What point in history to base diet on?

[jono]

What point in history should we our base diet on?

Many fruitarians say to eat mostly fruit because our primate ancestors must have done so. Some paleo eaters say eat mostly meats, while others say eat mostly foragable foods like nuts, berries, vegetables and fish.

Grains have become a major staple for humans over the last 10,000 years since neolithic revolution took place and agriculture became widespread.

Today grains are the predominant calorie source for the human population.

10,000 years of widespread grain consumption can weed out a lot of people who have problems with grains.

If using 25 years for a generation time, that's about 400 generations over 10,000 years. That's a lot of generations and I think it's probably enough for a lot of groups to have evolved to a grain-based diet.

I don't think our diet was set in stone at any particular time, but has constantly evolved. Of course some grains and other foods cause problems for a lot of people, but some people may do very well on them.

For those eating mostly meat and low carb, I'm curious how you decide that that is the most evolutionarily appropriate diet, or is just a preference for those foods for other reasons?

[ProteusOne]

First of all, 10,000 years is, how shall I say it, but a "teardrop in the ocean" when it comes to our total primate evolution. And no, it is not enough time for us to "evolve" to eating grains. Evolution works by selecting "out" as well as selecting "for." Most primates will have the chance to produce many offspring before the consumption of dairy/grains/legumes and their ravages, for instance, starts getting in the way. It is a slow process -- even the so called "quick evolution" discoveries were pretty slow.

Since you asked, I know I keep repeating this, but it's my metaphoric Paleo-mantra, so-to-speak:

"Nuts, twigs, lizards, and leaves."

Realistically, the closest approximation to anything edible that you could gather in the wild WITHOUT undue processing is what I call modern Paleo-ism. This includes: nuts; non-starchy vegetables and least-sweet fruits (twigs part, think celery and berries); meat, land or swimming (lizards part); and leaves (leaves, leaves, leaves were/are everywhere). Anything else found in the wild, like honey, was definitely a rare find.

We can thank the late Spaulding Gray for this wonderful metaphor. Anyone ever see Swimming to Cambodia?

Really, though, if you think we have "evolved" to eat grains, I think you're missing the full meaning of what evolution and going paleo really means.

[Bat Spit]

I started with plain old Atkins.
Then I found out that I have very obvious intolerances to dairy and soy.
Then I started studying about gluten and learning that most diseases of civilization weren't present, according to archeological findings, until the advent of grain as a staple food. And then I learned how very prevalent gluten intolerances really are. Anything that is a real problem for 30% of the population just doesn't sound like a good idea.

I've just concluded, in my very own opinion, that given the millions of years of human history, 10,000 just isn't enough for whole scale adaptation.

[Heidihi]

"For those eating mostly meat and low carb, I'm curious how you decide that that is the most evolutionarily appropriate diet, or is just a preference for those foods for other reasons?"

way other reasons!!!!

while I think the whole concept of how evolution relates to my eating now is cool ...I am ok just knowing that my genetics have something to do with the fact that eating sugar turns me into a monster woman with a nonstop eating pattern

pretty much that is it for me all I need to know to want to change things for myself and those around me...my patients need me to be a good example I think...

I like focusing on now :)

food gives me great pleaure and relief from the stress and I want to enjoy it to its fullest ..but in a safe and healthy manner..not in the insane midst of a sugar frenzy!

....I am and have been since I was a little girl ... addicted to the pleasures of hunting and gathering, preparing and eating fresh, locally produced or locally aquired food and for me "local" can be anywhere! and I want to remain healthy enough to do this for the rest of my life! ..so finding a diet that would fit both things was important ..I need to stay healthy to continue wandering!....it does not matter where I am ..I am completely happy in my quest for good food....in the woods gathering things..or standing still and fishing...then later by the fire enjoying a plate of fresh caught trout, sauted bolete mushrooms and huckleberries...then sleeping in a tent... or a beautiful hotel in the heart of a big city .."urban hiking" to farmers markets..ethnic "mom and pops" and other grocers or specialty shops that sell locally grown or produced foods..lunch in a city park is fantastic .. returning to the hotel (with a kitchen of course) to enjoy your finds while looking out at the city ..then into a big comfy bed :D ... ...and of coures my favorite place my own home ...where either wander off into my yard or the woods behind me ..the beach..or in a short drive I can traval to just about any place in the world.. ...it does not matter where I am ..I hunt and gather!

so how could a diet not be more perfect for me?

simple as that

[LessLiz]

10,000 years of widespread grain consumption can weed out a lot of people who have problems with grains.
The exact reason I don't eat grains -- trying to avoid being weeded out.

[Nancy LC]

I think any mention of ancient human diet has to include fish. Do I eat lots of fish? No, I wish I ate more and I'm going to work on that. But I read the following article and came to believe that lots of our progenitors loved the fishies. You can read a snippet of it, but you have to have a subscription to read the whole thing.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19526161.900-americas-most-ancient-mariners.html

I think probably the stuff veggies are promoting, that hunter/gatherer humans ate mostly plants, is nonsense. From what I have read, there is always a lot of skeletal evidence of flesh eating. And certainly the modern hunter gatherer populations we've found in the last 100 years exhibit that.

I wonder if Kallyn could tell us if any strictly or even mostly vegetarian HG population has ever been found? In Guns, Germs and Steel (the DVD) Diamond explains how tough New Guinea was on the inhabitants because they had so few sources of good quality protein available. They were reduced to having to eat jungle spiders to get enough.

Oh yes, one thing the veggie proponents always forget about is how our primate cousins actually do eat meat. Even if they don't catch birds or reptiles, many of them practice a bit of cannablism. Even the gorillas who seem to eschew chewing flesh eat quite a lot of insects in their diet.

[Nancy LC]

Oops, I only addressed a tiny part of the question.

From my obsessive reading about grains and dairy products and my recent discovery of how they've harmed my health (well beyond what the starches and sugars caused), and the historical records of neolithic diseases only coming to places after grains, sugars and dairy are introduced (Read the Gary Taubes book), I believe we haven't evolved to eat these things yet.

But as a person of mostly European descent, I've had longer to evolve than many other populations and deal with them slightly better than say... Pima Indians or Mayori. Still, the evidence and my own experience dictates that I am in Ground 1, if not Ground 0 of the evolutionary process of eating grains.

If you want to start getting an idea of how bad wheat (gluten in particular) is for everyone just read the abstracts and links in "The Gluten File". There is pretty strong evidence that everyone who consumes wheat is harming themselves. Some of the discoveries about a hormone called Zonulin describes how some of the harm probably happens.

This sort of thing isn't going to get splashed on the front pages of the newspaper because so much of our world is invested in consuming wheat and grains. It is far, far easier to let the billions of people have short, sickly lives than to face billions of people possibly starving to death. At least, it preserves stability. *sigh*

[kallyn]

Jono, the whole title of your thread is telling. You say "what point in HISTORY should we base our diet on." But the thing is, we shouldn't base our diet in any part of history - we should base it in PREhistory.

Nancy, I don't know of any vegetarian HG societies.

[PlaneCrazy]

I'd also be careful about going too far back. Some veggie people try and point to gorillas or orangutans and say, "See, they're almost totally vegetarian!"

Unfortunately for their argument, they also have a very different bowel system. They have a longer digestive track so as to get every single bit of goodness from their relatively nutrient-poor diet. As we evolved and became more and more carnivorous, our digestion got shorter and shorter, more like carnivores.

There was an interesting article in Science magazine earlier this year (?) about the controversy over when we began cooking. It seems from studies done, that cooking releases more nutrients and thus would give us an advantage and mediate the need for a longer gut. As we began cooking our brains got bigger and our guts smaller. There are still big questions on when this actually began, but the process seems pretty well accepted.

So, I'd say somewhere just before domestication, of either plants or animals: approximately 10,000 years ago is safe. By that point we had had quite a long time of successful breeding, migration and adaptation to a wide variety of ecosystems.

Read Jared Diamond, and Gary Taubes' new book for good intros into how this works. (neither writes diet books)

Plane

[jono]

Nancy you make a good point about the fish, I think fish would have been a constant food for many humans. I should eat more fresh fish but I don't. I get some omega-3 eggs and flaxseed instead.

After doing some more reading it appears that grass seed (grains) consumption would have been common way before domestication took place, except it probably would have been a more seasonal thing. And todays selectively bred grains and preparation techniques are vastly different from wild grains and traditional techniques.

Personally, I find that grains are great at clearing out my visceral fat, while fructose-rich foods like potatoes, yams and fruits contribute to an unsightly belly if I eat too much. I had a hard time gaining muscle on a ketogenic diet, maybe because I hadn't adapted to it before quitting. For me a mix of grains, nuts, eggs, f+v, seems to work well. Today I'm experimenting with germinated brown rice.

It seems from studies done, that cooking releases more nutrients and thus would give us an advantage and mediate the need for a longer gut. As we began cooking our brains got bigger and our guts smaller.

Plane, do you think the cooking was somehow causative of our brains getting bigger? Maybe by making calories and nutrients more available, more time could be devoted to other intelligence-driven tasks, thus selecting for those with bigger brains. But I wonder what these other intelligence-driven tasks would have been.

[ProteusOne]

After doing some more reading it appears that grass seed (grains) consumption would have been common way before domestication took place, except it probably would have been a more seasonal thing. And todays selectively bred grains and preparation techniques are vastly different from wild grains and traditional techniques.
What, where, when, how, and why? come to mind on this one. I can't imagine paleoliths opting for picking scattered grains all day for such a small return - and most likely increased hunger to boot. Not to mention the digestive poisoning.

Where are you reading this?

[Nancy LC]

Personally, I find that grains are great at clearing out my visceral fat, while fructose-rich foods like potatoes, yams and fruits contribute to an unsightly belly if I eat too much. I had a hard time gaining muscle on a ketogenic diet, maybe because I hadn't adapted to it before quitting. For me a mix of grains, nuts, eggs, f+v, seems to work well. Today I'm experimenting with germinated brown rice.

Grains are evil. Go click on "The gluten file" and read up on all the ways people suffer from eating them. Google lectins and zonulin and phytates. Read the Gary Taubes book and learn how vitamin deficiencies are most likely due to grains making vitamins unusable and glucose competing for the same receptors as vitamin c. Stop and think. Why do people eating traditional diets like the Inuit not have vitamin deficiencies yet people living on rice, wheat and stuff like that do? Why is heart disease and cancer so prevalent in countries where people eat grains and glaringly absent before civilization?

People come to the Paleo board and then make up reasons why paleo people must've eaten something they don't want to give up, because they're addicted IMHO. Of course, they're not the only ones looking for a loophole that'll let them eat something, there are other people who have published their opinions on the Internet so they find that nonsense and believe that means they can keep their beloved grains. But apply some standard of credibility before you automatically believe this stuff and you'll make better decisions. Do a little more research.

So suit yourself, just don't claim it is paleo unless you can point to some pretty good anthropological evidence that grain eating was widespread and common before farming came about. Personally I cling to some non-paleo things but I know they're not paleo and I don't try to kid myself.

I don't fault anyone for having difficulty giving up neolithic foods, my only beef is when people claim it is something Paleo people ate because they're trying to justify eating it themselves. At least be honest with yourself.

And you don't need to eat fructose rich foods for calories. Try eating more nuts, fats, avocados and stuff like that. BTW yams don't have any fructose, they have starch which turns to glucose once you digest it.

[kallyn]

What, where, when, how, and why? come to mind on this one. I can't imagine paleoliths opting for picking scattered grains all day for such a small return - and most likely increased hunger to boot. Not to mention the digestive poisoning.

Where are you reading this?

Actually, the remains of grains have been found at some archaeological sites. They find the charred hulls in fire pits. Not very much of it though.

This guy did an experiment where he foraged all of his food for one month and he foraged wild oats: http://www.wildmanwildfood.com/ (the blog about the one month thing is here: http://www.wildmanwildfood.com/pages/wildfoodmonthdays1-31.html)

So it's not impossible to forage very small amounts of grains and certain evidence can point to this. But we're talking about handfuls at a time, and only in season, and of grains that had not yet seen the touch of cultivation.

I still ain't gonna eat them, though.

[Nancy LC]

The gluten content in wheat (and probably the other gluten containing grains like barley and rye) has been increased hugely by domestication and breeding.

[kallyn]

Yes definitely, which is why I mentioned that even if they did eat random handfuls of grains, it was before grains were cultivated into the mutants that we grow today.

[ProteusOne]

As for going back any farther than 10,000 years ago, I happen to think, while unattainable, it is a good idea. But in reality, it's impossible to know, and where individual experimentation steps in.

[jono]

Proteus, there is a discussion of early use of grains and other seeds here:
http://www.naturalhub.com/natural_food_guide_grains_beans_seeds.htm

Nancy I agree grains are not healthy the way most people eat them today. However, germinating greatly improves digestibility, liberates minerals from phytates, starches are broken down to maltose (a disaccharide of glucose), and vitamin content increases, including in some cases vitamin C. I avoid gluten grains, and regarding lectins, I'm not convinced they pose a problem but I'm open to learn more about them.

Yams and potatoes do contain fructose. Actually when I say "yams" I really mean the orange version of sweet potatoes (true yams are an entirely different species). You can check www.nutritiondata.com to find the fructose content of potatoes and sweet potatoes, which are surprisingly quite high. The data can also be found in the usda database here: http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/

I'm not sure how all that fructose got into potatoes, were they there all along, or selectively bred for, or maybe the fructose forms because of some curing process I have no idea. Theres lots of sucrose too (disaccharide of glucose+fructose).

[Nancy LC]

I looked up "yam, raw" on the USDA nutrition database and they don't contain fructose. I looked up apple too, just to make sure fructose would be listed. Were you looking at ones that were canned with sweetener?

I doubt Paleo people sprouted their grains before eating them. I'm not sure whose "nourishing tradition" that is supposed to be, but it doesn't sound like any traditions from hunter gather societies. And I question exactly how much good soaking grains does as far as detoxifying them and why eat toxic food to begin with? Why would paleo people work that hard when food was probably pretty easy to get elsewhere? It just seems like a lame argument to me, kind of like the raw dairy one, where some magic enzymes solve all the many problems that dairy has.

If you're not sure lectins are a problem, eat some raw kidney beans sometime and get back to me. Actually don't. I don't want your illness on my conscience. Cooking neutralizes some lectins but not all. And lectins keep your gut from repairing (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801091240.htm).

As far as point in time is concerned I just read an article about a model for how humans migrated out of Africa. It sounds like they probably evolved social and tool making intelligence during a period of climate pressures and then during an era of stable moist climate the population exploded and they migrated by sticking to the coasts. There are huge dump piles of the shells of clams and oysters. Later on they probably caught fish. There is speculation that about the time humans went to Australian and New Guinea they had figured how to get hold of some starchy food (probably tubers). The New Guineans actually eat a lot of starchy foods from the Sago palm and a tuber they cultivate their. But their diet is very poor in protein so survival was a struggle for them.

It sounds like it was fairly recent that humans left the coastlines, 20,000 years or so.

[jono]

Nancy, I gotta eat my words potatoes don't contain as much fructose as I thought (I was thinking in ratios and not actual mg).

Anyway what we think of as yams are actually an orange version of sweet potato. But the usda site actually gets it right and lists the true yam when you search for yam.

[Nancy LC]

Hmmm... in my super market they have yams and they have sweet potatoes. One has light colored brown skin (sweet potatoes) one has dark colored, purplish skin (yam). Is the yam really a yam or is it a sweet potato?

[jono]

Nancy if it's sold in the US and is called a yam and has orange flesh, it's probably not a true yam.

There are 3 separate species, 1. the potato, 2. the sweet potato, 3. the true yam.

In many other countries yams are really true yams. But in the US yams are an orange variety of sweet potato.

The top of this article talks about why our yams are called yams even though they really aren't: http://plantanswers.tamu.edu/vegetables/sweetpotato.html

Anyway. thanks for the article about lectins. But many foods have lectins, why should grains be singled out?

Well, I was just reading about sugar metabolism, and how a little fructose might actually help regulate glucose metabolism. Potatoes appear to have a little fructose (not as much as I'd thought), while grains apparently don't have any. So maybe we are better off with some starchy tubers than grains.
Here's the page I was reading:
http://www.medbio.info/Horn/Time%201-2/carbohydrate_metabolism.htm

[PlaneCrazy]

Take a look at Gary Taubes' book for a discussion of how fructose, while sometimes recommended as a better sweetener for diabetics because it isn't immediately converted in the gut into glucose, actually seems to be worse for us because it is actually processed in the liver and turned into bad blood lipids.

He places our increasing amounts of fructose right up there with our increasing amounts of easily digestible carbs as causes of the diseases of civilization.

Fructose is not as harmless as you, and many others, might think. Read the book! (becoming one of my favorite mantras)

Plane

[jono]

Thanks Plane, I'm sure I'll get to that book someday. I'm already aware of how fructose is way worse than glucose. Aside from being metabolized poorly, it's also much more glycotoxin-forming than glucose.

I know fructose messed me up bad. A couple years back I tried a raw fruit based diet and felt like crap, it caused very bad insulin resistance as evidenced by a large increase in visceral fat, and resulting belly. Live and learn.

[Nancy LC]

Take a look at Gary Taubes' book for a discussion of how fructose, while sometimes recommended as a better sweetener for diabetics because it isn't immediately converted in the gut into glucose, actually seems to be worse for us because it is actually processed in the liver and turned into bad blood lipids.

He places our increasing amounts of fructose right up there with our increasing amounts of easily digestible carbs as causes of the diseases of civilization.

Fructose is not as harmless as you, and many others, might think. Read the book! (becoming one of my favorite mantras)

Plane
Well, when you derive the huge number of calories from it like most Americans do, yeah it is a problem! But getting a few grams of fructose in fruit a couple times a day I don't think is. I think Gary made that point in his book but I couldn't swear to it.

[number42]

Mmm. This bit about fructose is really troubling me now, because at the moment I'm eating "bastard paleo." I eat a lot of fruit, and juiced fruits (it being apple cider season ;). Meat simply isn't as accessible to me right now. I'm still losing weight, but I'd probably feel better if I were able to eat a more varied diet.

Due to lack of money, I haven't been able to purchase Wellshire Farms products or similar, so the sausage I eat is all full of soy crap anyway. Ugh. Whey protein, soy protein, and monosodium glutamate. It's like they're acknowledging that the meat the produce is neither protein-rich nor meaty tasting. Disgusting.

I don't have a lot of weight to lose, but I'm still losing. I guess even on Bastard Paleo you know when to stop eating ;)

[Kskline]

This sort of thing isn't going to get splashed on the front pages of the newspaper because so much of our world is invested in consuming wheat and grains. It is far, far easier to let the billions of people have short, sickly lives than to face billions of people possibly starving to death. At least, it preserves stability. *sigh*

Yes, if they did that, big pharma would go out of business.

Kim

[girlgerms]

Many people do very well on grainy diets, many people don't (like most of us on this site). Base your diet on what works for you, not on any belief system about humankind and what we may or may not have eaten thousands of years ago. Just experiment on yourself!

[Nancy LC]

Many people do very well on grainy diets, many people don't (like most of us on this site). Base your diet on what works for you, not on any belief system about humankind and what we may or may not have eaten thousands of years ago. Just experiment on yourself!
How about basing it on research and science? What a novel concept.

[Kskline]

Many people do very well on grainy diets, many people don't (like most of us on this site). Base your diet on what works for you, not on any belief system about humankind and what we may or may not have eaten thousands of years ago. Just experiment on yourself!

IMHO this is like playing with fire. Someone may eat grains now and not experience any problems but I believe that is where health problems down the road come from like cancer and heart disease. Someone may appear perfectly healthy and then all of sudden they have cancer. If we are not adapted to eat something, just because they appear to be healthy and do well doesn't mean they are. It can take years for cancer cells to grow and become discoverable. I know of a man that went to the doctor one week, was prounced in good health, gave blood the following week, and when he got home didn't feel good, had a heart attack and died on the spot. My son witnessed the whole event.

Kim

[ProteusOne]

IMHO this is like playing with fire. Someone may eat grains now and not experience any problems but I believe that is where health problems down the road come from like cancer and heart disease. Someone may appear perfectly healthy and then all of sudden they have cancer. If we are not adapted to eat something, just because they appear to be healthy and do well doesn't mean they are. It can take years for cancer cells to grow and become discoverable. I know of a man that went to the doctor one week, was prounced in good health, gave blood the following week, and when he got home didn't feel good, had a heart attack and died on the spot. My son witnessed the whole event.

Kim
I agree. Even the ravages of smoking or alcoholism aren't "apparent" often until it's too late.

But you shouldn't just take our word for it. There's enough science out there, and enough evidence to point any one of us in a logical, thoughtful direction. Sometimes, however, it is very difficult for the human emotion to let go of a preconception, bias, or what I call "conservative laziness" (unwilling to look at novel ideas because it's just too convenient not to).

[ProteusOne]

O, and back to topic.... It seems to me that we are always "discovering" that the farther we go back, from a diet perspective, the better off we are in terms of health.

For most of us Paleo people, it's not enough just to follow a "whole foods" diet. We go back farther to the point where grains, legumes, and dairy aren't consumed. Going back farther, like eating more raw, whole-formed foods, is a logical step back, in my opinion, to a more evolutionary "natural" diet.

[Nancy LC]

or what I call "conservative laziness" (unwilling to look at novel ideas because it's just too convenient not to).
Nice phrase!

[girlgerms]

I agree, the more natural our diet the better (with the exception of raw meat unless you want cysts in your brain or something). But everyone has different tolerances so, like I said, experiment on yourself .. follow the fundamentals of the paleo/neanderthin if you find it works for you.

[waywardsis]

Thing is, it's hard to say what makes one feel "healthy" unless you do try different things. My fella, for example, feel sperfectly healthy and in fact rarely gets even the sniffles = and he eats almost nothing but sugar (pop, chips, chocolate, noodles etc). When I was vegetarian (grain-based diet, really) I would have said I felt healthy, even though I had horrible allergies all the time and a host of other things - I just thought they were normal, bc most people had similar complaints. I certainly never related any of them to my diet. It wasn't until I went off all of that food that I realized what "healthy" actually felt like. I was quite shocked.

Conservative laziness - awesome!

[kneebrace]

O, and back to topic.... It seems to me that we are always "discovering" that the farther we go back, from a diet perspective, the better off we are in terms of health.

For most of us Paleo people, it's not enough just to follow a "whole foods" diet. We go back farther to the point where grains, legumes, and dairy aren't consumed. Going back farther, like eating more raw, whole-formed foods, is a logical step back, in my opinion, to a more evolutionary "natural" diet.

Proteus, I think Jono's original point is that if you go even further back, you get to our ancestral primates eating mosly fructose for energy. So how do you decide when to stop 'going back'. For me personally, it's simply about experimentation. I've tried a high fruit/no grain/whole foods diet and I came perilously close to diabetes. And even tho paleo 'wisdom' suggests I should avoid dairy, I have no problems with non milk (low carb) dairy. In fact in a very contentious thread here not so long ago quite a few feathers were obviously ruffled by my suggestion that every paleo baby drank copious amounts of milk for at least the first two years of life after which the only thing that changed was milk availability and the ability to cope with lactose. Ergo lactose free dairy can considered to be a 'paleo' adult food. And lactose itself is a perfect paleo infant food. Indeed, I (and most adults of European descent) have no 'problems' with lactose either. But it's carbohydrate, so I avoid it. Casein intolerant paleo infants were often soon dead infants. Throughout human (make that Mammalian) evolution there has obviously been very strong selective pressure to thrive on casein, which doesn't change with weaning. Which is not to say that some modern folks are not casein intolerant. But they are a tiny minority. .... As I brace myself for the storm of 'paleo' indignation :) .


For me it's about carbs. But one of the things that constantly amuses me about a paleo dietary approach is that it's used to justify eating fruit in amounts more than very occasional berrries, and yet fructose in any amount is obviously not a very healthy food for humans to consume. Nutritional science seems to be currently on a very steep learning curve about just how damaging fructose is to human metabolism.

Even in Paleo nutritional academia there is widespread disagreement about wether much saturated fat was consumed and so wether it should be avoided as part of an optimally healthy paleo dietary approach. Again personal experimentation is the key. I've eaten both low and high sat fat as part of a whole foods diet for years at a time, and I feel far healthier (and my lipids confirm it) on high sat fat, so I just 'know' paleo 'experts' like Cordain are missing something critical in their research.

Stuart

[Nancy LC]

There's no such thing of non-milk dairy. :p
Dairy isn't paleo. Human milk is very different from the milk from cows. Lactose isn't the only issue with milk. And human casein isn't the same as bovine casein.

[Dodger]

I don't do paleo because I eat cheese and use butter. Like Nancy said, dairy isn't paleo.

A true paleo diet would be prehistoric. Writing did not begin until neolithic times.

[TheCaveman]

Proteus, I think Jono's original point is that if you go even further back, you get to our ancestral primates eating mosly fructose for energy. So how do you decide when to stop 'going back'. For me personally, it's simply about experimentation. I've tried a high fruit/no grain/whole foods diet and I came perilously close to diabetes. And even tho paleo 'wisdom' suggests I should avoid dairy, I have no problems with non milk (low carb) dairy. In fact in a very contentious thread here not so long ago quite a few feathers were obviously ruffled by my suggestion that every paleo baby drank copious amounts of milk for at least the first two years of life after which the only thing that changed was milk availability and the ability to cope with lactose. Ergo lactose free dairy can considered to be a 'paleo' adult food. And lactose itself is a perfect paleo infant food. Indeed, I (and most adults of European descent) have no 'problems' with lactose either. But it's carbohydrate, so I avoid it. Casein intolerant paleo infants were often soon dead infants. Throughout human (make that Mammalian) evolution there has obviously been very strong selective pressure to thrive on casein, which doesn't change with weaning. Which is not to say that some modern folks are not casein intolerant. But they are a tiny minority. .... As I brace myself for the storm of 'paleo' indignation :) .

The only paleo indignation you should (knee)brace yourself for is that you don't seem to have read the books, since most of the above is argued there, and you aren't arguing with Cordain and Audette as much as you are with yourself. Copious amounts of human milk does not supply the massive casein load that cows milk does. The human infant is prepared for casein in human amounts, not cow amounts. What happens when a human ingests a certain protein in an amount it doesn't expect? Whenever someone says, "I have no problem with dairy," I always want to append it with, "as far as you know." Lactose tolerance is easily explained by millions of generations of intestinal bacteria evolving to take advantage of lactose. What makes you think "there has obviously been very strong selective pressure to thrive on casein" is so obvious? I don't see it. The five or six thousand years is insufficient time to make such a significant shift in genes. But don't take my word for it. Ask a geneticist.

So how do we paleos decide when to stop going back? Also answered in the books, we go back to where our genome was decided by our environment. Our ancestral primates obviously changed through natural selection into Homo through evolutionary pressures and opportunities. Argue this, not by reducing the argument to absurdity. Good for a giggle, but not logical.

But one of the things that constantly amuses me about a paleo dietary approach is that it's used to justify eating fruit in amounts more than very occasional berrries, and yet fructose in any amount is obviously not a very healthy food for humans to consume. Nutritional science seems to be currently on a very steep learning curve about just how damaging fructose is to human metabolism.

Fructose alters metabolism. In the environment of evolutionary adaptation, this was an important, seasonal change that humans took advantage of. Reading up on plant biology would resolve your confusion. Lots of fruit is freestyle paleo, and both Cordain and Audette have cautioned against lots of fruit if fat loss is a goal.

Even in Paleo nutritional academia there is widespread disagreement about wether much saturated fat was consumed and so wether it should be avoided as part of an optimally healthy paleo dietary approach. Again personal experimentation is the key. I've eaten both low and high sat fat as part of a whole foods diet for years at a time, and I feel far healthier (and my lipids confirm it) on high sat fat, so I just 'know' paleo 'experts' like Cordain are missing something critical in their research.

First, if you could point us to the disagreement, we would greatly appreciate your efforts. Cordain has explained at length that his paleo diet is based on the fatty acid profile of wild animals, who carry less saturated fat than farmed animals. Is more saturated fat better? Maybe, but he's not arguing against your personal experience, as unpaleo as your diet is. He's arguing the evidence he has available to him.

Maybe you feel better with more saturated fat because you eat so much cheese.

[kneebrace]

The five or six thousand years is insufficient time to make such a significant shift in genes. But don't take my word for it. Ask a geneticist.But don't take my word for it. Ask a geneticist.

Caveman, you do seem fond of that line. And I did point out to you in another discussion that I grew up asking questions just like this of my geneticist Dad and evolutionary biologist Mother. As I mentioned then, I was weaned on this stuff :) . Besides, you've obviously never heard of 'punctuated equilibrium' in adaptive genetic change. Where did you conjure up '5 or six thousand years' from anyway? Humans have been keeping dairy herds of various species for at least 10,000 years. And I think your following comment about people's professed tolerance of dairy: 'that they're aware of' is quite revealing here. It's almost as if the people who think dairy is unhealthy cling to this notion that percieved optimal health including (bovine) dairy could only possibly be illusory.

So how do we paleos decide when to stop going back? Also answered in the books, we go back to where our genome was decided by our environment. Our ancestral primates obviously changed through natural selection into Homo through evolutionary pressures and opportunities. Argue this, not by reducing the argument to absurdity. Good for a giggle, but not logical.

I agree. That's why I said it.



Fructose alters metabolism. In the environment of evolutionary adaptation, this was an important, seasonal change that humans took advantage of. Reading up on plant biology would resolve your confusion. Lots of fruit is freestyle paleo, and both Cordain and Audette have cautioned against lots of fruit if fat loss is a goal.


I don't think any fructose is healthy, whether you are trying to lose bodyfat or not. Just as many people can eat heroic amounts of fructose and never gain bodyfat as have a bodyfat problem with it. The point is 'our genome' if you will, was never designed to cope with much fructose, even seasonally. Paleo fruits (the 'bush tucker fruits consumed by contemporary traditional eating Australian Aborigines are perfect examples) were only mildly sweet, and being such a poor source of energy, would not have been a big part of energy intake (you can only fit so many not very sweet berries in your tummy before the novelty wears off, and you actually need some real energy :). Fructose is a modern addiction, I'm afraid Caveman. The only concentrated form of fructose available to Paleo humans was wild honey, and it was a very rare treat, and even then was shared.

Actually I'm not sure I am confused. My wife in a plant biologist (/biochemist) and we discuss this area a lot. Caveman, the bottom line is that even during seasonal 'plenty', paleo humans only consumed miniscule amounts of fructose. We have a 'seed' mango tree in our backyard that we never fertilize. It's a very healthy, very big old tree that bears prodigious quantities of fruit. Even fully ripe, they too are only mildly sweet. Our horses thrive on eating them adlib, and never get the fructan overload that they suffer from even spring grass. One horse will easily consume over a two hundred/ day.

Any fruit that you can buy in a fruit shop today, including berries, are unrecognizably different from paleo fruits in terms of their fructose content.

First, if you could point us to the disagreement, we would greatly appreciate your efforts. Cordain has explained at length that his paleo diet is based on the fatty acid profile of wild animals, who carry less saturated fat than farmed animals. Is more saturated fat better? Maybe, but he's not arguing against your personal experience, as unpaleo as your diet is. He's arguing the evidence he has available to him.

No, I disagree. He's just (mis) interpreting the evidence he chooses to consider in a particular way. He's just misguided. Plenty of very eminent scientists are.

Maybe you feel better with more saturated fat because you eat so much cheese.

Must be a bit thick :) . I'm sorry I missed your point here. Are you perhaps saying that because I eat so much cheese I'm perhaps casein 'opiate' deranged and only think I'm healthy? I'm afraid you'll have to clarify a bit.

Cheers,

Stuart

[TheCaveman]

No, I disagree. He's just (mis) interpreting the evidence he chooses to consider in a particular way. He's just misguided. Plenty of very eminent scientists are.


No examples? No evidence? Dang, I was hoping to argue something. Again, maybe your mom and dad can provide some evidence to just about everything you say in this last post?

[waywardsis]

We need a paleo version of that smilie who munches popcorn.

[kneebrace]

No examples? No evidence? Dang, I was hoping to argue something. Again, maybe your mom and dad can provide some evidence to just about everything you say in this last post?

Um, everything I say? Care to elaborate? Let's see now. Nope, humans have indeed been domesticating animals and utilizing their ability to provide varlous highly nutritious dairy produce for at least 10000 years. I ask you again, where did you get the 5-6 thousand year figure? Punctuated equilibrium? I doubt whether anyone with even an only rudimentary understanding of the mechanics of evolution still believes in a steady state model of evolutionary change. And the genetic change to not turn off the lactase producing abilty is not really a big deal. In contrast the genetic change required to thrive with a vastly higher carbohydrate intake (even taking into account the highly variable rate of possible genetic change) is many multiples at least of the time span since the neolithic agricultural revolution. Hence most people of European descent don't have any problem with bovine dairy, while any human eating a mod/high carb diet inevitably suffers from some degree of metabolic syndrome induced degenerative disease.

Caveman, I've been hearing apologists for variously misguided dietary and evolutionary theories hiding behind mountains of carefully massaged and badly interpreted 'evidence' for most of my adult life. Sometimes you can just cut to the chase with a tad of common sense. But if you can only discuss something by backing yourself up with 'studies' then it might indeed be better if you didn't discuss it. You can waste an awful lot of time in intellectual dead zones by slavish reliance on studies. I'd still be eating a high unprocessed carb diet if I was waiting for the evidence to catch up with my common sense. And evolutionary biologists are no better than any other scientist in being breathtakingly good at choosing the 'evidence' he/she wants to back up their pet theory. I'm not a scientist by profession, but even I'm not immune from that failing. But as Gary Taubes illustrates so clearly in 'GCBC', scientists seem almost blissfully unaware that it tends to drive their thought processes. Most will deny that it's even a factor. 'I'm, a scientist, and I rely on data/evidence, ergo I am objective'. No wonder the Australian/UK edition of 'GCBC' is called 'Diet Delusions'.

Dang right back at you, here was I thinking that you could actually have a worthwhile discussion and expressly not have to rely on 'studies'. But I am curious. You do seem reluctant to address the issue of modern fruit (even berries) being unrecognizably higher in fructose than unhybridized un-'fertilizer pushed' wild progenitor examples. The 'seasonal availability' aspect of paleo fruit consumption you have been so fond of (in many threads, not just this one) is largely irrelevant when modern fruit is being considered. And since truly wild fruit is largely unavailable unless you do have regular access to large tracts of wilderness (not exactly practical for city folk, you'd have to agree) avoiding any fruit other than very occasional small amounts of berries would seem prudent.

Fructose is a human metabolic poison, in any amount. And IMHO the entire modern so called 'paleo' dietary approach is grievously flawed because it clings so tenaciously to regular consumption of the oft named nature's candy. Candy which didn't even exist in paleo times (except, as I mentioned, wild honey. But as I also mentioned wild honey was a rare treat, otherwise humans would have perished from tooth decay at a very young age). So anyone who regularly eats modern fruit is clearly not eating like their paleolithic forbears. But if you can get hold of some wild berries (which if they are truly wild varieties and not just wild strains cross pollinated with fructose pumped hybrids - practically impossible) go for it! And so called 'organic' cultivated berries are no better in the fructose department. You can actually considerably boost the fructose content of even wild strains by fertilizing them , either organically or artificially. But it's still fructose.

Nancy, when I say 'non milk' dairy you do understand I am referring to cheese and other fermented dairy which contain miniscule amounts of lactose don't you? Sorry if you were just joking in questioning the use of the term.

cheers,

Stuart

[ProteusOne]

Fructose is a human metabolic poison, in any amount. And IMHO the entire modern so called 'paleo' dietary approach is grievously flawed because it clings so tenaciously to regular consumption of the oft named nature's candy.
Clinging to regular consumption of modern fruit is about as ridiculous as clinging to regular consumption of dairy (of any sort other than human) as being Paleo. I don't know who you are referring to here: Maybe those that misunderstand Paleo, or who are looking for excuses to prime their addiction? It seems like a generalization to me.

And, BTW, Dairy ain't Paleo.

[Nancy LC]

One thing no one seems to catch onto is the reason why Cordain is against eating too much saturated fat, they always assume it is because of the heart disease or lipids thing. It isn't entirely that. He thinks the lipids we eat on grain fed animals is out-of-balance. He certainly isn't arguing to eat low fat, but rather to eat more omega-3's and PUFAs in a ratio eaten by HG groups.

Here's his explanation: http://thepaleodiet.com/faqs/#Fats

[Nancy LC]

Nancy, when I say 'non milk' dairy you do understand I am referring to cheese and other fermented dairy which contain miniscule amounts of lactose don't you? Sorry if you were just joking in questioning the use of the term.Last I looked, cheese contains milk. Lots and lots of milk. Perhaps you meant low-lactose dairy?

[kneebrace]

Clinging to regular consumption of modern fruit is about as ridiculous as clinging to regular consumption of dairy (of any sort other than human) as being Paleo.

And, BTW, Dairy ain't Paleo.

Yes I agree. I've never suggested that paleo adults ate lots of dairy, of any sort, including human. But it depends on your motivation for following a paleo dietary approach. If it's health, then IMHO the digestive physiology of paleo and modern humans alike make non milk dairy a wonderfully nutritious food. And as for the difference between bovine and human casein being a reason to avoid it(bovine) it's worth mentioning (for one) the fifty year clinical experience of Wolfgang Lutz, the author of Life Without Bread that slightly sweetened cows' milk is an excellent developmental substitute for human milk, (far superior to 'formula).

So if you stick to not eating dairy, human or any other mammal, simply on the grounds that paleo humans didn't actually have access to it, then you are neglecting the pesky point that if they had, they would have thrived on it. But if they had access to copious amounts of fructose in fruit as modern humans do, they would have suffered exactly the same metabolic fate of so doing as their modern descendants inevitably suffer.

But perhaps I'm deluding myself that the major motivation for adopting a paleo dietary approach is health. If I'm not, then I think avoiding dairy is not that sensible (unless you're intolerant of casein, which most humans, paleo and modern weren't/aren't) and regular consumption of fruit is not a good idea either.

Stuart

[xv1942]

There are essential protiens.
There are essential fats.
There are no essential carbohydrates.

That ought to tell you all you need to know.

On or about 1830 in the area of North and South Dakota, Montana and Wyoming there were 200,000 to 300,000 Sioux Indians living by harvesting the Buffalo herds. Their diet was Buffalo meat, Buffalo fat, the organs, liver, fat, other organs and fat. Did I mention fat? That was their diet and they were very healthy. No rice or potatoes or wheat or corn.

[perfectfit]

There are essential protiens.
There are essential fats.
There are no essential carbohydrates.

That ought to tell you all you need to know.

On or about 1830 in the area of North and South Dakota, Montana and Wyoming there were 200,000 to 300,000 Sioux Indians living by harvesting the Buffalo herds. Their diet was Buffalo meat, Buffalo fat, the organs, liver, fat, other organs and fat. Did I mention fat? That was their diet and they were very healthy. No rice or potatoes or wheat or corn.

It was all grass fed meat and that was a good thing. :thup:

[Nancy LC]

There are essential protiens.
There are essential fats.
There are no essential carbohydrates.

That ought to tell you all you need to know.

On or about 1830 in the area of North and South Dakota, Montana and Wyoming there were 200,000 to 300,000 Sioux Indians living by harvesting the Buffalo herds. Their diet was Buffalo meat, Buffalo fat, the organs, liver, fat, other organs and fat. Did I mention fat? That was their diet and they were very healthy. No rice or potatoes or wheat or corn.
The Chippwa in N. Minnesota ate wild rice in season. But other than that it was game, fish, and berries.

[ProteusOne]

But perhaps I'm deluding myself that the major motivation for adopting a paleo dietary approach is health.
Don't delude yourself anymore. It is for me, anyway.

[perfectfit]

The Chippwa in N. Minnesota ate wild rice in season. But other than that it was game, fish, and berries.

And the berries were only in season too. :)

[kneebrace]

Occasionally you can buy so called wild blueberries in our local supermarket. Heaven knows where they get them or how actually wild they really are, but they are always far less sweet than the cultivated ones. Truly wild strawberries are easy to grow and find even in suburbia. They are almost tasteless compared to the commercial varieties. Not much energy there. Even if you got lucky and ate prodigious quantities of them, it would be very difficult for them to be a signifigant proportion of energy intake, even in season.

Unprocessed sweetness really seems to be a function of selective breeding and fertilizer pumping.... or the hard work of bees :) . Which really makes them both a product of 'processing'. On the one hand the bees do it in hive 'factories' and the other humans force plants to do it over successive generations, against their better judgement. And eventually certainly against the better judgement of the human metabolisms the 'fruits' of these labours are inflicted upon.

Stuart

[ProteusOne]

I have pretty good wild strawberries growing in my back "yard." They actually are pretty sweet, although I wouldn't want to rely on them for calories. But then again with constant migration and gathering, and the changing of the seasons, it wouldn't be "natural." But I would eat them while waiting on a passing beast. during the summer time.