference it makes to put sand in. It is fairly probable that the older grain-eating societies did something similar, seeing as the ancient egyptians are 4000+ years old, and we're talking only 10000 years of grain that we know of.
Today we don't have these problems, we can manufacture flour without adding sand. The problem of leptins and gluten still remains for many people, but that's a separate issue.
Slizzard,
I would be interested to see the studies discussing how the quantities of sand in the bread caused the cavities in the mummies.
Both the medical and the anthropological literature are full of papers correlating carbohydrate consumption with dental caries.
I imagine the processing of the bread with sand would accelerate the process, but in this case, with the appearance of a host of degenerative diseases of civilization --- obesity, diabetes, arteriosclerosis, and heart disease --- the caries appear to be among the constellation of symptoms of excess carb consumption.
best,
jason
Another thing I think about when considering the effects of agriculture is that it created a surplus such that some members of the society could basically do no physical work or labor. Modernly, we understand that a lack of physical activity can be a risk factor for metabolic diseases, obesity, and cardiovascular disease. So while diet may be one part of the equation, so too is activity level. Also, I would query whether the lifespan of individuals in more advanced civilizations was not longer than that of hunter-gatherer groups, such that there was enough time for members of the society to develop certain diseases or degenerative conditions. I can't say that I know; I am just wondering if there is any information in this regard.
Also, as an aside, it is interesting to note that the human animal eats for many purposes besides filling its belly. There are many social and political implications to eating. Who gets to eat what is a big question.
I'll be the first to admit that I eat certain things not because it is necessarily essential to my survival, or my health, but just because it tastes good. So far, I am not sure that is a great tendancy, relative to my own health, but good taste is a very real motivator.
Lifespan is shown to have decreased with the emergence of agriculture, not reaching paleolithic length until fairly recently.
Emil Brannmark said:Lifespan is shown to have decreased with the emergence of agriculture, not reaching paleolithic length until fairly recently.
Very interesting reading through this thread. Just wondering if you have any sources for evidence on this? Are you saying paleolithic lifespan was 70 years?
I know this is an old post but with regards to the problems posed by fruit as a post workout meal, ie blood sugar spike, I just found this:
web addy is
just gonna read the "how to embed youtube videos" post which i thought i didn't need 
with regards to the video i have read that the fructose in fruit is processed differently than say refined high fructose corn syrup in carbonated drinks due to the high fibre and possible nutrient content. What do you guys think? currently researching the 811 raw vegan diet and seeing alot of good things
88Wa_PkWbPg
FYI: lastest study following up on millions of years of recent mortality data:
A LOT of BS in this study. I don't even know where to start. Quite similar to Ancel Keys's assumptions.
Rafael David said:A LOT of BS in this study. I don't even know where to start. Quite similar to Ancel Keys's assumptions.
I don't know ... haven't seen the original study. But trans-fat is not a big aspect of red meat, moreso dairy, and that was the
big miss with Ancel. If this study correlates red meat in particular with CHD and mortality then it's interesting at least.
Should not be poo-poo'd away. It's easy to say assumptions but if you've seen the study, where are they off?
FutureisNow said:FYI: lastest study following up on millions of years of recent mortality data:
I don't know of any real connection to CVD, but there does seem to be a small but measurable decrease in lifespan that scales fairly linearly with the amount of red meat eaten (frequency more than dose I believe, but not totally sure).
Haven't had time to read this particular link completely, but read down to global warming.
It is nearly impossible to say whether it is the lack of truly appropriate vegetable matter or the inclusion of red meat and too many fast-digesting carbs that is the real issue.
Most people who eat red meat are eating fries, buns, and mashed or baked potatoes at the same time, and it is fairly well established that fast carbs + fat of any kind is a bad situation that quickly leads to plaques forming. Of course, this usually involves excess consumption as well, so there are some legitimate issues with what is actually being measured here.
Animal studies with rats and intense UV radiation have shown that the vegetable content of the diet is a massively important determing factor in cancer formation. Rats with high vegetable matter diets didn't even develop pre-cancerous cells. Rats with very little vegetable matter had a 25% chance of developing malignant melanoma. That same kind of protective benefit could well be missing here.
There is, of course, also the issue of the GI and GL of the carbs being consumed alongside the red meat.
If we are to believe Darwin's explanation of evolution, today's humans are the result of environmental pressure that favored the fittest to reproduce.
In this regards, our ability to digest and use the rich-in-proteins-red-meat was certainly an advantage in times when food did not conveniently come from the grocery, (1) to reach sexual maturity fast, (2) to get the females, (3) to produce a healthy offspring, (4) to produce the rich essential milk to feed the newborns during their first years, & (5) to maintain the parent(s) long enough to raise the young.
I do not know of an evolutionary mechanism at work that favors the longest life span.
I have not read the whole thread so please forgive me if this has been mentioned before
FredInChina said:If we are to believe Darwin's explanation of evolution, today's humans are the result of environmental pressure that favored the fittest to reproduce.In this regards, our ability to digest and use the rich-in-proteins-red-meat was certainly an advantage in times when food did not conveniently come from the grocery, (1) to reach sexual maturity fast, (2) to get the females, (3) to produce a healthy offspring, (4) to produce the rich essential milk to feed the newborns during their first years, & (5) to maintain the parent(s) long enough to raise the young.
I do not know of an evolutionary mechanism at work that favors the longest life span.
I have not read the whole thread so please forgive me if this has been mentioned before
This is a good point. It's all about what happens up to the point you have your last child. After that, lifestyle changes can't influence the next generation.
I will say, as a small counterpoint to part of the first sentence, that before a few hundred years ago there were edible roots, leaves, seeds and flowers all over the place. It wasn't very hard to get as much vegetation as you could handle, and that took care of a large part of caloric requirements. The red meat consumed then is also very different from what is in stores today, so there really isn't any way to reconcile the red meat thing just yet. In many places there was at least seasonal fish consumption, but who knows... there was also a lot of wild bird consumption. It is completely unknown, from a research basis, how a return to this lifestyle would affect disease states and longevity, but if it were to be discovered that this was in fact healthier on a longevity basis then there would be an evolutionary response to this diet that predisposes our bodies to be healthier on both a longevity scale and a sexual development scale with it since this would literally be how people ate up through child-bearing.
Personally, I'm not thrilled with the idea of living as long as I can. I'd rather enjoy what I have and be healthy for those years, even if there are a few less years. However, I do believe that there are a number of serious flaws with this research. Not procedurally, but conceptually. We would have to find cohorts that consumed similar red meat but ate no breads or potatoes with it to isolate that variable and good luck with finding THAT group.
I like my bread and potatoes when I eat them count me out.
All this diet this and diet that is good and all but to go along with Josh's thought I also like to enjoy my food. Yes it's fuel and yes the choices make a difference but getting overly neurotic about it just makes a good portion of your life miserable for very little reason.
Nic Branson said:I like my bread and potatoes when I eat them count me out.All this diet this and diet that is good and all but to go along with Josh's thought I also like to enjoy my food. Yes it's fuel and yes the choices make a difference but getting overly neurotic about it just makes a good portion of your life miserable for very little reason.
People also enjoy cocaine and crack. Just because you like it doesn't mean this is good for you or or everyone else. People that you call "neurotic" are often the people who most care about themselves, who want the BEST for their health.I don't like the taste of some foods, but I like the benefits that they provide to my body. Food is a means to a result (health or sickness), no more no less. Taste is a bonus in this scenario.
And so we have the two major camps nice and neat, right there back to back. 
Pretty much. Make the choice that is right for you. I personally aim for a balance.
It is not really that there are 2 camps in opposition, but maybe more that we need to refine the question...
- Are we physiologically meat eaters? i/e did evolution pressure us to develop the ability to use meat as a source of fuel and protein?
- Is a diet rich in meat optimal for a variety of purposes (reproductive advantage, longevity, success on the beach, etc...)
- Or was this adaptation to a wide variety of foods (the opposite of specialization) optimal to the larger geographic spread of the specie, or to survive variations in climate and food types, quantity & general availability?
- Is there a distinction to be made between different goals? My feeling is that performance and longevity require different types of diets.
- Keeping in mind that evolution requires to measure time in generations... that outside special cases in the lab, it is measurable in a population, an not in an individual... that to take effect, there must be environmental factors that put pressure on the ability of a group of individuals that possess a common characteristic to reproduce; that society generally condemns this... that it is hardly black & white, and much more a gradient (sliding scale)... that today's humans are the ones putting pressure on the environment and adapt it to their needs (or not, but that's another story)... that the environment we live in changes faster than we can get the next generation up to pace... that today's culture mostly requires and offers equal rights to spread your genes, and condemns methods widely used in the past to leverage one's potential (rape, polygamy, etc...)... that the last two generations have erased gene pools boundaries established over millennia and mixed things up beyond recognition... that even the rich/poor reproductive pressure has been turned upside down (speculating here), what do we really know?
Humans have basically turned off or altered all sources of genetic evolution for our specie; they have artificially introduced enormous & catastrophic environmental pressure on many other species, that hardly have time to adapt and go extinct, while at the same time creating extraordinarily favorable conditions for others (think wheat, corn, rice that are now ubiquitous)...
We also have put tremendous pressure on species which short generation span allows to adapt and survive: when a bacteria reproduces every 20 minutes, it has a fighting chance... think super bugs, etc...
.............maybe we should start a new thread... 
Fred, you're in China I guess. So look around. As of 1990 the proportion of protein derived for cereal grains was high, and meat relatively low. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2092342. Historically it has not been a high meat eating country however they have had no problem making babies. And of course, because of their success they needed to be artificially
constained from having more than one. And now the diet is becoming more westernized and health problems are increasing. I don't have any idea where your notion of meat eating have anything to do with reproductive success came from. Look at India. They are an extremely populous nation and the lowest per-captia meat eating country on earth. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/0 ... 75760.html
Luxembourg is apparently the most carnivorous. Family size is now inversely proportional to family income unless religious dictates apply.
But the health issue of red meat is different from meat as a whole. Meats
such as chicken and fish are not implicated the same way way as beef and lamb. Lower consumption of the former are associated with better health; higher with worse health and average consmption - average health. This is quality of life not just quantity. Remains to be seen if organic/grass fed is any healthier - its higher omega-3 content is still miniscule and not highly available compared to fish.
My perception of people over 85 is that they are generally healthy. Some issues of course but if you can survive that long the odds of living another year are suprisingly good. When they go, it is usually peacefully in the night. The killer diseases usually knock you off at an earlier age.
I agree with Josh that there are potential conceptual issues with the study, however it's still possible to compare red meat
eaters who eat junk with non-red meat eaters who eat junk. Without reading the study (no access) I don't know how they
reached their conclusion however there are ways to reduce the signficance of confounding variables. By the way, I know you meant it in a epigenetic way, but parents can still have influence children after they are born, at least sometimes
So the question of evolution, or natural selection more precisely, seems to be really irrelevant to the decision to eat meat, or red meat in particular. From our teeth we are obviously capable of it. I do not see any argument that it's better for breeding purposes; though, it's better to be able to successfully eat a variety of foodstuffs. There could be an argument that hunting
and trapping have survival benefits, just as there could be that so does farming and animal domestication. The latter certainly led to the human population explosion moreso than the former.
FutureisNow said:(...) Historically it has not been a high meat eating country however they have had no problem making babies.(...)
the question of evolution, or natural selection more precisely, seems to be really irrelevant to the decision to eat meat, or red meat (...)
I agree with everything you are saying; yet we must separate different planes and time frames:
All your arguments are placed in an era where human made policies are distorting natural selection, and within a time frame so short that it could not have an influence anyway!
Our omnivorous digestive tract has evolved over 100,000's of generations (millions of years)... that Chairman Mao pushed families to have as many as 10-14 kids each in the 1950s' - whether there was meat or not, they were forced to multiply! - and subsequently enacted the one kid family in the early 1970's is irrelevant!
1,800,000 years ago, the homo erectus that was able to catch a live prey and eat it became stronger and more able to catch more prey... and got the girls!
200,000(?) years ago, homo sapiens could share his catch for mating rights...
40,000 years ago, the Cro-Magnon chief of the clan that because he was bigger was chief and because he was chief ate meat first had a reproductive advantage over the weakling forced to suck the bones and chew bark!
The question is: "Are we meat eaters of vegetarians?"
- Our digestive tract can keep us alive for long periods on a diet that consists essentially of animal proteins, or vegetal proteins.
- Animal proteins are more efficient (concentration); when available, they constitute a reproductive advantage. (as a rule, always take the apple with a worm in it!)
- Longevity beyond reproductive age and education of the young (maybe memory of the clan too, wisdom, etc...?) is irrelevant from an evolutionary POV.
Nowadays, what is your goal? How do you define "health"?
- if "health" is athletic performance, I believe that animal proteins are an advantage.
- if health is maximizing longevity, then likely not, I don't know...
Is the regular consumption of whale blubber optimal?
Probably not... unless you are an Inuit and it is your only source of Vitamine D3, and the only food that allows you to survive in a frozen environment!
SamSpaiser said:Orangutans are, of the great apes, least related to humans. Our last common ancestor was Sivapethicus, which was the last common ancestor of orangs and humans, about 10 million years ago. In contrast, Ouranopithecus was the last common ancestor of chimps and humans, 6 million years ago. Chimps have adapted to be ripe fruit specialists, and in order to thrive must eat a diet primarily of ripe fruit and vegetable matter. Of course, around 1% of their diet is from ants, and < 1% from bush meat, and then maybe another 2% from nuts/seeds/bark, but around 90% from fruit (calorie-wise), and 5% from the vegetable matter. Gorillas are second closest to humans (unless you are counting bonobos, who would be second), and they eat much more vegetable matter, especially the highland mountain gorillas, upwards of 60%. To put these animals on a high fat, high protein diet, of which they are not adapted to, you'd probably start seeing a spike of degenerative diseases, a similar thing to what humans are experiencing. In my experience, health seems to be compromised when the percentage of calories from fat consumed exceeds 10%, and when protein exceeds 10%. Any time a species eats a diet other than it is adapted to it places a great burden on a body and to expect anything other than optimal would be silly, to put it kindly.
I thought that chimps sometimes hunt and eat the colobus monkey as well as plenty of other types of animals and it makes up closer to 3-5% of their diet? also I was wondering could the fact that during some months of the year it was harder to forage for fruits and vegetable matter so we went hunting for meat and as the world changed, our tools improved and this continued on perhaps we evolved to incorporate a hell of a lot more meat than our relative the chimp over the millions of years? comparing a chimps diet to human diet kinda seems like comparing apples and oranges...
Fred, I think you're missing the point that natural selection is still operating. It's operating within the context of the human-made policies and pressures, as well as the environment. Perhaps it's "un-natural" now but it's still in play. And the people who can adapt to it will thrive and pass on those genes, etc. Those that can not adapt or change the environment will have difficulty doing so.
The ability to change the environment is what has made us human, and given us the ability to rise above our conditions, so it needs to be given importance.
So whether we used to eat more meat or less meat I think is besides the point. We have choices and options now. Our bodies have adapted to non-meat diet, if there even was ever a time only meat was eaten. Grain and vegetable use goes way, way back so it's not foreign to us. Now it's up to individuals to put their preferences into place.
I don't personally know the optimum diet for attracting the opposite gender and make babies. It would have to include moderate amounts of alcohol I suppose Perhaps there is a pheromone that can be triggered by specific food. Oysters? I don't really know. Humans have been able to thrive on a varied diet practically forever, and that is our strength. If you want to say that meat, and maybe even raw or very rare meat is a special substance that has magical powers you may be right. It holds a special attraction to many. If there is evidence that eating a high meat diet leads to more likely mating and children then please present it. Keep in mind that high meat intake also correlates to income, which correlates to intelligence so you would need to weed out those two factors, at least. Meat eating as a sign of aggression may be an attractor though I've yet to have any date say the way I chew a steak is a real turn on.
I agree that health may matter less after the next generation is born. However in humans parental health matters and has an impact on the offspring for years beyond childbirth, over 20 perhaps. Children are living at home after 30 now.
Ask Josh Parental health has impact on their their children's ability to succeed and foster their own young.
Grandparents and great-grandparents have a positive impact on their grandchildren's and great-grandchildren's viability. It takes good health to make it there. At our level, health and performance are not irreconcilable goals. It's a long road, so make the Healthy Choice along the way.