Seduced by Food: Obesity and the Human Brain

[txlaw]

The dangers of sugar seem obvious to me;  but I'm a bit confused about bread and whole grain foods.  My sister, who is a gastroenterologist, advises just to "avoid the whites" (white bread, rice, etc).  Are the no-grain arguments backed by hard science?  And if one drops the grains entirely, what are good substitutes? 

 

My understanding of Robert Lustig's research -- based only on an article I read in the NYT -- is that fructose consumed in high quantities and concentration is the danger he warns about, rather than the consumption of starches that break down primarily into glucose.  Apparently, fructose is metabolized only in the liver and causes insulin resistance, or something like that.

 

This is the article that I read a while back: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all

 

Who knows, though?  It will be interesting to see how the research unfolds.

 

 

[biaggio]

The dangers of sugar seem obvious to me;  but I'm a bit confused about bread and whole grain foods.  My sister, who is a gastroenterologist, advises just to "avoid the whites" (white bread, rice, etc).  Are the no-grain arguments backed by hard science?  And if one drops the grains entirely, what are good substitutes? 

 

My understanding of Robert Lustig's research -- based only on an article I read in the NYT -- is that fructose consumed in high quantities and concentration is the danger he warns about, rather than the consumption of starches that break down primarily into glucose.  Apparently, fructose is metabolized only in the liver and causes insulin resistance, or something like that.

 

This is the article that I read a while back: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all

 

Who knows, though?  It will be interesting to see how the research unfolds.

 

here is his lecture on subject

 

http://uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=16717

 

 

[rkbabang]

The dangers of sugar seem obvious to me;  but I'm a bit confused about bread and whole grain foods.  My sister, who is a gastroenterologist, advises just to "avoid the whites" (white bread, rice, etc).  Are the no-grain arguments backed by hard science?  And if one drops the grains entirely, what are good substitutes? 

 

Some of the cardiologist vs diabetes arguments seem to me contradictory, ie reduce fat vs reduce sugar.  That Cleveland Clinic cardiologist recommended the vegan diet, no milk, cheese or oils, but ok to eat starch.  Oregon Health Science University recommends the "Meditteranean diet" to its staff.

 

ps.  I dropped 40 lbs, from 190 to 150 since cutting out "the whites" and sugar, my mother says I look emaciated!  (the face gets gaunt). 

 

The short answer is yes, it is based on hard science, but not enough hard science.  The problem is that none of the nutritional advice given to you by the ADA, AHA, FDA, and probably your doctor is backed by hard science at all.  The problem with nutrition studies in general is the poor design of almost all of them.  It's been said that nothing in biology makes any sense except in the context of evolution.  The no grains, paleo-type diets are based on that as a starting point.  Ask yourself: What did humans eat for 99% of our existence here on earth?  Whatever it was is what our bodies have evolved to need.  And that diet contained no grains.    If you are really interested to dig down into this subject I can give you a list of things to read.  If you are just casually interested I'll give you some blogs and podcasts to listen to.

 

Books:  "Good Calories, Bad Calories", by Gary Taubes.    "The Paleo Answer" by Loren Cordain.  "The Paleo Solution", by Robb Wolf.  "Why we get fat and what to do about it" by Gary Taubes.  Also I hear that "Wheat Belly" is really good, but I haven't read it.

 

Podcasts:  Robb Wolf's podcast is really good and goes into the science behind this quite often: Paleo Solution Podcast.  I just found a podcast by someone called "Jimmy Moore" that I've been listening to for a few weeks.  He interviews tons of people in the paleo/low-carb community (Doctors, researchers, etc).  His show is kind-of cheesy sometimes, but he does some really good interviews.  This interview with the Doctor William Davis who wrote "Wheat Belly" is excellent and will answer many of the questions you asked about whole grains ‘Healthy Whole Grains?’ | Dr. William Davis

 

Some Blogs that are really good are Chris Masterjohn's blogs:  "The Daily Lipid" (Listen to some of his interviews that he posts the links to as well as reading his blog),  Mother Nature Obeyed and his site Cholesterol and health.  Also good is Mark's Daily Apple

 

As far as "what you replace" whole grains with?  What do they do for you other than cause gut problems, weight gain, small dense LDL particles in your blood, type 2 diabetes (and maybe type 1 as well) and a whole host of autoimmunity issues? 

 

When you stop eating grains, sugar, and processed foods, you eat mainly meat & vegetables, with a small amount of fruit and nuts.

 

--Eric

 

 

[rkbabang]

ps.  what about eggs (yolks) and cheese?

 

I don't eat much cheese anymore, I try to stay away from dairy other than butter and maybe some heavy cream.  But I will have some cheese once in a awhile.  It is very low-carb, but after reading Loren Cordain's chapter on dairy and what is in it in "The Paleo Answer" cheese just isn't as appetizing to me anymore.    Butter is the exception, because it is almost pure fat, so it doesn't contain the more harmful chemicals and hormones naturally found in cows milk.

 

As far as eggs go, my usual breakfast is 6 whole eggs (the yolk being healthier part if you are going to separate your eggs throw the white part away not the yolk) with some kind of vegetable and/or fruit and some kind of meat on the side.  (liver, steak, pork, chicken, or sometimes non-cured bacon).  I do a huge breakfast then I don't eat again until dinner, where I have some kind of meat/fish with a vegetable.  Some times a snack of wild blueberries and nuts before bed.  When I first started the diet I was eating 3 large meals per day.  Sort of like the above menu with a big lunch added and another snack in between.  I still lost weight like crazy doing it.  I don't eat lunch now, simply because I am not hungry anymore at noon.  At some point a few months ago I realized that I was only eating lunch by force of habit and I really wasn't hungry.  Now I only eat when I'm hungry.

 

The fact that you put "yolks?" down I'm assuming you are worried about the cholesterol.  Look up the info on Chris Masterjohn in my last post above this one.

 

[rkbabang]

For anyone who hasn't seen this. An amazing and uplifting (admittedly anecdotal) story about one person's results from switching to a paleo type diet.

 

[NormR]

As far as eggs go, my usual breakfast is 6 whole eggs (the yolk being healthier part if you are going to separate your eggs throw the white part away not the yolk) with some kind of vegetable and/or fruit and some kind of meat on the side.

 

Hasn't modern fruit been engineered to be full of nasty fructose? 

[rkbabang]

As far as eggs go, my usual breakfast is 6 whole eggs (the yolk being healthier part if you are going to separate your eggs throw the white part away not the yolk) with some kind of vegetable and/or fruit and some kind of meat on the side.

 

Hasn't modern fruit been engineered to be full of nasty fructose? 

 

Yes, which is why you should stick to berries and small amounts of other fruit when you have it.  I'll eat 1/4 of a banana or an apple.  2 strawberries.    But I'll eat a cup of wild blueberries or blackberries.    You just need to use some common sense and not consume too much sugar.

[PullTheTrigger]

Eric,

 

I'm just starting my research into the Paleo diet and came across this website on "bulletproof coffee". Ignore all the coffee they are trying to sell, but I'd be curious on your opinion on this. Basically the breakfast is coffee blended with butter (grass fed only) and MCT oil (or coconut oil). Lots of claims on the site, but I'd be curious to get your opinion.

 

http://www.bulletproofexec.com/how-to-make-your-coffee-bulletproof-and-your-morning-too/

 

 

[Ross812]

Approaching nutrition from and evolutionary standpoint as with Paleo diet is interesting. I would very much caution a diet high in meat though. Humans are not carnivores which is very apparent from studying the length of our digestive system and the shape of our teeth. We have to cook meat to make it easier for our bodies to digest, and evolutionarily, cooking meat helped sterilize it and prevents it from rotting in our long digestive system. I think we need to remember that cavemen ate meat to make it through the ice age, but the hunter gatherers were not terribly successful when compared to humans after discovering agriculture. I think the Paleo diet works because it gets you off much of the trash Americans eat. Processed food, white bread, sugar, baked potatoes, and the like. If we look at India and China which found their diet on rice, we don't see near the rate of obesity, cancer, heart disease, and other "Industrialized" diseases.

 

The Paleo diet obviously works, and if it helps you loose weight and stay healthy, wonderful. I'm skeptical of anyone who claims to have unlocked the "secret" to healthy eating. Meat is not going to kill you, but it can cause it's own host of health problems. Cave men didn't die of old age like we do today. If we look at the longest living people on earth today, they eat mostly vegetables (sweet potatoes, squash), rice, very little meat and no processed food. The paleo diet is one more way to get you off processed food, but I am not convinced it is "the" way humans are supposed to eat.

[Ross812]

Of all the diets out there - the okinawa diet is the most effective for better health and longevity. ( it is rice based but works off of consuming less calories) Consuming less calories and restricting fructose/sugar intake is important. Consuming high doses of fructose has the same impact on the liver as consuming alcohol - it can cause liver cirrhosis. 

 

The paleo diet while effective in reducing weight and cardiovascular health hasn't shown makes people live longer.

 

 

 

Wow shalab,

 

You beat me to it!

[oddballstocks]

Approaching nutrition from and evolutionary standpoint as with Paleo diet is interesting. I would very much caution a diet high in meat though. Humans are not carnivores which is very apparent from studying the length of our digestive system and the shape of our teeth. We have to cook meat to make it easier for our bodies to digest, and evolutionarily, cooking meat helped sterilize it and prevents it from rotting in our long digestive system. I think we need to remember that cavemen ate meat to make it through the ice age, but the hunter gatherers were not terribly successful when compared to humans after discovering agriculture. I think the Paleo diet works because it gets you off much of the trash Americans eat. Processed food, white bread, sugar, baked potatoes, and the like. If we look at India and China which found their diet on rice, we don't see near the rate of obesity, cancer, heart disease, and other "Industrialized" diseases.

 

The Paleo diet obviously works, and if it helps you loose weight and stay healthy, wonderful. I'm skeptical of anyone who claims to have unlocked the "secret" to healthy eating. Meat is not going to kill you, but it can cause it's own host of health problems. Cave men didn't die of old age like we do today. If we look at the longest living people on earth today, they eat mostly vegetables (sweet potatoes, squash), rice, very little meat and no processed food. The paleo diet is one more way to get you off processed food, but I am not convinced it is "the" way humans are supposed to eat.

 

Also don't discount the role genes play in longevity.  Almost everyone in my mom's family has lived deep into their 90s which I'd consider a nice long life.  What I find fascinating is none of them exercised, they didn't eat any sort of special diet outside of buttery, fatty ethnic food, especially baked goods.  It is almost like whatever they did to try to kill themselves early didn't work, they just kept living.

 

On the other hand the other side of my family was all very athletic and would be considered very healthy, doing the right things.  That side of my family is plagued with health issues and there's no longevity at all.

 

I look at the things I do, exercise, eating healthy etc not as something that will prolong my life but rather something so that I can enjoy life more now.  I gain more in the present by being in shape than I will in the future depending on which side my genes come from.  I feel better from eating better.

 

A key is moderation.  An overweight person or obese person is a prisoner to their appetite.  A health nut is a prisoner to a dogma about nutrition.  I don't want to be a prisoner to either, I want to enjoy life.

 

You can do all the right things and die in a car crash or of cancer at age 45.  Or you can do all the wrong things and live into your 90s.  Life can be cruel like that, if you're putting yourself through a crazy routine now so that you can gain a few years in your 80s and 90s remember that nothing is guaranteed. 

[maxthetrade]

Of all the diets out there - the okinawa diet is the most effective for better health and longevity. ( it is rice based but works off of consuming less calories) Consuming less calories and restricting fructose/sugar intake is important. Consuming high doses of fructose has the same impact on the liver as consuming alcohol - it can cause liver cirrhosis. 

 

The paleo diet while effective in reducing weight and cardiovascular health hasn't shown makes people live longer.

 

Exactly! If longevity is your goal I'd stay away from high meat/fat diets and rather focus on a plant/starch centered diet and caloric restriction.

[Guest Hester]

Approaching nutrition from and evolutionary standpoint as with Paleo diet is interesting. I would very much caution a diet high in meat though. Humans are not carnivores which is very apparent from studying the length of our digestive system and the shape of our teeth. We have to cook meat to make it easier for our bodies to digest, and evolutionarily, cooking meat helped sterilize it and prevents it from rotting in our long digestive system. I think we need to remember that cavemen ate meat to make it through the ice age, but the hunter gatherers were not terribly successful when compared to humans after discovering agriculture. I think the Paleo diet works because it gets you off much of the trash Americans eat. Processed food, white bread, sugar, baked potatoes, and the like. If we look at India and China which found their diet on rice, we don't see near the rate of obesity, cancer, heart disease, and other "Industrialized" diseases.

 

The Paleo diet obviously works, and if it helps you loose weight and stay healthy, wonderful. I'm skeptical of anyone who claims to have unlocked the "secret" to healthy eating. Meat is not going to kill you, but it can cause it's own host of health problems. Cave men didn't die of old age like we do today. If we look at the longest living people on earth today, they eat mostly vegetables (sweet potatoes, squash), rice, very little meat and no processed food. The paleo diet is one more way to get you off processed food, but I am not convinced it is "the" way humans are supposed to eat.

 

There is good evidence to believe the vast majority of hunter gatherer humans got most of their nutrition from meat products. http://www.ajcn.org/content/71/3/682.full

 

Remember, prehistoric humans didn't just eat the meat tissue, but also organs, fat, bone marrow, etc... One animal provided a lot of food. Meat was a far more reliable source of nutrition than plants for 99% of evolutionary history, since animals aren't seasonal, and generally aren't subject to environmental whims as much, like drought.

 

The evidence that starches lead to increased longevity is dubious at best, at least from what I've read. The best evidence in my opinion is observing what happens when native Americans or other previously isolated traditional societies (Pacific Islanders, Africans) are introduced to western diets. In basically every case, when they switch from diets of fish, game, coconuts (in the case Pacific Islanders) and nuts to starches and processed flower, they gain wieght and start to acquire a myriad of diseases. Almost anytime a group of people switch from non-insulin stimulating food to insulin stimulating foods, their health goes to hell.

 

The opposite happens when westerners go to primitive societies and eat like the locals for a long period. Google the studies of shipwrecked westerners who lived with the Inuit in the far North, eating nothing but meat. Almost every measure of health improved.

 

As far as the claim that prehistoric humans lived shorter, so meat filled diets aren't appropriate for modern humans: Saying the solution is to eat a balanced diet of starches is a non sequitor. Why would eating something unnatural to the human diet, starches, be the answer? It would be like claiming prehistoric humans had a short life span, and never drank diet soda, and modern humans drink a lot of diet soda and live much longer, ergo the answer to longevity is the consumption of diet soda. Makes no sense.

 

Besides, the reasons humans had a short life span were not nutritional, except for famine/lack of food.

 

 

[rkbabang]

Eric,

 

I'm just starting my research into the Paleo diet and came across this website on "bulletproof coffee". Ignore all the coffee they are trying to sell, but I'd be curious on your opinion on this. Basically the breakfast is coffee blended with butter (grass fed only) and MCT oil (or coconut oil). Lots of claims on the site, but I'd be curious to get your opinion.

 

http://www.bulletproofexec.com/how-to-make-your-coffee-bulletproof-and-your-morning-too/

 

Someone sent me a private message asking me if this is where I got it from too.  I never heard of this guy before this week, but since I got the idea on the internet it could have originated with him.  I think I got the idea from someone mentioning adding butter to coffee in the comment section of a blog post I read somewhere and I thought it sounded good so I tried it.  He mentions blending it which I've never tried, but if it makes it more frothy like a latte then I think it would be delicious.  Adding coconut oil in there as well is probably good too.

 

This guy seems like he eats a paleo-like diet, but his ideas about sleep are a little out there.  I don't use any electronic devices to shorten my sleep time.  I go to bed and wake up 6-8 hours later.  He definitely makes a lot of claims I don't see elsewhere, so I'm skeptical.  That doesn't mean he's wrong, just that I'm skeptical that getting 4 hours of sleep every night would be a healthy thing to do, And I worry about what

the long term effects of that would be.

 

As far as his brand of coffee goes, it sounds to me like he's trying to sell his coffee, I don't think any quality coffee is going to be much different from his.  I have a small local coffee roaster that I go to who buys only the highest quality beans and roasts them in tiny batches (I believe it is 40lbs at a time) for long periods of time at lower temperature than the big companies use.  The coffee is incredible.  Your average large coffee roaster selling mass-market beans burns the beans by roasting thousands of lbs for a very short time at a high temperature, in order to maximize their output.

 

Anyway I digress.  That's my take on that website.  His dietary advise looks pretty good, he's trying to sell his own brand of coffee, and some of his other ideas are .... umm ... different.

 

[Ross812]

Approaching nutrition from and evolutionary standpoint as with Paleo diet is interesting. I would very much caution a diet high in meat though. Humans are not carnivores which is very apparent from studying the length of our digestive system and the shape of our teeth. We have to cook meat to make it easier for our bodies to digest, and evolutionarily, cooking meat helped sterilize it and prevents it from rotting in our long digestive system. I think we need to remember that cavemen ate meat to make it through the ice age, but the hunter gatherers were not terribly successful when compared to humans after discovering agriculture. I think the Paleo diet works because it gets you off much of the trash Americans eat. Processed food, white bread, sugar, baked potatoes, and the like. If we look at India and China which found their diet on rice, we don't see near the rate of obesity, cancer, heart disease, and other "Industrialized" diseases.

 

The Paleo diet obviously works, and if it helps you loose weight and stay healthy, wonderful. I'm skeptical of anyone who claims to have unlocked the "secret" to healthy eating. Meat is not going to kill you, but it can cause it's own host of health problems. Cave men didn't die of old age like we do today. If we look at the longest living people on earth today, they eat mostly vegetables (sweet potatoes, squash), rice, very little meat and no processed food. The paleo diet is one more way to get you off processed food, but I am not convinced it is "the" way humans are supposed to eat.

 

There is good evidence to believe the vast majority of hunter gatherer humans got most of their nutrition from meat products. http://www.ajcn.org/content/71/3/682.full

 

Remember, prehistoric humans didn't just eat the meat tissue, but also organs, fat, bone marrow, etc... One animal provided a lot of food. Meat was a far more reliable source of nutrition than plants for 99% of evolutionary history, since animals aren't seasonal, and generally aren't subject to environmental whims as much, like drought.

 

The evidence that starches lead to increased longevity is dubious at best, at least from what I've read. The best evidence in my opinion is observing what happens when native Americans or other previously isolated traditional societies (Pacific Islanders, Africans) are introduced to western diets. In basically every case, when they switch from diets of fish, game, coconuts (in the case Pacific Islanders) and nuts to starches and processed flower, they gain wieght and start to acquire a myriad of diseases. Almost anytime a group of people switch from non-insulin stimulating food to insulin stimulating foods, their health goes to hell.

 

The opposite happens when westerners go to primitive societies and eat like the locals for a long period. Google the studies of shipwrecked westerners who lived with the Inuit in the far North, eating nothing but meat. Almost every measure of health improved.

 

As far as the claim that prehistoric humans lived shorter, so meat filled diets aren't appropriate for modern humans: Saying the solution is to eat a balanced diet of starches is a non sequitor. Why would eating something unnatural to the human diet, starches, be the answer? It would be like claiming prehistoric humans had a short life span, and never drank diet soda, and modern humans drink a lot of diet soda and live much longer, ergo the answer to longevity is the consumption of diet soda. Makes no sense.

 

Besides, the reasons humans had a short life span were not nutritional, except for famine/lack of food.

 

 

 

I very much liked your article. I was not arguing the fact that humans got the majority of their calories from meat in prehistoric times. The calorie density of animal sources of food is much higher than that of plant sources so naturally humans would eat meat if they could catch it.  The 65:35 ratio means animal calories were easier to come by than plant calories. Prehistoric humans were eating what was available not what was healthy. Regardless if the majority of their food came from animals or plants they made it to a reproductive age. Evolutionarily, it makes sense to select humans that die after their reproductive years so they do not hinder the strength and fertility of the group. There is no evolutionary advantage for a prehistoric human to live much past their prime age of 35 to 40. 

 

I agree that primitive people's health goes downhill when they start eating a western diet. We all agree post 1950’s processed food is terrible for you. My concern comes from the ratio of meat guided by the Paleo diet. The 65:35 ratio of animal vs. plant based calories contradicts the majority of what I have read about long lived people today. I am questioning if copying the diet of our ancestors who had a target age of 40 is a good idea.

 

The virtue of the Paleo diet is it teaches you to avoid eating processed starches and sugars. Cutting out the majority of processed food and white carbohydrates Western civilizations eat agrees with the recommendations most informed nutritionists would make.   

 

[rkbabang]

Remember, prehistoric humans didn't just eat the meat tissue, but also organs, fat, bone marrow, etc... One animal provided a lot of food. Meat was a far more reliable source of nutrition than plants for 99% of evolutionary history, since animals aren't seasonal, and generally aren't subject to environmental whims as much, like drought.

 

The evidence that starches lead to increased longevity is dubious at best, at least from what I've read.

 

I think no one can say how the prehistoric humans lived with any degree of certainty as the modern civilizations are several thousand years old already and there isnt much recorded history before that.

 

Looking at the 20th and 21st century, we know the lifespans have increased. I don't see the Inuits living as long as the other Canadians now.

 

Caloric restriction - scientifically proven - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction

Okinawa diet - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinawa_diet

 

The thing about calorie restriction is that it works at almost starvation levels.  The mice in the studies had to be caged separately literally so they would not eat each other.  Human beings are not going to do that to themselves.  At least I'm not.  Also it hasn't been proven in humans yet anyway.  Intermittent fasting is an interesting idea however, I know many people in the paleo movement swear by it.  After all there where certainly days where the men came back from the hunt empty handed.  I've tried going a day without eating and found it fairly easy to do, but I didn't feel any different afterwards so I haven't added intermittent fasting to my routine yet. 

[theantilibrary]

 

 

I very much liked your article. I was not arguing the fact that humans got the majority of their calories from meat in prehistoric times. The calorie density of animal sources of food is much higher than that of plant sources so naturally humans would eat meat if they could catch it.  The 65:35 ratio means animal calories were easier to come by than plant calories. Prehistoric humans were eating what was available not what was healthy. Regardless if the majority of their food came from animals or plants they made it to a reproductive age. Evolutionarily, it makes sense to select humans that die after their reproductive years so they do not hinder the strength and fertility of the group. There is no evolutionary advantage for a prehistoric human to live much past their prime age of 35 to 40. 

 

I agree that primitive people's health goes downhill when they start eating a western diet. We all agree post 1950’s processed food is terrible for you. My concern comes from the ratio of meat guided by the Paleo diet. The 65:35 ratio of animal vs. plant based calories contradicts the majority of what I have read about long lived people today. I am questioning if copying the diet of our ancestors who had a target age of 40 is a good idea.

 

The virtue of the Paleo diet is it teaches you to avoid eating processed starches and sugars. Cutting out the majority of processed food and white carbohydrates Western civilizations eat agrees with the recommendations most informed nutritionists would make.   

 

 

Ross, not sure I would agree that evolution would select for humans that die after their reproductive years. Would accumulated knowledge and wisdom count for nothing?

 

Here is an article discussing why women outlive their fertility: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-origin-of-menopause

 

Sorry to go a little off the food topic (this is a great thread!) I just thought this was an interesting point for discussion as well.

[bargainman]

Here's an interesting blog post about 2 studies, comparing the outcomes of high carb vs high fat diets:

 

http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2008/02/25/the-science-of-fat-loss-why-a-calorie-isnt-always-a-calorie/

 

 

[Guest Hester]

Remember, prehistoric humans didn't just eat the meat tissue, but also organs, fat, bone marrow, etc... One animal provided a lot of food. Meat was a far more reliable source of nutrition than plants for 99% of evolutionary history, since animals aren't seasonal, and generally aren't subject to environmental whims as much, like drought.

 

The evidence that starches lead to increased longevity is dubious at best, at least from what I've read.

 

I think no one can say how the prehistoric humans lived with any degree of certainty as the modern civilizations are several thousand years old already and there isnt much recorded history before that.

 

Looking at the 20th and 21st century, we know the lifespans have increased. I don't see the Inuits living as long as the other Canadians now.

 

Caloric restriction - scientifically proven - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction

Okinawa diet - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinawa_diet

 

We know what prehistoric humans ate in the same way we know what Dinosaurs ate. It has nothing to do with recorded history.

 

Inuits have the lowest lifespan of any Canadian group, not because of nutrition. A guy in Toronto has better access to healthcare than a guy in the Arctic Circle.

 

Again, comparing two groups of people with different nutrition AND different healthcare, daily activities, genetics, culture, etc... Doesn't tell you much about nutrition. There are too many variables. However, when the same groups of people (I.E. same healthcare, genes, culture, etc..) switch diets, that is a far better natural experiment. See my previous points about native Americans switching diets.

[Guest Hester]

I very much liked your article. I was not arguing the fact that humans got the majority of their calories from meat in prehistoric times. The calorie density of animal sources of food is much higher than that of plant sources so naturally humans would eat meat if they could catch it.  The 65:35 ratio means animal calories were easier to come by than plant calories. Prehistoric humans were eating what was available not what was healthy. Regardless if the majority of their food came from animals or plants they made it to a reproductive age. Evolutionarily, it makes sense to select humans that die after their reproductive years so they do not hinder the strength and fertility of the group. There is no evolutionary advantage for a prehistoric human to live much past their prime age of 35 to 40. 

 

I agree that primitive people's health goes downhill when they start eating a western diet. We all agree post 1950’s processed food is terrible for you. My concern comes from the ratio of meat guided by the Paleo diet. The 65:35 ratio of animal vs. plant based calories contradicts the majority of what I have read about long lived people today. I am questioning if copying the diet of our ancestors who had a target age of 40 is a good idea.

 

The virtue of the Paleo diet is it teaches you to avoid eating processed starches and sugars. Cutting out the majority of processed food and white carbohydrates Western civilizations eat agrees with the recommendations most informed nutritionists would make.   

 

 

Well good response. I kind of agree with most of that.

 

I'm not saying meat/nuts/green vegetables aren't intrinsically healthy. Our bodies evolved to handle those kind of foods the best because that was all that was available. If pasta and bread grew on trees and meat had to be manufactured by Kraft, then spaghettios would be the height of a healthy meal.

 

The main disagreement, is if a prehistoric diet isn't the best, then what is?

 

 

"I am questioning if copying the diet of our ancestors who had a target age of 40 is a good idea."

 

But what's the alternative? I'm questioning if embracing a diet which our bodies never evolved to handle at any age is a good idea. It goes back to my soda analogy. Just because people are eating more starches (and drinking soda) now and living longer doesn't mean they are living longer because of the starches. I don't think that any other diet including foods or nutrition our ancestors never ate really makes any sense, since it is unnatural to humans.

 

I also don't think diet had anything at all to do with short prehistoric humans life span. I think it was mostly because of complete lack of even basic healthcare, and greater risks from predators and famine. I mean, if you fractured your ankle in prehistoric Africa, you probably die. One drought can wipe you out. War and violence were very common.

 

If low carb/high meat diets aren't conducive to old age, then we would see that in modern societies. What I mean is, modern groups of people with many similarities (healthcare, physical activity, genes, etc...) but different diets should see the meat eaters with shorter life spans. This isn't the case from the data I've seen.

[shalab]

We know what prehistoric humans ate in the same way we know what Dinosaurs ate.

 

How do we know that? Also, there were plant eating dinosaurs  ;D. If anything, I would think the prehistoric humans ate in a similar way as the chimps, the closest relative to the modern human.

 

CHIMP'S DIET:

 

Chimpanzee diets are composed mainly of ripe fruits but vary according to the time of the year and abundance of specific food items. They will spend many hours a day eating about 20 different species of plants and up to about 300 different species during a one year period.  They do not store food and will eat it at the place they find it.  They also enjoy eating young leaves particularly in the afternoon. In long dry seasons when fruit is scarce, tree seeds, flowers, soft pith, galls, resin and bark become an important part of their diet.

 

They also eat many different types of insects, however termites are the most nutritionally important.  Termites are collected either by hand or with tools which are modified by the chimp and specifically used for this purpose.  Many zoos, including the Honolulu Zoo, have built termite mounds to simulate this natural behavior of feeding.  See our termite mound enrichment. Females spend twice as much time eating insects as males do.  Birds are occasionally eaten. Mammals such as monkeys, pigs and antelope are also eaten, particularly by males, but along with termites only account for about 5% of their diet.

 

Hunting style varies from one population to another depending upon the type of habitat. The amount of cooperation between males in a group will affect the hunting success.  An abundance of fruit in a particular area where there are a large number of monkeys, will result in a higher hunting success rate; mostly because the chimps will have the highly needed energy from the fruit to pursue the monkeys.  Most carnivores have a less than 50% success rate when hunting; however, the success rate for chimpanzees hunting red colobus monkeys is between 50 and 80%.

[Guest Hester]

We know what prehistoric humans ate in the same way we know what Dinosaurs ate.

 

How do we know that? Also, there were plant eating dinosaurs  ;D. If anything, I would think the prehistoric humans ate in a similar way as the chimps, the closest relative to the modern human.

 

 

You wrote:

 

"I think no one can say how the prehistoric humans lived with any degree of certainty as the modern civilizations are several thousand years old already and there isnt much recorded history before that."

 

I wasn't saying humans and dinosaurs ate the same thing. I was trying to point out that the methods of discovering what prehistoric humans ate is the same as the methods of discovering what dinosaurs ate. I was being polite, frankly, your above sentence is incomprehensibly stupid. Especially since by definition, prehistoric humans didn't record their history. Hence the term PREHISTORIC

 

Not only that, but you seem to implicitly accept evolution, which is mostly proven by the fossil record, yet you don't understand how we could know what humans ate before recorded history?

 

 

 

I should of originally just said, "WTF do you not know what fossils are!?!" and left it at that.

[rkbabang]

We know what prehistoric humans ate in the same way we know what Dinosaurs ate.

 

How do we know that? Also, there were plant eating dinosaurs  ;D. If anything, I would think the prehistoric humans ate in a similar way as the chimps, the closest relative to the modern human.

 

 

You wrote:

 

"I think no one can say how the prehistoric humans lived with any degree of certainty as the modern civilizations are several thousand years old already and there isnt much recorded history before that."

 

I wasn't saying humans and dinosaurs ate the same thing. I was trying to point out that the methods of discovering what prehistoric humans ate is the same as the methods of discovering what dinosaurs ate. I was being polite, frankly, your above sentence is incomprehensibly stupid. Especially since by definition, prehistoric humans didn't record their history. Hence the term PREHISTORIC

 

Not only that, but you seem to implicitly accept evolution, which is mostly proven by the fossil record, yet you don't understand how we could know what humans ate before recorded history?

 

 

 

I should of originally just said, "WTF do you not know what fossils are!?!" and left it at that.

 

Let me also point out that hunter/gatherer societies have existed right up until modern times and have been studied.  Look it up.  They eat more meat than anything else and they certainly do not eat termites.  We are only 7-8 million years separated from chimps, but we have evolved in slightly different directions since then.

 

[Ross812]

I very much liked your article. I was not arguing the fact that humans got the majority of their calories from meat in prehistoric times. The calorie density of animal sources of food is much higher than that of plant sources so naturally humans would eat meat if they could catch it.  The 65:35 ratio means animal calories were easier to come by than plant calories. Prehistoric humans were eating what was available not what was healthy. Regardless if the majority of their food came from animals or plants they made it to a reproductive age. Evolutionarily, it makes sense to select humans that die after their reproductive years so they do not hinder the strength and fertility of the group. There is no evolutionary advantage for a prehistoric human to live much past their prime age of 35 to 40. 

 

I agree that primitive people's health goes downhill when they start eating a western diet. We all agree post 1950’s processed food is terrible for you. My concern comes from the ratio of meat guided by the Paleo diet. The 65:35 ratio of animal vs. plant based calories contradicts the majority of what I have read about long lived people today. I am questioning if copying the diet of our ancestors who had a target age of 40 is a good idea.

 

The virtue of the Paleo diet is it teaches you to avoid eating processed starches and sugars. Cutting out the majority of processed food and white carbohydrates Western civilizations eat agrees with the recommendations most informed nutritionists would make.   

 

 

Well good response. I kind of agree with most of that.

 

I'm not saying meat/nuts/green vegetables aren't intrinsically healthy. Our bodies evolved to handle those kind of foods the best because that was all that was available. If pasta and bread grew on trees and meat had to be manufactured by Kraft, then spaghettios would be the height of a healthy meal.

 

The main disagreement, is if a prehistoric diet isn't the best, then what is?

 

 

"I am questioning if copying the diet of our ancestors who had a target age of 40 is a good idea."

 

But what's the alternative? I'm questioning if embracing a diet which our bodies never evolved to handle at any age is a good idea. It goes back to my soda analogy. Just because people are eating more starches (and drinking soda) now and living longer doesn't mean they are living longer because of the starches. I don't think that any other diet including foods or nutrition our ancestors never ate really makes any sense, since it is unnatural to humans.

 

I also don't think diet had anything at all to do with short prehistoric humans life span. I think it was mostly because of complete lack of even basic healthcare, and greater risks from predators and famine. I mean, if you fractured your ankle in prehistoric Africa, you probably die. One drought can wipe you out. War and violence were very common.

 

If low carb/high meat diets aren't conducive to old age, then we would see that in modern societies. What I mean is, modern groups of people with many similarities (healthcare, physical activity, genes, etc...) but different diets should see the meat eaters with shorter life spans. This isn't the case from the data I've seen.

 

Hester I agree with you that we should eat what our ancestors ate. I'm not hawking white bread and soda by any means, I am just questioning the virtue of embracing a 65:35 animal to plant ratio for our diet. I think meat and high fat diets really do impact our health in a negative way if eaten too often, and most likely show up as health problems later in life. Our ancestors did not have to worry about later life problems because you're right, a broken ankle, lion, or a jealous rival  got them first.

 

The alternative I would propose is a mostly plant based diet. Keeping with the paleo plants is probably a good idea. I don't think cereal grains are necessarily bad, but they shouldn't make up the foundation of anyone's diet. I don't think the paleo diet is bad by any means I just don't like the high concentration of animal calories.

 

There are some people taking the paleo diet a little too far. When I was researching it, I found blogs with people switching their A:P ratio with the newest research, fasting for a day or two, sleeping in 4 hour shifts, and arguing about which vegetables are ok.

 

The research I have seen about vegetarian cultures shows that the people do not develop the same kinds of diseases we see in the western world. I would bet though, this is because they are not eating our processed foods and not due to the absence of meat. It does demonstrate that people can survive without meat; the opposite is not true. I know I'm just rambling now. I could have summed it all up by saying I agree with eating the kinds of food that our ancestors ate, I just don't agree with eating meat in that high of proportion because we die from diseases of old age today (diseases in which many nutritionists today suggest are caused by animal based diets). Our ancestors didn't worry about living to a ripe old age, they could eat all the whale blubber and elk liver they could find and is long as they had a few children and lived to 40, they were evolutionarily successful.

[shalab]

Hester, I live in the 21st century and looking to see how to best make use of the current knowledge to my advantage. I have learned a bunch about investing, diet (thanks to a bunch of posters) and human behavior through this board including yourself  ;D. There is nothing personal here buddy  :)