PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

[jimmygu3]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

hello JK, was responding more to Jimmy's comment about trials, there.

As far as the other diseases (not celiac) it is just anecdotal or small non-controlled trials, according to what I have found so far.

I only wish we had that kind of granularity in epidemiologic data!

As far as obesity, I would expect that to be covariant only to the degree that increased carb caloiries tracks gliadin grains like wheat.

One could adopt a western diet with no wheat and lots of sugar and keep eating white rice like in the old country, become obese and not be at increased risk for celiac or possibly the autoimmune diseases. It sounds like that is what you are suggesting. That is what I would expect.

I don't know if you're from Mexico, Roger, but your username reminded me of something a friend from Mexico, who has been in the US for 10 years, told me recently. His brother just moved to the states, and one of the first things he did was take his brother to the supermarket. He told him all the crap not to buy because he has seen too many Latin American friends get fat on American junk food in the first 6 months after arriving.

Jimmy

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

I don't know if you're from Mexico, Roger, but your username reminded me of something a friend from Mexico, who has been in the US for 10 years, told me recently. His brother just moved to the states, and one of the first things he did was take his brother to the supermarket. He told him all the crap not to buy because he has seen too many Latin American friends get fat on American junk food in the first 6 months after arriving.

Jimmy

Roger Mexico is a character from Gravity's Rainbow, by Thomas Pynchon

I'm only from Mexico if you count the part we stole (born in California);)

Jimmy, if you just stay to the periphery of the supermarket and never buy any food that comes in a box or any plant oil that comes in bottle, you are doing about 80% of my recommendations. That is how to survive in the States!

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Don't know of any animals that photosynthesis.

A great link about it though: http://www.naturalways.com/spirul1.htm

Spirulina is one of the few plant sources of vitamin B12, usually found only in animal tissues. A teaspoon of Spirulina supplies 21/2 times the Recommended Daily Allowance of vitamin B12 and contains over twice the amount of this vitamin found in an equivalent serving of liver.
Spirulina also provides high concentrations of many other nutrients - amino acids, chelated minerals, pigmentations, rhamnose sugars (complex natural plant sugars), trace elements, enzymes - that are in an easily assimilable form.
Even though it is single-celled, Spirulina is relatively large, attaining sizes of 0.5 millimeters in length. This is about 100 times the size of most other algae, which makes some individual Spirulina cells visible to the naked eye. Furthermore, the prolific reproductive capacity of the cells and their proclivity to adhere in colonies makes Spirulina a large and easily gathered plant mass.

I am not an expert on supplements or blue-green algae. As you might guess, I regard supplements and special food-defensive efforts other than cooking as evidence of suboptimal diet per se.

That said, there seems to be at least some dispute about the bioavailability of B12 in Spirulina

From Wikipedia:

B12
The bioavailability of vitamin B12 in Spirulina is in dispute. Several biological assays have been used to test for the presence of vitamin B12.[7] The most popular is the US Pharmacopeia method using the Lactobacillus leichmannii assay. Studies using this method have shown Spirulina to be a minimal source of bioavailable vitamin B12.[8] However, this assay does not differentiate between true B12 (cobalamin) and similar compounds (corrinoids) that cannot be used in human metabolism. Cyanotech, a grower of spirulina, claims to have done a more recent assay, which has shown Spirulina to be a significant source of cobalamin. However, the assay is not published for scientific review and so the validity of this assay is in doubt.[9] The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada in their position paper on vegetarian diets state that spirulina can not be counted on as a reliable source of active vitamin B12. [10]
Tests done on Australian-grown spirulina by the Australian Government Analytical Laboratory (AGAL) show Vitamin B12 (cobalamin) levels of 659.1 ug / per100g [11].[dubious – discuss] A one gram tablet could provide more than three times the recommended daily intake of B12.
[edit]

Hopefully you are lacto-ovo or taking brewer's yeast or some additional source.

[Guest]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

I have learned ... abandonment of ... rhetorical devices as a sign of making some headway. Glad to see that is happening. I hope everyone does their own further reading and no one relies solely on either an ex-newsletter writer ... as the final word ... I realize non-physicians are held to a different standard in regards to general advice - but this is absolutely false and dangerous medical advice you are now giving here. The only cure is to avoid gliadin proteins and especially wheat, forever, period.

Rogermexico's reply appears a little bit circuitous on a couple of points to this reader. As Raja somewhat laboriously clarified, no one is advocating the consumption of grains instead of any other foods - just that they can safely be one other source of food on the table. He may get discouraged to read this in reply to such clarifications:

ROGER & PA-NU THEORY REPLY: - "What is your definition of "healthy"? Is a food class that must be "balanced" by more nutritious sources to avoid deficiencies, healthy or just a source of calories?"

Which makes no sense, because *any* food source must be balanced with other food sources to remain healthy for long. If you put humans on a diet of meat only, they will become sickly, and the same will happen from eating grains alone. Not viable in either case! The key component of both meat and grains diets is really just the plentiful vegetable nutrition. and it is these other two rather, which are "incomplete" nutritional sources. Or will someone please correct this elementary reasoning if it is incorrect?

So does Pa_Nu recognize that with great preponderance worldwide, when you add plentiful vegetable nutrition, both the meat and the grain diets become well rounded and for the greatest part the people are healthy?

Not that I've managed to discern. Here is an MD with a presumed keen interest in the bottom line for the good health of mankind at large, arguing that "one of the proofs" that grains are not safe food to eat, is that when consumed alone the grains carbohydrates are actively detrimental to human health. Yes indeed, and who could argue with that? :rolleyes:

So just to be absolutely clear with the secular evidence, out of the meat, the vegetables and grains, only the lowly vegetables will permit you to live healthily enough, without consuming the other two. Meanwhile, one could hardly describe vegetarians as "tottering about" in terms of a fragile state of general health, either. You can't live on meat alone, and you can't live on grains alone. But you can live on vegetables alone, because they are far more "versatile" than the other two in their varieties.

AND SPEAKING MORE TO THE "PUBLIC INTEREST" ASPECT SIDE OF THIS DIET QUESTION:

We can "speak to the public interest" by going global. The presence of grains in the diets of 3/4 of the planet's societies is as an ***additional*** source of nutrition, evolved to permit the numeric expansion of the species - as in - ***more people can be reliably fed***. The reason should be obvious - that without the grains, we are summarily consigning 3/4 of the earth's population to starve, die, or otherwise simply "go somewhere else". :rolleyes:

Raja makes the pragmatic argument - "grains can be a wholesome addition to any diet rich in other forms of nutrition". Roger has little that is 100% unequivocal to rebut this with, as when balanced with plentiful vegetables and meat and where nothing is refined, such diets worldwide (cumulatively) evidence a robust and widely positive health record.

In response, Roger cites statistically significant incidence of grain related issues such as autommune disorders, celiac disease in grain eating regions, but it is unclear whether these cases are being sampled across groups who maintain a healthy vegetable-rich diet, or whether their grains were refined or not. It also remains unclear how this statistical incidence then gets extrapolated out to the general population sufficient to summarily indict an entire dietary source - given that celiac illness or the above automimmune disorders are entirely absent in other grain consuming regions.

Raja's observations accept the following point: Grains have emerged naturally over the course of millennia as a large and viable component of human nutrition, due partly to their nutritive value when combined with vegetables and meat, (BTW a multigenerational real world trial and error that is far superior to any "medically peer reviewed modern case study"), and partly also due to proliferating humanity's NEED TO PRODUCE ADEQUATE SUPPLIES OF BASIC FOOD to sustain a growing world population.

Here's another curious argument - That grains "require special preparation therefore they are toxic as food", as if we are to remove "food preparation", most food becomes inedible. The conversation thereafter shows rich promise to devolve into a fruitless academic debate as to "what defines food preparation and why", which clarifies nothing.

Rogers arguments are based upon the notion of an "optimal nutrition" wherein "why should we eat things which have even partly deleterious effects, when we can restrict ourselves to the most nutritious and non-toxic food"?. Well, as noted above, for two thirds of the world this is simply not an option, and secondly when combined in sensible proportions with plentiful vegetables and a modest amount of meat, the argument for toxicity in grains becomes weak, to the point of precarious, as extremely healthy specimens abound the world over.

To argue that "the world" would be better off not eating grains at all is academic, as there is no option to permit the world's current population to exist without grains.

Best approach would be to pragmatically recognize the world's lack of options to feed 8 billion, and redouble one's efforts to prove that grains consumption toxicity really was a real issue at a global level - to settle the matter for the world's best overall interests. Meanwhile the picture that emerges worldwide, is that in the general presence of a balanced other nutrition, such as when grains are combined with enough vegetables, the diseases linked to grains referred to here are simply absent.

Therefore no concerned MD should discharge himself of sincerely and agnostically seeking to understand the bottom line on a food issue of vital importance for the entire world (are grains really even viable food at all?). This is a question of "good grace" inherent in one's recommendations to the world. One has a full understanding of the point that, "institutionalizing" Roger's or Taube's "grains toxicity" to the international food policy level would raise extremely dire consequences for the entirety of people on an already crowded and precariously fed planet.

And if you wrap all of this up with a nice bow around it, and ponder what is signified to the proponent of such a thesis if it were ever ultimately proved wrong by some flaw in it's logic - then one can also understand that for an MD (with influence upon client and public opinion) to be urging the world to dump grains, when it cannot afford to, could arguably even verge upon the unethical, in that it was "bandying about" questions having very large food resource repercussions.

This insight seems curiously missing from Roger's keenness to get to the bottom of the grains having a really deleterious impact on humanity - with that as an ethical backdrop therefore, any skating glibly over the results of simple investigation of the many, many healthy peoples subsisting on grains combined with plentiful vegetables, constitutes a notable ethical hazard as well!

There are some at least potential large improprieties at the heart of a grains=toxic thesis therefore: Because 1) the world NEEDS grains to keep feeding the extant population, therefore grains are "highly pragmatic", and 2) because of the huge abundance of societies evidencing robust good health when the grains are mixed with plentiful other foods.

All this suggests very clearly that "grains toxicity" is a notion that needs to be stress tested carefully away from it's more precious corollaries, such as when expressed in the form of general malnutrition (including Rogermexico's American patients, and all other Americans on an unbalanced modern diet!), or where even a hint of unbalanced diet may compromise the cited instances anywhere in the world. Places in the world where people have less cultural or availability-induced inclination to eat lots of fresh vegetables for balance, should be ruled out as "biased or contaminated case studies" to Roger's thesis.

I don't see Rogermexico candidly confronting any of those issues. I've never seen him even condescend to discuss the benefits of a high meat protein and fat diet upon the elderly. He progresses with this lofty, blandly patronizing style of discourse where every comment and reply to Raja's commmon sense points is an arch form of skirting around the above simple observations.

He seems to have no innate sense of the ethical atractiveness of foregoing a beautifully hermetic thesis involving generalized dogma on the grains, in order to square their at least "imperfect" acceptability as being 2/3 of the world's existing food. And if they are "at least imperfectly" acceptable as food for 2/3 of the world, they are likely quite "at least imperfectly acceptable" as food for you and I. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by raja healthy . . . whole grains are healthy, but must be prepared in the traditional ways, and they must be consumed with a balanced diet.

What is your definition of "healthy"? Is a food class that must be "balanced" by more nutritious sources to avoid deficiencies healthy or just a source of calories?

I think you have just made a very good case for abandoning the naturalist fallacy when it comes to evaluating the health of food eaten by omnivores.

You could also argue that refined sugar is fine in small quantities, "meticulously prepared" - Sugar has been "traditional" in the west now for over a hundred years. Would it be OK to eat 10 lbs of natural, traditional honey every day? It's traditional and natural!

In today's environment, what do you consider the safe, low glycemic properly prepared sources of whole grains that are healthy and essential? ...

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

I'm not sure to which snippets of Roger's, Luke's and/or Raja's posts I'm responding here, but I was wondering if we should have a "mental health" thread, perhaps parallel to this "nutrition health" thread.

Nah ... that wouldn't work ... it would collapse into negative comments on each others alleged dietary excesses and deficiencies. :rolleyes:.

[Sharky]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

WGA, which is particularly nasty as a lectin, directly binds insulin receptors. There is speculation that proteins in wheat may somehow have opiate receptor activity

Very interesting tidbits there.

Unresponsive insulin receptors are of course at the core of type 2 diabetes. Has any work been done to determine how long the receptors remain bound by WGA after grains are removed from the diet?

There is a relatively recent hypothesis that many autoimmune disorders are caused by low levels of natural opiates; I wonder if this has any connection to that. This concept is the foundation of low dose naltrexone therapy, which works by blocking all opiate receptors for a short time once per day, which causes the body to produce more of them. The higher levels then act to modulate the immune system, causing many auto-immune disorders to abate or go into remission entirely, including things like muliple sclerosis, arthritis, Chron's, etc.

[Guest]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

You've sparked a very fertile new line of potential imputations to grain as the origin of multiple disorders here Sharky. Good stuff! :rolleyes:

No need to stop at only Celiac Disease when it comes to grain's insidious role - we can add as "attributed directly to the grains" - Diabetes, several thyroid diseases, including Hashimoto's Thyroditis, Autoimmune Myocarditis, Grave's Disease, Primary Hyperthyroidism, Dermatitis Herpetiformis, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Crohn's, myriad other gastrointestinal and endocrine system disorders due to grains, and so on and so forth. That's quite a pedigree to paste onto the humble grain family. Meanwhile Sub-Saharan Africa and the Far East remain irksomely "anomalous" to the thesis, as they appear to be comparatively CD free. Yet they consume grains regardless?? Well, go figure. That is one heck of a lot of "anomalous" exceptions to the thesis tucked away in just a couple more "world regions" (1 - 2 billion people in aggregate) - 'not readily conforming" to the grains=celiac thesis? :rolleyes:.

Southern Hemisphere Africa and the far east must not have "gotten the memo" yet. An audacious thesis' work is apparently never quite done.

[Sharky]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

But seriously, how do you explain why the rest of the grain-eating world does not suffer hypogonadal dwarfism? Obviously, something else is going on.

Could it be because the rest of the grain-eating world doesn't get half of their calories from unleavened (high phytate) breads?

FWIW, the prevalence of unleavened bread in the mideast, combined with the lack of zinc replacement in their soils, leads one to consider that subclinical zinc deficiency may be extremely widespread in that part of the world. If true, it could explain many things....

[Guest]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Yes - so they could eat more vegetables, and the nutritional deficiencies in the grain component of their diets would be then rendered innocuous and moot. That's the salient point, isn't it, given that the thesis here is that the mere presence of grains in a diet under any conditions, sparks a host of inflammatory responses in a significant subset of world populations?

Isn't that the macro thesis of this thread? But with respect, you are making observations instead, about generalized malnutrition here, while leaving a reader to conclude implicitly (in accord with Rogermexico's thesis) that the sum of these illnesses is "due to the presence of unleavened bread". This arguably may be a murky rationale to implicate grains, while malnutrition seems obviously part of the mix.

Grains as the "smoking gun" reason, could be then seen as an imprecise conclusion. The reason could just as easily (indeed more plausibly) be ascribed to the absence of sufficient vegetable variety in their diets. If varied fresh vegetable input were in that actual diet, it would be highly likely to render the zinc deficiency moot, as well as all other trace nutrient deficiencies.

This point alone (malnutrition - where? And how much of a contributing factor?) makes the famous "celiac disease resulting from grains consumption" thesis start to look a bit detached from firm moorings. Or in plain English, this phenomenon is ALSO known as common variety malnutrition, available in innumerable guises worldwide?

We could describe this entire conversation therefore, as an exercise in "how to blithely ignore the broad contributing relevance of nutritional deficiencies" while enthusiastically and vigorously researching all of the illnesses that can be made handily attributable to grains consumption". :rolleyes:

Could it be because the rest of the grain-eating world doesn't get half of their calories from unleavened (high phytate) breads? FWIW, the prevalence of unleavened bread in the mideast, combined with the lack of zinc replacement in their soils, leads one to consider that subclinical zinc deficiency may be extremely widespread in that part of the world. If true, it could explain many things....

[c1ue]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

This has been an interesting thread - always good to see what the prevailing medical opinion is.

I can't help but wonder though how said prevailing opinion may evolve as further information comes to light.

After al opinions even 20 years ago were radically different.

The other things I consider when looking at this issue are simply that modern man is so far removed from its evolutionary past that the adaptations evolved may also no longer be relevant.

For example: prehistoric man probably didn't live much past 40, if not less. Thus a good half of our existing population shouldn't even be around from that viewpoint - certainly it is very possible that the bodies we have were only meant for a warranty period of 40 years (or less).

Secondly there is a lot of variation which seems to not be genetically but environmentally triggered. The 'decoding' of the genome has given us an illusion of understanding but very possibly not far removed in thinking from Mendel - i.e. not correct but usable for modeling purposes. The entire proteomic research field could be viewed in this light.

Lastly the very fact of evolution leaves us with genetic dead ends and artifacts. It is well known that genes are very stingy about removing any material. The view that 95% of the human genome is junk might well be revised as time goes by - because one thing that has already been observed is that the sheer complexity of the massive numbers of codons can give rise to behavior which itself is not predictable by examining the individual components in isolation.

This is not much different in quality than a large complex software program. Anyone who has worked with such has no doubt discovered fascinating quirks (i.e. bugs, but sometimes features) in large complex and old software due to the multitude of actions and semi-inert routines coming to life in various unanticipated ways - though of course in quantity the human genome is still the king.

What it boils down to is whether there is true understanding or merely the illusion of it.

In a similar vein, past behavior does not predicate future performance. The traditional diets of regions in Europe are no more indicative of healthy living than one consisting of Cheetos and Coke: both are very recent from both evolutionary and behavioral standpoints.

[raja]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

The other things I consider when looking at this issue are simply that modern man is so far removed from its evolutionary past that the adaptations evolved may also no longer be relevant.

After agriculture, the biggest change in the human diet occurred only 200 years ago when food was subjected to industrial processes. We are not adapted to white sugar, refined grains, artificially hydrogenated oils and the plethora of chemicals added to our foods.

Returning to a diet similar to that prior to industrialization would be a dramatic realignment with our evolutionary heritage.

For example: prehistoric man probably didn't live much past 40, if not less. Thus a good half of our existing population shouldn't even be around from that viewpoint - certainly it is very possible that the bodies we have were only meant for a warranty period of 40 years (or less).

I don't understand why you would say this, when the average lifespan of modern people is in the 70s, and some people in less industrialized groups life to ripe old ages.

Two other thoughts on this . . . .

1) The 40-year lifespan may be averaging in infant mortality. The average woman probably had 15 offspring, of which only 5 may have survived childhood.

2) Life was dangerous, and there were no modern antibiotics. These two facts of early life would dramatically lower lifespan.

Since modern people can easily live into their 80s and beyond, it is quite likely that pre-historic people had the same capability, though it perhaps rarely played out that way.

In a similar vein, past behavior does not predicate future performance. The traditional diets of regions in Europe are no more indicative of healthy living than one consisting of Cheetos and Coke: both are very recent from both evolutionary and behavioral standpoints.

Think of it this way . . . .

Paleo humans probably ate everything that was edible in nature. Traditional diets do the same more or less, with some cultural variations. If you believe that the body evolved with certain nutritional requirements, then eating in this way gives you the best chance for good health.

Since extruded, de-germed starches and colored sugar water (Cheetos and Coke) did not exist during most of human evolution, we could not be adapted to them, so their consumption probably does not lead to good health.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Since extruded, de-germed starches and colored sugar water (Cheetos and Coke) did not exist during most of human evolution, we could not be adapted to them, so their consumption probably does not lead to good health.

While I entirely agree that Cheetos and Coke probably do not lead to good health, I suspect the reason you state for this is insufficiently subtle.

The juice that I get from running organic veggies through my fancy Green Star twin gear juicer probably did not exist in that particular form in paleolithic times either. But I am confident that juice is healthy stuff.

It is necessary and fitting, in order to substain billions of people on this planet, that we adapt our agriculture, food processing and diet in ways that were neither necessary nor possible in paleolithic times.

[Spartacus]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

It's my understanding that there have always been people who live into their 90s and 100s.

this age seems to have taken hold around the same time as human uric acid rose enormously and the cerebellum grew.

Maximum age has remained constant, average expectancy varies all over the place.

For example: prehistoric man probably didn't live much past 40, if not less. Thus a good half of our existing population shouldn't even be around from that viewpoint - certainly it is very possible that the bodies we have were only meant for a warranty period of 40 years (or less).

[c1ue]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Spartacus,

Sorry, but unless you believe the bible - prehistoric man did NOT live to 70.

Or if he did, then all those primitive people in Brazil, New Guinea, etc are doing something really wrong.

http://www.brazil-brasil.com/cvrjul97.htm

a Brazilian Indian in 1995 should expect to live an average of 42.6 years

http://www.efficientfrontier.com/ef/104/bop.htm

True, beginning about A.D. 1000, there had been improvement in human well-being, but it was of a sort so slow and unreliable that it was not noticeable during the average person’s twenty-five-year life span.

Were there individuals who lived longer? I'm sure there were a few just from statistics. But on average lifespans were NOT anything near modern ones. Note that above lifespan is basically pre-contact modern civilization. Since then it has gone down considerably because greater human densities = greater chances for disease.

So please be aware of Rosseau-ian tendencies - they're bulls**t.

After agriculture, the biggest change in the human diet occurred only 200 years ago when food was subjected to industrial processes. We are not adapted to white sugar, refined grains, artificially hydrogenated oils and the plethora of chemicals added to our foods.

As for this - again you fail to take into account just how much time is needed for true genetic drift in humans. It is debatable whether even the 100,000 year span of agriculture is enough time for significant modification.

Secondly if true genetic modification were able to occur so much faster, then I would equally expect different ethnicities to have difficulties interbreeding - certainly there has been isolation between many of the different races for 10,000 years or more.

Lastly it is complete ridiculous crap that somehow diets from 200 years ago are somehow better than today because they're 'natural': grains and animals have been genetically modified the old fashioned way for millenia.

The corn, wheat, cows, whatever we eat today resemble the 'ancestral' strains about as much as Fluffy the kitten resembles a sabre tooth tiger.

The belief that going 'back to nature' is healthier is simply cherry picking convenient facts - a great marketing ploy.

[Guest]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

I think those Paleolithic guys never lived past 30 years old because they just never got behind the concept of flossing. BTW Raja, I find the cheetos and coke diet very interesting. But if we take this ball and run with it, we'll have to give all due credits to C1ue for having come up with the core concept. Cheetos and coke. I can just see myself on a desert island with nothing else to eat. ... I think soon, I would swim out to sea, to be in communion with the sharks. :rolleyes: