diet & human evolution

[John Sanke]

According to recent genetic research, it seems that the male
chromosome of most of the non-African world came out of Africa
maybe 50k years ago, then spent several tens of thousands of
years in northern latitudes before spreading over the earth.

Our brain is made up of many things, but omega-3 lipids are
obviously crucial.

It's easy to see how people on the shores of Lake Tanganyika
got omega-3's - fish. But, where did they get them on the
steppes of northern Europe/Asia? I'm wondering if maybe that's
why it took so long for northern Eurasians to conquer the
planet - that they had to find a much more efficient way of
producing or conserving those essential brain lipids than was
needed in Africa.

So, here's the question: where do modern people who rely
totally upon northern non-fish food sources get their
birthright of omega-3's for their brains? Laplanders and a few
northern Siberian tribes are about all that's left of the
northern 'Palaeolithic' diet. I'd appreciate references.

[Realjob]

Omega-3's are not only found in fish. Alpha Linolenic Acid is
an omega-3 and is in these concentrations: Canola oil 10%,
flaxseed or linseed oil 57%, black currant oil 14%, soybean
oil 7%. Michael R. and Mary Dan Eades, M.D., Protein Power,
Bantam Books, 1996

"Different types of omega-3s. Key omega-3 fatty acids include
eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexanoic acid (DHA),
both found primarily in oily cold-water fish such as tuna,
salmon, and mackerel. Aside from fresh seaweed, a staple of
many cultures, plant foods rarely contain EPA or DHA.

However, a third omega-3, called alpha-linolenic acid (ALA),
is found primarily in dark green leafy vegetables, flaxseed
oils, and certain vegetable oils. Although ALA has different
effects on the body than EPA and DHA do, the body has enzymes
that can convert ALA to EPA. All three are important to human
health." *Preceeding was taken from the link below*

http://www.wholehealthmd.com/refshelf/substances_view/1,1525,-
992,00.html

Not all Omega-3's are necessarily good for you though. In
"Protein Power" the case is made that ALA "slows down the
gatekeeper"-delta 6 desaturase. This enzyme controls Linoleic
Acid amounts used to synthesize eicosanoids into Series 1 and
2. Series 1's being generally good and Series 2 generally bad.

This is how I understand it anyway.

Dave

"John Sankey" <bf250@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:<dc1c2l$1h3$1@theodyn.ncf.ca>...

>

> According to recent genetic research, it seems that the male

> chromosome of most of the non-African world came out of
> Africa maybe

> 50k years ago, then spent several tens of thousands of
> years in

> northern latitudes before spreading over the earth.

>

> Our brain is made up of many things, but omega-3 lipids are
> obviously

> crucial.

>

> It's easy to see how people on the shores of Lake
> Tanganyika got

> omega-3's - fish. But, where did they get them on the
> steppes of

> northern Europe/Asia? I'm wondering if maybe that's why
> it took so

> long for northern Eurasians to conquer the planet - that
> they had to

> find a much more efficient way of producing or
> conserving those

> essential brain lipids than was needed in Africa.

>

> So, here's the question: where do modern people who rely
> totally upon

> northern non-fish food sources get their birthright of
> omega-3's for

> their brains? Laplanders and a few northern Siberian tribes
> are about

> all that's left of the northern 'Palaeolithic' diet. I'd
> appreciate

> referenc

[St7]

John Sankey wrote:
: where do modern people who rely totally
> upon northern non-fish food sources get their birthright of
> omega-3's for their brains? Laplanders and a few northern
> Siberian tribes are about all that's left of the northern
> 'Palaeolithic' diet. I'd appreciate references.

The 'Paleolithic' diet is probably not a model to follow. The
first 90% of the last 150,000 years of our evolutionary
history is likely to be more biologically appropriate than the
last 10% regarding cancer risks (and also likely, longevity):

Urology. 2001 Apr;57(4 Suppl 1):31-8.

Similarities of prostate and breast cancer: Evolution, diet,
and estrogens.

Coffey DS.

James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, The Johns Hopkins
Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland 21287-2101, USA.

Environment determines the risk of both prostate and breast
cancer, and this risk can vary >10-fold. In contrast, no risk
exists for human seminal vesicle cancer demonstrating tissue
specificity. There is also species specificity, because there
is no risk for prostate cancer in any other aging mammal
except the dog. A study of evolution indicates that the
prostate and breast appeared at the same time 65 million years
ago with the development of mammals. All male mammals have a
prostate; however, the seminal vesicles are variable and are
determined by the diet so that species primarily eating meat
do not have seminal vesicles. The exception is the human, who
has seminal vesicles and consumes meat, although this is a
recent dietary change. Human lineage departed from other
higher primates 8 million years ago. The closest existing
primate to humans is the bonobo (pigmy chimpanzee), which does
not eat meat but exists primarily on a high fruit and fresh
vegetable diet. Homo sapiens evolved only about 150,000 years
ago, and only in the last 10% of that time (10 to 15 thousand
years ago) did humans and dogs dramatically alter their diets.
This is the time when humans domesticated the dog, bred
animals, grew crops, and cooked, processed, and stored meats
and vegetables. **All current epidemiologic evidence and
suggestions for preventing prostate and breast cancer in
humans indicates that we should return to the original diets
under which our ancestors evolved. The recent development of
the Western-type diet is associated with breast and prostate
cancer throughout the world.** It is believed that the
exposure to and metabolism of estrogens, and the dietary
intake of phytoestrogens, combined with fat intake, obesity,
and burned food processing may all be related to hormonal
carcinogenesis and oxidative DNA damage. An explanatory model
is proposed.

PMID: 11295592 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

some excerpts from the full paper:

"There appear to be very similar lifestyle risk factors
accompanying both prostate and breast cancer, including a
lower risk associated with high intake of fruits, vegetables,
fiber, and soy products and, alternatively, a higher risk
associated with increased intake of red meat, animal fats,
dairy products, and steroid exposure, as well as body mass and
birth weight."

"Approximately 7 million years ago humans evolved from a
common ape ancestor, with our closest relative being the pigmy
chimpanzee called the bonobo. Like the other great apes, the
bonobo eats primarily fruits and vegetables and no meat."

"Other types of chimpanzees occasionally eat meat as
opportunist scavengers, sometimes even with very limited
hunting. Even in humans, highly effective hunting was not the
major source of high meat caloric intake until later in human
development. When early hominoids such as "Lucy" came down
from the trees 4 million years ago and began to roam the
savannas, they picked up the ability to become
hunter-gatherers."

"This major phase shift in food style occurred only about
10,000 years ago, when humans became farmers and domesticated
both plants and animals. This technology quickly evolved into
a tighter focusing of human diets from wild fresh vegetables
and fruits to an eating pattern toward limited plants that
could be domesticated and grown in great quantities and
stored, like wheat, rice, barley, corn, potatoes, and other
tubers. This resulted in approximately 20 plant types rapidly
replacing the high diversity of 3,000 plants and fruits that
were earlier eaten fresh as they came into season and were
gathered from the wild. With large-scale domestication and
breeding of cattle came a high meat intake, and this was
combined with storage, curing, drying, and cooking as well as
a propensity to use milk and cheese from dairy processing.
Cooking, burning, and smoking produce high levels of
heterocyclic molecules, many of which make adducts to DNA, and
are carcinogens."

"Since separating from the great apes and chimpanzees
approximately 8 million years ago, humans evolved into Homo
sapiens sapiens that are very similar to our present form in
little as 150,000 years. However, we dramatically changed to a
Western-style diet only in the very recent past (ie, 15,000
years)--at a pace much faster than we could biologically
evolve (Table V). This Western diet consists of high meat and
fat; dairy products; stored, processed, and cooked meats; and
low fruit and fiber intake, along with a more sedentary
lifestyle."

"In summary, we were not biologically selected by the
evolution process to eat the way we do today, and the damage
is manifested in prostate and breast cancer. Indeed, all of
the present suggestions of the National Cancer Institute and
the American Cancer Society as to how Americans might reduce
their chances of getting prostate and breast cancer revolve
around adapting dietary changes in our lifestyle back toward
the early human diet of more fruits; a variety of fresh
vegetables and fiber; less burning, cooking, and processing;
diminished intake of dairy products, red meat, and animal
fats, as well as decreasing weight and increasing aerobic
exercise. That is, we must return to a diet and lifestyle that
more closely matches the first 135,000 years before technology
modified our lifestyle and diet."

TABLE V. Human development and the change of diet Time
During Human Development (150,000 years) First 90% (135,000
years) ; Last 10% (15,000 years) Diet: high; low Fruit: high
; low Fiber: high; low Plant diversity: high (3000); low
(20) Red meat: low; high Animal fat: low; high Dairy
products: low; high Food: fresh/wild ; cooked/preserved
Movement: High; Sedentary

"Certainly, looking for simple relation will not be
sufficient, but delineating the exact mechanisms of cell cycle
control and stem cell development in prostate cancer should be
helpful in understanding these early preneoplastic lesions and
their relation to diet. In the end, we still must explain why
approximately 90% of prostate and breast cancers are sporadic
and acquired, and why only 10% are directly inherited in a
Mendelian manner. The acquired cancers may indicate why this
phenomenon is so geographically centered and may be capable of
being altered. If these cancers are set in place within the
neonatal or developmental periods, as has been proposed by
many, then this process will require far more research to
unravel the timing of these critical events."

[John Sanke]

"The first 90% of the last 150,000 years of our evolutionary
history is likely to be more biologically appropriate than the
last 10% regarding cancer risks (and also likely, longevity)"

Probably true, but remember that males who leave more
successful offspring have not necessarily been long-lived.
(The research I referred to is Y-chromosome based because that
chromosome is not recombinant. See
http://www5.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/ for some of
it.)

I'm looking at the very limited food sources of the extreme
continental north where today's dominant male line spent a
lot of time after the exodus from Africa - not much flax oil
or spinach! And, no access to salt water. There would be
some berries, but my primary suspicion for a possible source
of omega-3's is the lichen that are eaten by
caribou/reindeer. Also, the northern Canada equivalent to
the Laplanders drink huge quantities of lichen tea to handle
their high-protein diet. Fish omega-3 comes from algae, and
lichen are half algae.

Thanks for all suggestions, I appreciate them and am keeping
them on file. But, I'm hoping for some real data on the very
few people who continue today to live as our male-line
ancestors must have in that specific area.

[Rbr]

Thanks for this post!

RBR

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 02:44:50 GMT, st7 <st7@this.net> wrote:

>John Sankey wrote:
>: where do modern people who rely totally
>> upon northern non-fish food sources get their birthright of
>> omega-3's for their brains? Laplanders and a few northern
>> Siberian tribes are about all that's left of the northern
>> 'Palaeolithic' diet. I'd appreciate references.
>
>The 'Paleolithic' diet is probably not a model to follow. The
>first 90% of the last 150,000 years of our evolutionary
>history is likely to be more biologically appropriate than
>the last 10% regarding cancer risks (and also likely,
>longevity):
>
>Urology. 2001 Apr;57(4 Suppl 1):31-8.
>
>Similarities of prostate and breast cancer: Evolution, diet,
>and estrogens.
>
>Coffey DS.
>
>James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, The Johns Hopkins
>Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland 21287-2101, USA.
>
>Environment determines the risk of both prostate and breast
>cancer, and this risk can vary >10-fold. In contrast, no risk
>exists for human seminal vesicle cancer demonstrating tissue
>specificity. There is also species specificity, because there
>is no risk for prostate cancer in any other aging mammal
>except the dog. A study of evolution indicates that the
>prostate and breast appeared at the same time 65 million
>years ago with the development of mammals. All male mammals
>have a prostate; however, the seminal vesicles are variable
>and are determined by the diet so that species primarily
>eating meat do not have seminal vesicles. The exception is
>the human, who has seminal vesicles and consumes meat,
>although this is a recent dietary change. Human lineage
>departed from other higher primates 8 million years ago. The
>closest existing primate to humans is the bonobo (pigmy
>chimpanzee), which does not eat meat but exists primarily on
>a high fruit and fresh vegetable diet. Homo sapiens evolved
>only about 150,000 years ago, and only in the last 10% of
>that time (10 to 15 thousand years ago) did humans and dogs
>dramatically alter their diets. This is the time when humans
>domesticated the dog, bred animals, grew crops, and cooked,
>processed, and stored meats and vegetables. **All current
>epidemiologic evidence and suggestions for preventing
>prostate and breast cancer in humans indicates that we should
>return to the original diets under which our ancestors
>evolved. The recent development of the Western-type diet is
>associated with breast and prostate cancer throughout the
>world.** It is believed that the exposure to and metabolism
>of estrogens, and the dietary intake of phytoestrogens,
>combined with fat intake, obesity, and burned food processing
>may all be related to hormonal carcinogenesis and oxidative
>DNA damage. An explanatory model is proposed.
>
>PMID: 11295592 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
>
>some excerpts from the full paper:
>
>"There appear to be very similar lifestyle risk factors
>accompanying both prostate and breast cancer, including a
>lower risk associated with high intake of fruits, vegetables,
>fiber, and soy products and, alternatively, a higher risk
>associated with increased intake of red meat, animal fats,
>dairy products, and steroid exposure, as well as body mass
>and birth weight."
>
>"Approximately 7 million years ago humans evolved from a
>common ape ancestor, with our closest relative being the
>pigmy chimpanzee called the bonobo. Like the other great
>apes, the bonobo eats primarily fruits and vegetables and
>no meat."
>
>"Other types of chimpanzees occasionally eat meat as
>opportunist scavengers, sometimes even with very limited
>hunting. Even in humans, highly effective hunting was not the
>major source of high meat caloric intake until later in human
>development. When early hominoids such as "Lucy" came down
>from the trees 4 million years ago and began to roam the
>savannas, they picked up the ability to become
>hunter-gatherers."
>
>"This major phase shift in food style occurred only about
>10,000 years ago, when humans became farmers and domesticated
>both plants and animals. This technology quickly evolved into
>a tighter focusing of human diets from wild fresh vegetables
>and fruits to an eating pattern toward limited plants that
>could be domesticated and grown in great quantities and
>stored, like wheat, rice, barley, corn, potatoes, and other
>tubers. This resulted in approximately 20 plant types rapidly
>replacing the high diversity of 3,000 plants and fruits that
>were earlier eaten fresh as they came into season and were
>gathered from the wild. With large-scale domestication and
>breeding of cattle came a high meat intake, and this was
>combined with storage, curing, drying, and cooking as well as
>a propensity to use milk and cheese from dairy processing.
>Cooking, burning, and smoking produce high levels of
>heterocyclic molecules, many of which make adducts to DNA,
>and are carcinogens."
>
>"Since separating from the great apes and chimpanzees
>approximately 8 million years ago, humans evolved into Homo
>sapiens sapiens that are very similar to our present form in
>little as 150,000 years. However, we dramatically changed to
>a Western-style diet only in the very recent past (ie, 15,000
>years)--at a pace much faster than we could biologically
>evolve (Table V). This Western diet consists of high meat and
>fat; dairy products; stored, processed, and cooked meats; and
>low fruit and fiber intake, along with a more sedentary
>lifestyle."
>
>"In summary, we were not biologically selected by the
>evolution process to eat the way we do today, and the damage
>is manifested in prostate and breast cancer. Indeed, all of
>the present suggestions of the National Cancer Institute and
>the American Cancer Society as to how Americans might reduce
>their chances of getting prostate and breast cancer revolve
>around adapting dietary changes in our lifestyle back toward
>the early human diet of more fruits; a variety of fresh
>vegetables and fiber; less burning, cooking, and processing;
>diminished intake of dairy products, red meat, and animal
>fats, as well as decreasing weight and increasing aerobic
>exercise. That is, we must return to a diet and lifestyle
>that more closely matches the first 135,000 years before
>technology modified our lifestyle and diet."
>
>TABLE V. Human development and the change of diet Time During
>Human Development (150,000 years) First 90% (135,000 years) ;
>Last 10% (15,000 years) Diet: high; low Fruit: high ; low
>Fiber: high; low Plant diversity: high (3000); low (20) Red
>meat: low; high Animal fat: low; high Dairy products: low;
>high Food: fresh/wild ; cooked/preserved Movement: High;
>Sedentary
>
>"Certainly, looking for simple relation will not be
>sufficient, but delineating the exact mechanisms of cell
>cycle control and stem cell development in prostate cancer
>should be helpful in understanding these early preneoplastic
>lesions and their relation to diet. In the end, we still
>must explain why approximately 90% of prostate and breast
>cancers are sporadic and acquired, and why only 10% are
>directly inherited in a Mendelian manner. The acquired
>cancers may indicate why this phenomenon is so
>geographically centered and may be capable of being altered.
>If these cancers are set in place within the neonatal or
>developmental periods, as has been proposed by many, then
>this process will require far more research to unravel the
>timing of these critical events."

[Cubit]

I thought the brain has to make its own lipids, due to the
constraints of the blood brain barrier. If so, dietary omega 3
would only be important for other systems.

"John Sankey" <bf250@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:dc1c2l$1h3$1@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>
> According to recent genetic research, it seems that the male
> chromosome of most of the non-African world came out of
> Africa maybe 50k years ago, then spent several tens of
> thousands of years in northern latitudes before spreading
> over the earth.
>
> Our brain is made up of many things, but omega-3 lipids are
> obviously crucial.
>
> It's easy to see how people on the shores of Lake Tanganyika
> got omega-3's - fish. But, where did they get them on the
> steppes of northern Europe/Asia? I'm wondering if maybe
> that's why it took so long for northern Eurasians to conquer
> the planet - that they had to find a much more efficient way
> of producing or conserving those essential brain lipids than
> was needed in Africa.
>
> So, here's the question: where do modern people who rely
> totally upon northern non-fish food sources get their
> birthright of omega-3's for their brains? Laplanders and a
> few northern Siberian tribes are about all that's left of
> the northern 'Palaeolithic' diet. I'd appreciate references.