PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Trying to get in the necessary fuel with a fat/protein/veggie diet is next to impossible.

Probably this is not true aps1087. There is a lot of "fuel" in vegetable fats - Americans by and large, and the Anglo Saxon countries in general maybe, are not as aware of this as other nations food traditions where there are very many and varied vegetable dishes rich in fats. In Italy the rural poor would go out and do far more brutally hard work in the field than I am guessing triathlete enthusiasts could stand. Day in, day out. I knew some tree loggers in Tuscany, that were unbelievably strong. I'd put one of those mountain tree loggers up against any of your triathletes in *real* strength/endurance tests.

In America, they mechanize 90% of tree logging and clearing. Over there, other than the primary cutting, a lot up on the steep mountainsides was hauled out literally by hand - all day long.

These guys were strong as an ox, and could keep up backbreaking hauling all day long. They don't necessarily eat a lot of meat. They eat the plain old traditional Mediterranean diet - lots of bean dishes with semolina pasta in one form or another. The point being, this simple "poor mans" mediterranean diet produces men every bit as strong as the prize of American fitness, the triathletes.

I would not want to be an American football quarterback or triathlete, having to undergo an all day long endurance test with one of those mountain men. They have stores of energy that left me in awe, and they don't have anything remotely like the Paleo Diet. No exotic fasts. No exotic meat regimens. No nothing, except a diet that is very wholesome to cardiovascular fitness where meat has it's place, but not always the predominant one. Roger's dire warnings about the glycemic evils of carbohydrates in the form of wheat would be met merely with a blank stare by these mountain men.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Well the point Prazak, was that when hydrocarbons are prohibitively expensive (in about 5-10 years time actually), it's a fair bit cheaper to produce the grain, than the meat. Translates as "more affordable" to those poor sods all over the world that haven't got tuppence to rub together.

By the way Luke, I suppose it would be impertinent for me to inquire as to whether an investment forum for those of wealth (which relative to most in the world, we iTulipers are) might also be a display of hubris? I doubt many starving residents of Bangladesh invest in commodity ETFs or T-Bills.

I really don't recall Roger recommending or imagining that most humans would or could eat as he recommends, at least in the forseeable future. Rather I read him, as I read other such nutrition experts, as describing what they think would be a desirable diet, for those so interested and so able. If Roger had claimed that the World Health Organization or some such should encourage or mandate or recommend such a diet world wide as a matter of global public policy, that would have displayed a disconnect with reality not seen since Marie Antionette said something along the lines of "Let them eat cake" (in French, no doubt, though being a self-centered American, I have no clue how to say that in French.)

[metalman]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Grains and other starch rich foods do provide something that vegetables do not...ENERGY. For those of us that are big into high intensity exercise, how do you suggest that we fuel for our activity?

Diet is not the only way to manipulate insulin sensitivity...exercise is the other biggie, and I would argue the more important of the 2 (diet/exercise) when it comes to increasing insulin sensitivity.

I think the more important take home message is to eat for your activity. If you are very sedentary, carbs are not nearly as necessary as if you are big into resistance training or sprinting or other high intensity sports. Trying to get in the necessary fuel with a fat/protein/veggie diet is next to impossible.

stayed out of this until this one... bravo, aps1087!

i'm a runner and before i run i need fuel!



after... meat!

[aps1087]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Grains and other starch rich foods do provide something that vegetables do not...ENERGY. For those of us that are big into high intensity exercise, how do you suggest that we fuel for our activity?

Diet is not the only way to manipulate insulin sensitivity...exercise is the other biggie, and I would argue the more important of the 2 (diet/exercise) when it comes to increasing insulin sensitivity.

I think the more important take home message is to eat for your activity. If you are very sedentary, carbs are not nearly as necessary as if you are big into resistance training or sprinting or other high intensity sports. Trying to get in the necessary fuel with a fat/protein/veggie diet is next to impossible.

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

The Wall Street paleontological remains would likely reveal more caviar, steak tartare and foie gras in the turd fossils. Plus bleached bones with a lot of gouty big toes. :rolleyes:

Well...what does turd research suggests? Sorry, forgot the scientific name for human leftovers found in the 'outhouses' in old caves. Did these folks consume a large diet of wild grains and/or wildlife? Are there any conclusions that can be reached about their health based on diet? Or...are there too few DNA dead bones and ancient turds around to come to a conclusion. On the other hand, we have a number of these on wall street we could do that should suffice for some comparative research.

[vanvaley1]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Well...what does turd research suggests? Sorry, forgot the scientific name for human leftovers found in the 'outhouses' in old caves. Did these folks consume a large diet of wild grains and/or wildlife? Are there any conclusions that can be reached about their health based on diet? Or...are there too few DNA dead bones and ancient turds around to come to a conclusion. On the other hand, we have a number of these on wall street we could do that should suffice for some comparative research.

[Rajiv]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Amylase inhibitors and sucrase inhibitors are typically classified as "antinutrients" --

As an example of the food processing I am talking about - "Thermal heat processing effects on antinutrients, protein and starch digestibility of food legumes"

Similar effect happens in wheat (raw wheat is full of amylase inhibitors)

Also, was the addition of "gum arabic" to Indian desserts -- gum arabic is full of sucrase inhibitors.

In my view, a paleo diet probably contained only a small amount of meat, and fish. More likely was the use of raw and or sprouted grains and legumes. These are typically much harder to digest (read have a lower glycemic index) than cooked products.

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Excellent. Sounds like Roger and the Paleo-faithful here are coming around to endorsing the vegetable-fat rich Mediterranean diet after many perambulations towards the Paleolithic meat-hunter side. "60 percent total fat in the diet" is a datum which can be too easily misconstrued to suggest we are having a lot of meat in our diet really. No, but seriously. Seems these recent posts everyone is now carefully hedging their endorsement of plentiful meat. It's like watching meat lovers walk gingerly on eggshells. :rolleyes:

Those Paleolithic young hunters which inspired the PA-NU dietary guidelines would be looking at our newfound vegetable fats enthusiasm with forlorn disappointment right about now.

It certainly had me fooled. With all the talk about how paleolithic man ate, I assumed it was a half a carcass of nutritious meat on the hearth most evenings in between the bouts of starvation. After all chasing about as a caveman with all the tribal wars was quite an exertion. Couldn't fend of the warring neighboring tribes that well unless the young warriors were kept properly beefed up. So that's settled then is it? We've abandoned the meat-rich thesis which Paleolithic Man embodies here, and the PA-NU wild paleolithic trademark becomes more ornamental than literal?

Maybe we can re-brand the vegetable-fat-rich mediterranean cooking with a Paleo veneer, drop all the grains and pasta (they do know how to make a few dishes other than dough) and that will be more feasible to roll out as a one size fits all nutrition program? Roll that tasty menu out to the world without any grains - with plenty of readily available local vegetable fats, and a haunch of meat added as a bonus whenever the Somali mother can source it for the family.

BTW, did I forget to ask whether we should feel free to recommend the 60% fat diet to our elderly parents or to the young children? When it's heavily balanced with vegetable fats as the Meditteranean diet is, I'd recommend it without any qualms. When it's heavily balanced with meat fats, I'd have a moment's pause before suggesting that to my nearest elderly loved one. Paleo nutrition is having an identity crisis here. Wants to be mainly carnivorous, but can't quite pull that off on a mass scale in today's drably constrained world?

When it starts getting practical with the inclusion of a preponderance of vegetable fats, it turns Meditteranean! :eek: :p Yes - "Paleo-Mediterranean". It's got a nice ring to it.

Fine Points, there, Prazak.

The issue of how 6 billion people can eat in an optimal fashion deserves its own discussion. I might join in but I'm not much of a central planner. As you can see, it's tough enough just to get consensus on what is the best car. How to buy one for everyone I will have to leave to the social architects.

I would be happy to just have a few souls do some further reading on their own and at least start questioning the government and AHA dogmas about fat, healthy animal products, and and grains.

I would like to clarify that if you read my 12-part list carefully, I don't anywhere say that animal products must be prodominantly the flesh of large mammals, nor that the total protein should be much more than 25% of calories. I have said there is no individual harm in more than that, but I am not advocating it on a world population basis.

Eggs, fish, poultry, seafood, butter, cream and cheese are all animal products and one could easily go forever without eating an angus steak, grass-fed or not. The vision of all of our ag land given over to feedlots and pasture is understandable given the common usage of meat to mean "steak", but when I say animal products, I mean it quite generally. If insects and grubs are agreeable to you, eat them. They are not in any shortage.

Re Land usage: Free ranging, omnivorous pigs who will eat invertebrates are about 2-3 times less land-intensive per pound of meat produced than beef.

Thanks for your contribution.

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

What I said, in response to your noting that Peak Oil ought to preclude cultivating sources of meat, was that Peak Oil presents a problem for cultivating grain as well.

Well the point Prazak, was that when hydrocarbons are prohibitively expensive (in about 5-10 years time actually), it's a fair bit cheaper to produce the grain, than the meat. Translates as "more affordable" to those poor sods all over the world that haven't got tuppence to rub together. Apparently this assertion is shrouded in mystery and paradox, as I've not managed to put it across convincingly to you yet.

Since energy for food does indeed take precedence over energy for laptops (as any ten-year-old knows) then I gather your concern over Peak-Oil food shortages will one day lead you to respect animal husbandry rather than use electricity to protest its cultivation?.

With respect, this appears to me just fluff. Can't make heads or tails of what it means. It's not my concern over peak oil or my disdain for animal husbandry Prazak, to express which, I'm consuming what you suggest are symbolically significant amounts of electricity while posting. It's that we haven't a prayer, either today or tomorrow, to keep half the world alive without grains, and Roger says we mustn't eat them if we wish to stay healthy.

Who is "we" for Roger here? The Americans? The people in the first world? Everyone else? Who is he recommending this healthful diet to? We should define the group, lest we mistakenly conclude it is a diet recommended as constructive for people the world over.

If it's really only addressed to us in the the US and other first world nations, that puts into notable contrast how we vigorously promote protein, meat and fats rich diets, while suggesting to avoid the grains, and then presumably we turn around and "recommend" the grains as the most "practical" nutrition to the other half of the planet.

And the interesting thing about the availability of meat nutrition is, and here I am speaking in collective net terms across the globe, (not bound by which nations have an abundance of grazing land relative to their populations) - that for us to eat meat readily, the other half of the world really needs to stay on the grain diet, otherwise 7 billion people all eating meat would put a breaking strain on the world's animal stocks.

One hopes another round of written twister will not follow, but if it does I will have to leave it at that. I've spent more time than I have, unfortunately.

I enjoy your posts too Prazak, and see the world much the same way you do I suspect on many issues.

[Andreuccio]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Vegetarians combine beans and rice because the amino acids complement each other. Eating high carbs is quite desirable in some circumstances - like when the alternative is starvation!

My emergency food consists mostly of frozen game that could be canned in an emergency, and beans and rice. No cereals necessary

Thanks for the reply, and for bringing the topic up. It's been an interesting discussion.

I was going to make a suggestion to you that might also improve your health, but in reviewing your posts over the last couple of days it appears you may have discovered it yourself. I find if I avoid feeding trolls my stress level goes way down, and I believe my blood pressure improves dramatically.

Cheers.

[WildspitzE]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

How about red herring? Does that count as seafood? ;)

Anyway, thanks to those that made constructive comments and asked pertinent questions regarding the science behind the paleo diet. Your posts are very helpful to those of us who are seeking to understand it better.

Please do keep those coming.

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Buddy, I have no animus towards you. That is your presumption, but it is no based on any fact you can clearly display here. As for your suggestion that you "don't see anyone denying grains" as a viable source of food - I am nonplussed, as that is at the core of the dietary thesis Roger presents. Have you and I been reading the same thread? Hang it up therefore, with the "But as straw men go, it's been set alight with some panache".

And as to your pooh-poohing the notion that there is any substantive difference between feeding an overpopulated world with grain vs. feeding it with a larger portion of meat going into the middle part of this century, this is truly specious argument. The energy for food takes precedence over the energy for laptops - is a notion that does not need to be explained to a ten year old. The notion that beef requires one heck of a lot more resources to produce than grains also should not require explaining to a ten year old.

No need to get so dismissive as to the core point - that Roger advocates "largely eliminating grains" in a world where at very least one third of the global population is left perplexed as to what exactly else they should eat. Please hang it up also, with my presumed arrogance which is quite minor in comparison to this world-scale conceit. I don't care how much we are the "land of wonderful contradictions".

When someone notes they "aren't particularly interested" in "what food is preferred" in Bangladesh, while extolling a meat rich diet in the early 21st century in America, then have no comment on how applicable their diet may be when rolled out to a global population heading into a population explosion - my "reaching" for this kind of "reductive reasoning" may have a wee bit more basis than you allow. The animus towards you personally is a figment of your imagination old sport.

Luca, I have no animus toward you either. In fact your posts are among my favorites, when I'm able to keep up with my online perusing. On this thread, though, I think you've imputed a whole lot of cultural baggage into what is, or ought to be, a legitimate matter of scientific inquiry, without having bothered to scratch beneath the surface of the matter. And yes, you have flamed a couple of straw men to unfairly characterize my statements or those of others. Here's an example:

""Meanwhile we Americans propose to go out with bows and arrows and start taking down bison in order to achieve our peak potential. I don't know about you, but for me there is something hubristic (and even a bit comical, in a ghastly sort of way) in denying the validity of grain - source of 2/3 of the world's population's nutrition, any place as a viable source of food to keep them alive.""

Did anyone suggest we're going to run around with bow and arrows? Did anyone deny that grain is a "viable source of food to keep [2/3 of the world' population] alive?" Of course not. I do appreciate the theatricality of the imagery, though.

To say that meat is a better source of nutrition than grain is not to say that 2/3 of the world's population may not be permitted to consume grain to keep them alive. That's just absurd, old chap, and I know you're capable of better reasoning, when not firmly with bit in teeth.

Here's another one: "The energy for food takes precedence over the energy for laptops - is a notion that does not need to be explained to a ten year old. " I said nothing at all so silly: of course energy for food takes precedence over the energy for laptops. What I said, in response to your noting that Peak Oil ought to preclude cultivating sources of meat, was that Peak Oil presents a problem for cultivating grain as well -- and indeed presents a problem for all uses of energy, including much less essential uses like energy for laptops.

Since energy for food does indeed take precedence over energy for laptops (as any ten-year-old knows) then I gather your concern over Peak-Oil food shortages will one day lead you to respect animal husbandry rather than use electricity to protest its cultivation?

Being organisms, we are all of us fundamentally selfish. Being humans, we are all of us hypocrites as well.

One hopes another round of written twister will not follow, but if it does I will have to leave it at that. I've spent more time than I have, unfortunately.

Best regards.

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Sharky - are we now seeking to wiggle away from Roger's original thesis? Lots of talk of meat - wild game - rich creamy milk, eggs and so forth. Talk of squirrels, wild deer and other venison, rabbit, I forget which varieties of wild birds, and so forth. You got the gist of that bountiful and healthful wild food just as well as I did.

If Roger's proposed diet were that amenable to bulking up on mostly vegetable fats it would have been indistinguishable from an Italian diet, (with or sans the grains becomes optional), and I'd be all for it, and they know how to dress up plates of vegetables quite temptingly. Point being, that's a diet with preponderance of vegetable fats and less meat consumption.

But he never wanders over in that direction. Emphasis of all his posts has been on nutrient rich animal proteins, meat and animal fats. One third or more of the world would look at that and say "nice work if you can get it!".

If he's instead extolling the benefit of mostly vegetable fats and a diet which leans towards vegetables, whose great virtue here is that they are "somewhat more affordable an item" to many other countries (in very many countries rural areas, owning one cow is not trivial wealth), I would have been on board with it in a minute.

And regarding whatever "implicit assumptions" you conclude I'm making about the suitability of any single diet rolled out worldwide, I'll venture to guess every last group of peoples around the world, from a Sudanese in the desert to a Borneo tribesman, to an Inuit, would benefit and glow with health were they provided a diet rich in vegetables.

Well, the Inuit and other genetically homogeneous arctic circle peoples may indeed have a big problem, as they've evolved for many centuries to live on a diet rich in meat. Only serves to illustrate the point further - if we put half the world on a higher meat diet, good luck to the Inuit to hang onto replenishable stocks of game. The rest of us can live on vegetables and rice much more feasibly once we get up to 7.5 billion.

Not saying OECD nations should give up their enjoyment of meat in the slightest. I'm saying that one might pause to think about the thesis, before pronouncing more meat consumption as the great leap forward nutritionally for the world.

You guys suddenly are making these dietary recommendations sound downright amenable to rolling out to many peoples around the world. :rolleyes: The wild game. The fresh cream and butter, and olive oil. The abundance of healthful fats that can be put on the table. The healthful glass of bordeaux.

Doubtless they would benefit from more fresh meat in their diets, as they currently have little of it!

Meanwhile, don't forget all the gout that afflicted the wealthier eaters of the middle ages, or those stats Rajiv presented evidencing deterioration of health among Asians on a sharply rising trend as they migrated to higher meat and protein based societies. That awkward data certainly got the quick scuttle treatment, didn't it, and nobody so much as blinked?

If Roger's thesis here had been less about the restorative benefits of wild game, and more about which protein and fat sources are the healthiest compromise enabling us to not only feed Americans optimally, but also give a balanced diet to the world, I know for a fact that I would have recognised that impulse and endorsed it warmly.

Instead, it sounds like a boutique nutrition program admirably suited for financially enfranchised OECD people to clamber onto with gusto.

QUOTE: "If you look back on the first post in this thread, it says nothing about eating a lot of meat."

If I may suggest it Sharky, this comment is disingenuous to the entire theme of the "hunter-gatherer diet from the Paleolithic" which this "Pa-Nu" program seeks to emulate. Presumably those stalwart 25 year old Paleolithic men were doing something more with their bows and arrows and spears than going out to pick berries.

Why do you think that a diet that's low in grains is "meat rich"? If you look back on the first post in this thread, it says nothing about eating a lot of meat.

I think the point is more along the lines that eating meat from properly raised animals isn't bad for you, and that the human digestive tract is actually better adapted to meat than to an all-vegetable diet.

Also, you are making an implicit assumption that the diet that's best for individuals will also be optimal when rolled out on a global scale. I don't think that's even close to true.

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Why do you think that a diet that's low in grains is "meat rich"? If you look back on the first post in this thread, it says nothing about eating a lot of meat.

I think the point is more along the lines that eating meat from properly raised animals isn't bad for you, and that the human digestive tract is actually better adapted to meat than to an all-vegetable diet.

Also, you are making an implicit assumption that the diet that's best for individuals will also be optimal when rolled out on a global scale. I don't think that's even close to true.

Jeez, Sharky, I really do need Bart's tinfoil hat - you just read my mind as I was typing!

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

To conclude that a diet centered on meat protein produces better health in the human body than a diet centered on grain is not to say people who don't have access to meat cannot therefore live on grains. To conclude that natural gas produces cleaner electricity than coal is not to say people who don't have natural gas cannot burn coal. And so on. This is specious reasoning.

And by the way, grain as produced in modern agriculture is a highly petroleum and water-intensive enterprise. It doesn't get a pass in a world of Peak Oil. Neither do any of us burning electricity to chit chat on this board. Perhaps we should all switch off our laptops, in honor of all in the world who do not have electricity (but hopefully grain).

Fine Points, there, Prazak.

The issue of how 6 billion people can eat in an optimal fashion deserves its own discussion. I might join in but I'm not much of a central planner. As you can see, it's tough enough just to get consensus on what is the best car. How to buy one for everyone I will have to leave to the social architects.

I would be happy to just have a few souls do some further reading on their own and at least start questioning the government and AHA dogmas about fat, healthy animal products, and and grains.

I would like to clarify that if you read my 12-part list carefully, I don't anywhere say that animal products must be prodominantly the flesh of large mammals, nor that the total protein should be much more than 25% of calories. I have said there is no individual harm in more than that, but I am not advocating it on a world population basis.

Eggs, fish, poultry, seafood, butter, cream and cheese are all animal products and one could easily go forever without eating an angus steak, grass-fed or not. The vision of all of our ag land given over to feedlots and pasture is understandable given the common usage of meat to mean "steak", but when I say animal products, I mean it quite generally. If insects and grubs are agreeable to you, eat them. They are not in any shortage.

Re Land usage: Free ranging, omnivorous pigs who will eat invertebrates are about 2-3 times less land-intensive per pound of meat produced than beef.

Thanks for your contribution.