PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

[Sharky]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

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.

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.

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

I don't see anyone "denying grains" as a viable source of food. But as straw men go, it's been set alight with some panache. ... 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).

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.

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

To my understanding Rajiv has made no direct mention of this one way or the other, other than to object on one or two technical points. Maybe leave him out of your attributions? As for me - my view is, that this apologia of yours on behalf of the armies of medical doctors, each curiously enough sporting a radical rethinking of nutrition (they all regularly cite many of their predecessors as wrong), sits uneasily with the fact that this same country has some of the worst health stats in the world where nutrition is concerned". You make it sound as though the procession of radical rethinks of nutrition producedfor the most part in America are a robust expression of the world's search for the perfectly balanced diet.

It isn't really though, is it? What we are doing with the procession of revolutionary re-thinks about nutrition, is we are intensely studying our own dietary issues in countries like the US (UK fits in real closely there in it's heavily meat oriented diet) and we are seamlessly (and expansively!) presenting these insights as insights for all of humanity as well. At very least, this America centric distinction might be made quite explicit - to fan away some of the wafts of hubris surrounding this enthusiasm for revealing "dietary truths" to the world that the poor benighted world has not yet had the native intelligence to discover about food in 5000 years.

Forget what you think I'm lecturing about. Think about the issue. Think about our all fully endorsing a new balanced nutrition that is squarely in favor of meat, with the largest footprint of all foods in terms of resource consumption, in a world careening towards 8 billion people, with Peak Cheap Oil breathing down our necks. 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.

What exactly does our esteemed Paleo-Nutrition thesis propose we do to feed all of those if we deny them the grain, on grounds of good health? And what do we propose to do with all our elderly parents? Stuff them full of more meat in order to optimize their performance?

You're right. Sorry Rajiv. I thought someone on this thread was reacting in the same knee-jerk fashion Lukester did, but I don't really remember who it was.

I think if you spent a little bit of time reading through some of the clinical studies underlying nutritional science you might stop shadow-boxing cultural stereotypes. Again, I'm not a believer myself, but there are enough interesting studies out there that it's worth considering in more depth. I can't figure out why that makes me the target of your ire, other than the cultural baggage you have imputed to the discussion.

You've lived in the States long enough to know that this is the land of contradictions, with some of the most obese people on the planet living side-by-side with some of the world's fittest athletes, with vast numbers of educational dropouts co-existing with large numbers of researchers on the cutting edge of their fields, with cultural drivel swamping beautiful works of art. And on it goes. So the problem of obesity in this country does not in any way disqualify the quality of health science in this country, any more than Hannah Montana disqualifies Terence Blanchard. Why reach for this kind of reductive reasoning?

I don't see anyone "denying grains" as a viable source of food. But as straw men go, it's been set alight with some panache. 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).

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

To my understanding Rajiv has made no direct mention of this one way or the other, other than to object on one or two technical points. Maybe leave him out of your attributions? As for me - my view is, that this apologia of yours on behalf of the armies of medical doctors, each curiously enough sporting a radical rethinking of nutrition (they all regularly cite many of their predecessors as wrong), sits uneasily with the fact that this same country has some of the worst health stats in the world where nutrition is concerned". You make it sound as though the procession of radical rethinks of nutrition producedfor the most part in America are a robust expression of the world's search for the perfectly balanced diet.

It isn't really though, is it? What we are doing with the procession of revolutionary re-thinks about nutrition, is we are intensely studying our own dietary issues in countries like the US (UK fits in real closely there in it's heavily meat oriented diet) and we are seamlessly (and expansively!) presenting these insights as insights for all of humanity as well. At very least, this America centric distinction might be made quite explicit - to fan away some of the wafts of hubris surrounding this enthusiasm for revealing "dietary truths" to the world that the poor benighted world has not yet had the native intelligence to discover about food in 5000 years.

Forget what you think I'm lecturing about. Think about the issue. Think about our all fully endorsing a new balanced nutrition that is squarely in favor of meat, with the largest footprint of all foods in terms of resource consumption, in a world careening towards 8 billion people, with Peak Cheap Oil breathing down our necks. 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.

What exactly does our esteemed Paleo-Nutrition thesis propose we do to feed all of those if we deny them the grain, on grounds of good health? And what do we propose to do with all our elderly parents? Stuff them full of more meat in order to "optimize their performance"? Roger wasn't paying attention - the world overshot the population level sustainable with a meat abundant diet by three or four billion people in the last century.

You doth protest too much, Lukester. Everybody and every culture, no matter how ancient and healthy, benefits from sound nutritional and medical science, whether it be dispensed by a Fin or a Gringo. I imagine there are scientists even in Italy who have been led by their research to believe that some aspects of the traditional Italian diet to be unhealthy.

There's no arrogance or cultural elitism involved in pursuing scientific inquiry suggesting that humankind evolved on a diet of meat, berries, and plants. And I have yet to hear anyone here lecturing another country on its diet -- except you lecturing all the Americans on the board.

Americans do obviously have a problem with over-consumption and its discontents, and I am likewise skeptical of the various cottage industries that spin off regularly in response. But there is also much excellent nutritional science done in the States. I am always happy to be challenged by good science.

When I lived in France the natives often remarked that they consumed more medicine per capita than any other country. I don't know if that's true, but most of my French friends can readily recommend a pill for this or that ailment. Nevertheless, if a French doctor on this site recommended a supplement for stress and referred me to solid research in support, I wouldn't just discount the research out of hand simply because it was suggested by a Frenchman. That would make me the arrogant cultural elitist, not the French doctor.

There is more than good science behind the benefits of fasting. It's something that human cultures have used to purify body and soul since well before Italian cuisine came along. So to dismiss RogMex's reference to intermittent fasting as another American Dieting Fad is to throw the baby out with the bathwater -- belying either ignorance or rush to judgment. (I assume the latter.)

I don't know that I agree with the science involved with so-called Paleo Nutrition, but I find it intriguing enough to do a bit more research on it, particularly to the extent that it challenges some of my beliefs about human health and nutrition. And so I do not appreciate your or Rajiv's previous suggestion, at least as I read it, that anyone who were to give any credence to such a theory somehow possessed a defect of intellect or character -- whether as an unthinking sycophant of RogMex or as a fad-following American.

Arrogance indeed.

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Prazak - Nobody drums up a cottage industry in "revolutionary diet books" like Americans. Nobody even remotely approximates the number of diet books this country cranks out. Why do you think that is? Why do you think it is, that very few of those diet books are simple collections of the healthful recipes from all over the world - but rather - they all instead propose a "revolutionary new understanding" of the basis of really healthy nutrition, which implies all these other nations could benefit from our latest groundbreaking nutrition ideas instead?

Why also when posing such a revolutionary concept, do fans of revolutionary new nutition theories promptly ignore the healthful cooking from all over the world, in those many places where people simply don't have all the illnesses which these modern students of nutrition rail on about? It is the cultural hubris of a nation whose own food traditions are among the least civilized on the planet, although Americans evidently love to assert that we must devolve understanding of sound nutrition to our (American!) doctors. I don't know how to put it any more plainly than that. Is it not clear enough?

We have produced many many many revolutionary diet books in this country, while other nations produce few to none - and I wll wager you that in fifty more years we will produce many more diet books. Each one causes the fad conscious Americans to forget or choose to disregard the one that came before- or at very least their memory of their past dietary enthusiasms dims in the light and glamour of the newfound version. On and on it goes.

And no, I have zero interest in "glorifying Italy" - I include in my admiration for the sensible quality of their tradtional (not modern) diet, an equal admiration for the diets of many other nations. You may be misunderstanding the general point I wished to make. We have had many **many** doctors having Eureka moments about what constitutes a wise diet for men, and this begs the question - why so many of these, in America alone?

At least they might consider restricting themselves to recommending such a diet for the nutritionally dysfunctional Americans, rather than suggesting 2000-5000 year old other cultures need to completely revamp their own ideas on nutrition. It is the cultural hubris, which I remark on. Also last time I checked, we were approaching a population of seven billion in the world, and a great number of these people only dream of eating meat at all.

Can you imagine the scorn (or even just plain bewilderment) that many of these would feel to read yet another American doctor suggesting that they must all eat more meat and less starch for good health? We will be soon approaching a world where all of us actually must eat LESS meat, as peak cheap oil will make the cost of ALL FOOD rise for everyone worldwide. Therefore this new diet theology is running straight into a moral conundrum all of it's own. Do these observations not seem acceptable to you?

Roger says he's "not interested" in what they may prefer to eat in Bangladesh. His children or grandchildren by default will be much more interested than he is, if we do not invent abundant alternative sources of energy to sustain the world's present elevated levels of agricultural production worldwide which are sustained by petroleum based energy and fertilisers. The notion of an American medic, writing a book on sound nutrition, saying he is "not interested" in Bangladesh frankly only illustrates more starkly the general state of Americans self-preoccupation with "peak performance" nutrition.

You doth protest too much, Lukester. Everybody and every culture, no matter how ancient and healthy, benefits from sound nutritional and medical science, whether it be dispensed by a Fin or a Gringo. I imagine there are scientists even in Italy who have been led by their research to believe that some aspects of the traditional Italian diet to be unhealthy.

There's no arrogance or cultural elitism involved in pursuing scientific inquiry suggesting that humankind evolved on a diet of meat, berries, and plants. And I have yet to hear anyone here lecturing another country on its diet -- except you lecturing all the Americans on the board.

Americans do obviously have a problem with over-consumption and its discontents, and I am likewise skeptical of the various cottage industries that spin off regularly in response. But there is also much excellent nutritional science done in the States. I am always happy to be challenged by good science.

When I lived in France the natives often remarked that they consumed more medicine per capita than any other country. I don't know if that's true, but most of my French friends can readily recommend a pill for this or that ailment. Nevertheless, if a French doctor on this site recommended a supplement for stress and referred me to solid research in support, I wouldn't just discount the research out of hand simply because it was suggested by a Frenchman. That would make me the arrogant cultural elitist, not the French doctor.

There is more than good science behind the benefits of fasting. It's something that human cultures have used to purify body and soul since well before Italian cuisine came along. So to dismiss RogMex's reference to intermittent fasting as another American Dieting Fad is to throw the baby out with the bathwater -- belying either ignorance or rush to judgment. (I assume the latter.)

I don't know that I agree with the science involved with so-called Paleo Nutrition, but I find it intriguing enough to do a bit more research on it, particularly to the extent that it challenges some of my beliefs about human health and nutrition. And so I do not appreciate your or Rajiv's previous suggestion, at least as I read it, that anyone who were to give any credence to such a theory somehow possessed a defect of intellect or character -- whether as an unthinking sycophant of RogMex or as a fad-following American.

Arrogance indeed.

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Would you recommend a diet with lots of meat to your mother or father when they are 70 years old? If not, why not?

I LOVED my mother's Indian food - 99% vegetables, wheat, potatoes, rice, lentils. Still love indian food of all types. Living with my grandmother in Punjab (price of stringy, tough meat = 5 to 10 times the price of dahl) for a couple of months last year was hog heaven for me (though very bad for my health & blood lipids, I found after getting back)

So I'll give you one more data point - the more meat I ate/eat, the more I like it.

The last steak I had was a poor cut, badly cooked and it tasted better than the $100 filet mignon I had in NY 5 years ago.

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Both excellent points which I view the same way. A paleolithic population with a lifespan of 35 (or even 40) years tells you little to nothing as to whether their diet was optimal. In terms of biological aging, their chronology was probably not vastly different to ours - in other words, these people all died while their bodies were still biologically quite young - that means we'd have no way of knowing what our present lifetime's worth of their type of diet would do to one's organs. A young person can live on any kind of diet for a good number of years with relative impunity.

Life for them was "nasty, brutish and short" yet we are to prefer their dietary consumption over that of all other eras in civilisation?

The sensible mind which is hinherently suspicious of exclusionary ideas baulks at the idea that a *moderate portion* of grain based nutrition in one's diet, in a proportion found to have been naturally harmonious by 5000 years of prior civilisations, must be instead silently wreaking havoc, and we have only discovered this fundamental incompatibility in the year AD 2009.

"and it really comes down to lots of vegetables and everything else in moderation" - this is spot on and very sensible. When you boil it all down to essentials, this is the greatest part of what is useful out of any intricate dietary study, as without this one part, everyone would get sickly. That's the point I've been trying to make all along, but it is very "unsexy", isn't it? And we still have not addressed the advisability of keeping a 75 year old on a diet of 60% fats.

Good points, raja. I am also curious about the life span of paleolithic people. This link says it was 30-35. Doesn't make me want to emulate their diet.

Eliminating or cutting way back on refined sugar and white flour seems like a good step for most people. I look at what the healthiest people I know eat, and it really comes down to lots of vegetables and everything else in moderation.

Jimmy

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Good points, raja. I am also curious about the life span of paleolithic people. This link says it was 30-35. Doesn't make me want to emulate their diet.

Eliminating or cutting way back on refined sugar and white flour seems like a good step for most people. I look at what the healthiest people I know eat, and it really comes down to lots of vegetables and everything else in moderation.

Jimmy

Hi Jimmy

Average lifespan of paleolithic peoples is confounded by early mortality. Child mortality was very high and young males in some places had up to 25% percent mortality rates due to trauma (homicide/ warfare)
The relevant thing is if you can compare similar groups that differ mainly in diet.

As you have observed, for north americans at least, total elimination sugar and white four is half or more of the effect.

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Your suggestion to avoid grains is incorrect.

Well, you may think it inadvisable or not based on sound reasoning, but it is not really an assertion, it's a recommendation. It has worked extremely well for me and my patients as I have detailed. If I am wrong it is at least completely harmless - I have yet to encounter a single benefit to eating wheat that I cannot get from eating asparagus, green beans, broccoli, wild mushrooms, romaine lettuce, etc. I think it is fair to ask grains advocates -what do they offer in compensation for the risk of coeliac disease, that we can't get elsewhere? Just because we needed them to form cities, are we bound to keep at it as a 10,000 year old tradition?

Clinically, I have had success in treating allergic rhinitis, asthma, irritable bowel syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis eczema, and Type II diabetes. Many of these subjects reported rapid improvement in these disorders that they were surprised by, as they were only trying to lose weight

How do you think agriculture started? Do you think that one day humans woke up and said, "Let's start eating grains"? No.

Before the advent of agriculture, humans were already eating grains that they foraged. They then discovered that if they planted grain seeds in one location, they could make their gathering process more efficient. That was the birth of agriculture.

Clearly, at some point in or around mesopotamia, there was a technological transition to cultivated grain, when the storage advantage overcame the labor and cooking nuisance of using grains for food. Just as clearly, I think, eating of seeds that require cooking was at most an incidental or small part of the diet before that transition. Were there times and places of high carb consumption in addition to low like the Masai, the Inuit and The Plains tribes in north america? - With tubers I am sure there were, but I have not seen evidence of predominant grain- eating before agriculture. I believe the tribes with higher carb intake had levels of energy expenditure and enough food scarcity to keep insulin levels lower than if modern humans in cities ate the same way. Maybe in the distant future if there is slow, steady selection pressure, we will be more adapted to grains, but there have not been enough generations under agriculture for that to be likely (as celiac disease make clear).

Also, you fail to note that carbohydrate-rich tubers were a large part of the pre-agriculture diet. Grains were able to take the place of these foraged carbohydrate sources because they are nutritionally similar in macronutrients.

This is a fair criticism. Tubers are not grains. You will note that my 12 step list does not proscribe tubers. Yams and nuts are excellent food. The problem with saying "eat all the yams or potatoes you desire" in the developed world of superabundant food, is that their effect on blood sugar is not much different than a large load of refined sugar. I don't proscribe them, but I don't advocate them because they have not much to offer besides starch. Keep in mind my list is targeted to typical westerners in a carbohydrate abundant environment. There is no downside to avoiding grains when you have access to the wide variety of plant and animal sources that are not grains, and avoiding grains is simply an "idiot proof" way to make sure your insulin levels stay low. We are not duplicating what was eaten, we are trying to duplicate paleo metabolic conditions. Low carbs, fewer meals, intermittent fasting all keep insulin levels low. No grains, in addition to reducing the probablilty of coeliac disease and immune dysfunction because of our incomplete adaptation, eliminates the majority of the excess carbohydrates to the point where I can say, "eat all the nuts and other vegetables you want". Do you see the advantage here for efficacy?

You also fail to point out that the "problematic" chemicals in grains are destroyed by first soaking, then cooking. (Traditionally, grains were soaked overnight before cooking, or made into bread dough and allowed to ferment for many hours.) Fire for cooking has been used for some 125,000 years, plenty of time for genetic adaptation.

This is interesting enough i would like to elaborate on it longer in a separate post and add a few references. I promise I am not blowing you off.

I suggest that those studying the topic of nutrition not become overwhelmed by the "science", and use common sense to understand the bigger picture. (See my post here: http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...7133#post97133)

I am as critical of science as a privileged sphere of inquiry as you are. Although we disagree, I hope you would grant that my views are certainly not mainstream and are even quite at odds with a variety of government and professional medical organizations. I agree with your point that we much use all levels of inquiry in addition to our reason to make sense of the world.

Thanks Raja -I do value your thoughtful debate.

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Prazak - Nobody drums up a cottage industry in "revolutionary diet books" like Americans. Nobody even remotely approximates the number of diet books this country cranks out. Why do you think that is? Why do you think it is, that very few of those diet books are simple collections of the healthful recipes from all over the world - but rather - they all instead propose a "revolutionary new understanding" of the basis of really healthy nutrition, which implies all these other nations could benefit from our latest groundbreaking nutrition ideas instead?

Why also when posing such a revolutionary concept, do fans of revolutionary new nutition theories promptly ignore the healthful cooking from all over the world, in those many places where people simply don't have all the illnesses which these modern students of nutrition rail on about? It is the cultural hubris of a nation whose own food traditions are among the least civilized on the planet, although Americans evidently love to assert that we must devolve understanding of sound nutrition to our (American!) doctors. I don't know how to put it any more plainly than that. Is it not clear enough?

We have produced many many many revolutionary diet books in this country, while other nations produce few to none - and I wll wager you that in fifty more years we will produce many more diet books. Each one causes the fad conscious Americans to forget or choose to disregard the one that came before- or at very least their memory of their past dietary enthusiasms dims in the light and glamour of the newfound version. On and on it goes.

And no, I have zero interest in "glorifying Italy" - I include in my admiration for the sensible quality of their tradtional (not modern) diet, an equal admiration for the diets of many other nations. You may be misunderstanding the general point I wished to make. We have had many **many** doctors having Eureka moments about what constitutes a wise diet for men, and this begs the question - why so many of these, in America alone?

At least they might consider restricting themselves to recommending such a diet for the nutritionally dysfunctional Americans, rather than suggesting 2000-5000 year old other cultures need to completely revamp their own ideas on nutrition. It is the cultural hubris, which I remark on. Also last time I checked, we were approaching a population of seven billion in the world, and a great number of these people only dream of eating meat at all.

Can you imagine the scorn (or even just plain bewilderment) that many of these would feel to read yet another American doctor suggesting that they must all eat more meat and less starch for good health? We will be soon approaching a world where all of us actually must eat LESS meat, as peak cheap oil will make the cost of ALL FOOD rise for everyone worldwide. Therefore this new diet theology is running straight into a moral conundrum all of it's own. Do these observations not seem acceptable to you?

Roger says he's "not interested" in what they may prefer to eat in Bangladesh. His children or grandchildren by default will be much more interested than he is, if we do not invent abundant alternative sources of energy to sustain the world's present elevated levels of agricultural production worldwide which are sustained by petroleum based energy and fertilisers. The notion of an American medic, writing a book on sound nutrition, saying he is "not interested" in what Bangladeshis eat, frankly only illustrates more starkly the general state of Americans self-preoccupation with "peak performance" nutrition.

Your further comments on these dogmatic objections?

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

All kidding aside swgprop - for this untutored observer "there is likely not that much of a book to write" on sensible eating - for losing weight and building up immune strength. Lots of fresh vegetables and modest but regular portions of meat and nutrient rich eggs do all the heavy lifting. Throw in a little fresh fruit. Radical enough for U? Eat no fresh vegetables, get sick. Eat lots of fresh vegetables packed with phytonutrients, minerals and natural vitamins, and get healthy. What is the big fuss and bother? Which special diet have you heard of which omitted these essentials?

Wow, Lukester, I usually enjoy your posts but your dogmatism on this point is striking.

Taking an evolutionary view of human diet is a perfectly legitimate aim of scholarship. What's wrong with examining how and what the homo genus ate over the course of 2 million years of evolution and comparing the physiology of that to what humans have eaten during the past 10,000 years of agricultural development and the past 200 years of industrialized development? I don't know why the topic has to be disparaged as excessively parochial, or why rebuttal has to be grounded on one's internationalism or lack thereof.

Those of us who are willing to keep an open mind and examine the research are fat Americans who have failed to experience the world? The only one here banging on about the diet of any one particular nation is you, and the only one throwing around cultural stereotypes is you. Taking an evolutionary viewpoint to human diet and an open mind to scientific research would seem to be much less parochial than extrapolating from the Italian diet circa 1959.

Don't get me wrong, I love Italy, I love Mediterranean cultures generally and have come to embrace a Mediterranean diet and lifestyle. But to rubbish the mere act of scientific inquiry into the glycemic effect of white bread, on grounds that white bread has long been a staple at Italian dinner tables, is about as rational a response as rubbishing inquiry into the carcinogenic effect of tobacco on grounds that Italians have long enjoyed a good smoke with their morning espressos.

But hey, Italians live long, so a smoke and a double-shot is good for you -- and if you dare suggest that there's evidence to the contrary, well, you're a parochial American idiot who's never been to a proper tabacchi.

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

I apologize for the brevity of my response. I was quite busy this morning.

I meant and should have said, can you give me your references re: how the change in stature is not related to the transition to grain consumption?

Did not mean to imply I had not heard those arguments before.

[raja]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

You are free to make that interpretation. I don't.

Where is your evidence for this speculation?

RM,

The idea behind rational debate is to further understanding regardless on which side the truth falls. The rules are: you present your idea. I counter and give my reasons for disagreement. Then you respond giving your reasons why I might be wrong, and so on.

"You are free to make that interpretation. I don't," is not an acceptable response. Someone who gives one-liner retorts without providing their reasoning either doesn't have the facts to back up their assertions, has some self-interest (like a book to sell), or believes the "opponent" to be not worth their time (arrogance). I don't know which it is in your case, but I'm not going to respond to your replies to my posts in the future if you do not accord me due respect.

I understand that many here are impressed by your erudition and ideas, and I'm only responding to this post so that others can put your comments in perspective. When I ignore a curt RM reply in the future, I do not want people to think that I am conceding his point.

You asked for evidence of my "speculation". I am surprised that with your medical training you are not aware of the answers. Perhaps medical education is more deficient than I thought :eek:

As opposed to a nomadic lifestyle, living in stationary and/or crowded conditions as those found in pre-industrial agricultural societies does the following to shorten lifespan and overall health:

1. Fosters the spread of communicable diseases and parasites.

2. Increases unsanitary conditions due to improper disposal of waste from humans and animals.

3. Increases pests that spread disease such as rats, mice and flies.

4. Enhances the likelihood of catching diseases from domestic animals (e.g., brucellosis, etc.)

5. Reduces variety in the diet.

You point to the shorter lifespan and stature of agricultural societies as being attributable to eating grains, when it could clearly be due to other factors such as those listed above.

I look forward to your response to the other three points I mentioned that contradict your assertions about the undesirability of grains . . . but if you're just going to give me one-liners in response, don't bother.

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

6s and 3s and the logic of grain avoidance

Although cows are herbivores, eating predominantly seeds is not really healthy for them either. Beef cows and steers are fed grains (grass seeds like corn) for the financial benefit of humans who raise them, not for the health of the animal. The animal naturally eats grasses. When you feed it just grass seeds, you are giving it something it previously ate in small quantities in huge amounts - a quantitative difference becomes qualitative. The animal will put on more weight faster, will mature quicker and will have muscle that is excessively laden with fat. This fat it adds will go from a 6:3 ratio of 1.5 -2 to more like 10-15, due to the outsize preponderance of 6s in grass seeds. The chemical composition of the animal is now changed for the worse and worse for you if you eat it. You can imagine how many fish oil capsules it takes to re-balance the 15:1 ratio of grain fed beef. I believe its much more effective to just avoid the extra 6s in the first place in the ways I have suggested. When you eat too many 6s, whatever the source, your immune system is weakened against infection and there is evidence that cancer cell growth is promoted. The upside of grain for the farmer is higher profits because the animal can reach market weight and be sold a whole year earlier. This is why grass fed beef is more expensive, even it is not certified organic. (As a side note, beware of grass fed beef that is finished with grains to make it "tastier". The grass-fed animal can have its healthy 6:3 ratio ruined with as little as six weeks of grain feeding)

Now here is more evidence for avoiding grains in the optimal human diet. Can you see how the recommendation against grains is not predicated at all on carnivory? A cow is an herbivore eating no animals at all, is well adapted to eating only plants, can synthesize all its necessary amino acids from relatively monotonous plant sources, and is basically a plant-eating machine. Yet, we have just seen that feeding this herbivore corn makes it mature faster, gain weight abnormally, literally alters the chemical composition of its cell membranes, and as is evident to anyone who eats beef, the animal's immune function is seriously disturbed by the excess 06 fatty acids. How so? Bovines fattened on corn must be given antibiotics to gain weight. This is because the grain-fed animal is more susceptible to infection. Now part of this is feedlot epidemiology, but I believe much of it is because the excess 6s interfere with 03 metabolism necessary for proper immune function. As a result of this antibiotic feeding, and perhaps also due to the immune disturbance itself, the cows gut is susceptible to e. coli overgrowth, and you have to worry about ending up with a colostomy every time you eat a hamburger.

Now if the case is compelling that an herbivore is healthier without grains and our health can be affected by eating the flesh of an herbivore that is fed too many grains, why isn't it reasonable to ask if an omnivore like us might not be better off without them? Before agriculture, seeds were a trivial to nonexistent, and certainly not necessary, part of our diet. The weight of the evidence here is pretty convincing. I have seen no evidence that any common grain (wheat, wheat flour, barley, oats, rice) was necessary for life before agriculture, and no evidence that they offer anything you cannot get with the huge variety of edible vegetables that have better vitamin, phytochemical and nutrient density than any grain. Of course, ounce per ounce, nothing can compare to an egg (even chimpanzees eat them) or lightly cooked piece of fish or grass fed steak for protein, vitamin and essential fatty acids. So I hope you can see that grain avoidance depends in no way on humans being "carnivores". We are further along that scale than what vegans or your average teenage girl in North America can accept, but that is simply not a necessary part of the argument against grains.

Cats and dogs are carnivores and can survive on fortified cereal when humans force them to eat it.

Cows are herbivores that eat nothing buts plants, but grains in their diet have negative health effects for them as well.

Humans are omnivores that now have a hugely expanded ecological niche through the technology of adapting rot resistant carbohydrate rich seeds that can be stored, milled, ground up cooked and eaten, mechanically planted and fertilised with the aid of petroleum, bred for higher yields, and even genetically engineered. They have thrived and expanded to 6 B souls on a finite planet despite the fact that grains are not an optimal food source at the level of the individual. Remember that the gene is the unit of selection. Grains are adaptive at the level of the gene and increasing human poplulation. Your genes do not care if you get coeliac disease, heart disease, diabetes, degenerative arthritis, tooth decay, autoimmune disorders, cancer or alzheimer dementia if by eating grains you were able to avoid famine just long enough to reproduce.

Look beyond the very misleading inter-country and even intracountry observational studies, which you could spend a lifetime trying to parse. Do pay attention to any controlled randomized trial that is well done. Do pay atention to the archaeological record. Do use some inductive reasoning with comparative anatomy, endocrinology and other basic sciences. The assumption that somebody more primitive and less "american" than us doing the right thing is a seductive idea - OK - go with that and stop thinking about modern diets at all whether rural poor or city fast food. Start thinking about a diet that is not a diet at all, just a set of parameters that characterized 99% of our relevant evolutionary past. Huge variation in foods eaten, but no sugar or mechanically produced white flour, no metal bowls to cook grains in, no cultivation, and the staples are available year round.

For most people in most places of food abundance, that will be a relatively low-carb diet with no grains.

[Spartacus]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Roger,

my friends who've tried Atkins have told me that they just end up eating less over time as meat with no grains is simply distasteful after a short while.

I LOVED my mother's Indian food - 99% vegetables, wheat, potatoes, rice, lentils. Still love indian food of all types. Living with my grandmother in Punjab (price of stringy, tough meat = 5 to 10 times the price of dahl) for a couple of months last year was hog heaven for me (though very bad for my health & blood lipids, I found after getting back)

So I'll give you one more data point - the more meat I ate/eat, the more I like it.

The last steak I had was a poor cut, badly cooked and it tasted better than the $100 filet mignon I had in NY 5 years ago.