I am a low-carb advocate and practitioner, so my question is purely informational. I've read the material which states man's genetic code was set long before he started to farm and devour grains, beans, and the like. This material also states that man's health declined with the advent of farming 10,000 years ago. But I cannot reconcile that with the volumes of evidence showing that after we began farming, the human population grew dramatically and life expectancy increased. Of course these trends have continued ever since. In the twentieth century, life expectancy increased more than in all the previous centuries combined. Is there a paradox to be resolved? Why did these indicators of progress take off just as we increased the carbohydrates in our diet?

Thanks.

Sheldon

I had a similiar question awhile back, Doreen made alot of sense. See this link:

Life Expectancy

Thanks, Talon. That is interesting. But my question is slightly different, since I am referring to thousands of years ago, before there was much of what we think of as "public health."

Sheldon

After doing a little research, here's what I've come up with. Average life expectancy doesn't begin to increase until about 1400. Population doesn't start growing until about 1600. It's fairly flat before then, though there are many ups and downs. Obviously, this is well after man begins farming, so it cannot be farming that creates the positive changes. Something else does that. "Public health" is surely one answer. The fall in infant mortality is another big reason.

Sheldon

As an anthropology major in my undergraduate studies many years ago I was facinated by this very subject. After Man and Dog (a dangerous combo!) had managed to kill off all of the big game animals that sustained human life for hundreds of thousands of years, there was no alternative but to find something else...fast. Hence, monoculture agriculture developed rather quickly and took over as Man's main food source in many parts of the world. Population quickly grew, astoundingly fast as men and women were grouped into small communities that gradually became larger communities as property suddenly became a commodity. The average grain eater...even today...produces offspring about once every 11-14 months...wonder where the population problems are coming from? The average hunter-gatherer produces offspring about once every five to seven years. Wonder where they all went? Young grain-eating girls mature into first menses..now, on the average around 11-12 years old...some are starting menses at 7-8 years old in the last 50 years! The average hunter-gatherer girl doesn't even start her menses until she's between 17-21! GRAINS! They have properties that are causing our children to mature before their time and it's getting worse as new strains are being produced with more starch and more of evrything else. No wonder the population explosion happened! Life expectancy went way down soon after the advent of agricutlure and didn't start to go on the rise like you said, after there were some better public health practices. After taking into account the dangers inherent in the lifestyle of a hunter-gatherer (ie. being eaten by a large cat, injuries, etc.) we find that they had a life expectancy of about 70 years...even back then. But the agricultural folks int eh city-states went down to about 37 years. If you want more, I could go on and on...probably not, huh?

Fascinating! Feel free to PM me more on this, or sources I can read. As I understand it, population grew rapidly not because the birth rate increased (women rarely had all the children they were capable of having), but because the death rate fell. That's true to this day: in other words, the growing population is good news since it represents a (temporary) triumph over death. Keep in mind, also, that the rate of growth has been falling for a long time, and even former alarmists say population will stabilize at a lower level than expected.

I don't worry about population growth because if we have individual freedom and free economies, we will solve problems just as we solved them in the past: through human ingenuity, which is unlimited. See Julian Simon's large volume of writing for details.

Sheldon

When I read things like free economies it reminds me of a "free market economy" and I just wonder...are you a "kindred spirit"?
Anyway, as I was taught, the birth rate did go up in cities after that advent of monoculture agriculture due to the properties of the diet they were consuming. However, the death rate went up, too, due to being packed so closely together (disease), and the advent of a new group of killers caused by a grain-based, dairy-based diet, and possibly a diet dependant upon the deadly nightshade family, ie., potatoes, tomatoes, egg plant, peppers, etc...a compromised immune system in the form of the body trying to kill itself...autoimmune diseases such as arthritis, rhuematoid arthritis, MS, Lupus, Obesity, some forms of heart disease, and the grand daddy of them all...DIABETES. Before agriculture we do not see any traces of any of these diseases in the fossil record, but they become rampant early on in the fossil record of city dwellers, who quite naturally were dependant upon agriculture. The birth rate sky-rocketed and DEATH stalked the streets of early villages and cities in the above forms, and in complications caused from childbirth...women weren't as easily able to ward off many of the problems caused by childbirth due to their diet...again! This is still true, today. Of course, childbirth has always been extremely dangerous to the health and welfare of women and children, even without compromised immune systems and weakened bodies. The death rate really went up in the Industrial Revolution as white flour made its' appearance. So did the birth rate. White flour (pure gluey starch) and the birth rate seemed to go hand in hand at this time in the Western Countries. Also, in the rice- based, soy-based economies as hulled rice and soy products became a staples in the cities...(pure gluey starch! and other stuff that our bodies don't like such as alkaloids, etc.), and a growing dependance upon milk-based products, world-wide (another form of pure glue ala ELMER'S).
Now, we come to the present day. We now have modern medicine, which is surely helping to prolong life, no question. Better health practices, such as washing our hands with soap and water to keep the germs out of our insides, modern food preserving which keeps the bad bugs from entering our intestines, etc. We also have the growth rate slowing in the Western Countries due to societal changes and awareness factors, as well as economies which have caused woemn to enter the work force in huge numbers. However, in the Third World, I am of the understanding that the birth rate is climbing at alarming rates with no end in sight.

captxray--

I am an admirer of Ayn Rand's philosophy. Moreover, Julian Simon has shown empirically that while progress, such as the growth of cities, brings problems, human ingenuity invariably solves them and leaves us better off than before the problems emerged. Indeed, in 1800 the world could barely support a billion people. Today 6 billion live longer, healthier, and more prosperous lives than ever before. And its getting better in most places. The developing world, with some exceptions, has been catching up at a dramatic rate.

A good deal of entrepreneurial freedom, however, is a precondition for this process to work. Institutions matter a lot.

The fertility rate has been falling in the developing world since the 1960s. But so has the death rate, which is why population continues to grow. But it is stabilizing and will not hit what used to be the UN's top projections.

Can you refer me to some reading on subjects youi've written about here?

Sheldon

Thanks for that input on ferttility and death rates. I agree with you about the naysayers of the world...especially the UN. I think that human ingenuity is the key to our own problems...always has been...that's why we have a bigger brain than anybody else on the planet...we are an ingenious lot, we humans. If the space program had been allowed to continue in the early 80s we would already have been on Mars and our technology would have leapt another few light years ahead of where we are right now. But, short-sightedness has also been a particular human trait. Nothing drove our ingenuity engine like the space program and attempting to be first on the Moon. So many benefits that so many people are unwilling to admit regarding food, microchips, computers (that now solve complex problems that took years to solve in the past), clothing, fabrics, air filtering systems, heat resistance, you name it, the list could fill up books. I will have to get back to you with a list of sources...it's at another location which I will go to tonight. Have you looked at paleolithic diet.com ? Some good stuff, there to start off with. Will psot some of my sources later for you.

I assume the paleos did not eat butter. But many dietary-fat advocates say butter is good for you? What should we make of that? That agricultural man came up with something that fit his genetic makeup?

Sheldon

Every once in a while even a dolt can have a good idea! Although, I question whether butter is THAT good for you, given the fact that cows eat grain (much of it genetically unsound for human consumption or too high in chemicals that it is considered unfit for human consumption) in copious amounts each day. Most dairy cattle are not fed much in the way of sillage (which ruminants are supposed to eat...they are not designed to eat grain any more than humans are), although some are actually allowed to roam on the plain and eat grass...but around where I live, they all reside on big piles of cow dung and dirt, eat grains , and look extremely bored. Of course, to give credit to that willy beast, the COW, how much intellectual activity goes on behind those big vacant eyes, anyway? I have read a number of newer articles about butter fat from big production dairies. It has rather high concentrations of some of the more dangerous fatty acids, just like the meat of commercially fattened (feed lot) cattle that we get in the supermarket (Omega 6 transfatty acids, to name one group). Butter fat from Ol' Bessie, on the back forty of your local farm is very different than the stuff we buy in the supermarket from COW # 2578 of So and So Dairy in Los Angeles. I don't eat any dairy...nada...zilch...nothin'...for that very reason. I trim most of the fat from my steak, even though I could eat all I wanted and still lose weight. I probably sound like I'm a paranoid who'se worried about some COW conspiracy, but believe me, there is a major difference from the beef I ate as a kid that we raised from calves on our ranch, and the stuff that is USDA Grade A from Safeway. My wife's family owns feed lots in Montana. I wouldn't eat that meat with a ten foot fork! I was in Idaho, recently. We passed by a feed lot that was at least five miles in length along the Snake River and, aside from the stench that those poor beasts were living in, standing on piles of their own poop, fifteen feet high, what were they eating...almost EXCLUSIVELY, for the last two weeks of their lives? GRAIN... highly unnatural grain, too. Nope, I'll do my hunting and gathering as far removed from the big supermarket as humanly possible in these modern times.

Here is a partial listing of some of my sources, Sheldon. I have a number of more, if you're interested.

Articles on Transfatty Acids/Cancer
Ames, B.N ., "Ranking Possible Carcinogenic Hazards." Science 236 (April 17, 1987), 271-80.
________, "Paleolithic Diet, Evolution and Carcinogens." Science 240 (December 18, 1987), 1633-34.
________, "Carcinogenic Risk Estimation." Science 240 (May 20, 1988), 1043-47. A series of articles by one of the foremost authorities cancer and its causes. He shows how common foods can be even a larger threat of cancer than some of the chemicals labeled as causing it.
Rosenberg, Steven A., "Adoptive Immunotherapy for Cancer." Scientific American (May 1990), 62-69.
Cohen, Leonard A., "Diet and Cancer." Scientific American November 1987), 42-48.
Ascherio, A., and W.C. Willet, "Health Effects of Trans-fatty Acids." American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 66: 4 Suppl. (October 1997), 1006S-1010S.

I'll send you some article references on Diabetes and Autoimmune Diseases next, if you want them. There are also books on the subject. I'm just listing my article sources. Would you rather read books about certain things? I have a list of books, too. I could send references on the Immune System, prehistoric diets, Dairy and Nutrition, the Advent of Agriculture, Fertility, Bodybuilding...Just let me know and I'll see what I have.

you have a fascinating discussion going on in here! I often wonder whether we could convince even the staunchest low-fat/low-calorie dieter to switch to low-carb if we could force him to sit through a lecture in paleoanthropology. I'm a classicist but I've worked on archaeological excavations and dealt with paleolithic and mesolithic materials as well as neolithic (agricultural) and there is so much evidence that the worst disaster ever to befall the human race was Agriculture. I'm sure you know about this, but for anyone else reading this, I've had some thoughts about these subjects:

The reason population increased after the advent of agriculture is due to one single reason: a dramatic increase in the need for labor. As far as the statistics about how often hunter/gatherer women and agricultural women give birth go, they do not explain the reason for it. The reason is that hunters/gatherers rely on mobility, flexibility, and cohesion to procure food and protect themselves. Too many young children at once is dangerous. They self-regulate their populations. There is a great excess of leisure time in hunter/gatherer populations, and they do not need an extra workforce. With the advent of agriculture, leisure time disappeared. Children have always provided a secure and free workforce for the family, and it was at this time that children began to be reared as farm helpers. Population grew even though disease increased, sanitation was nonexistent (hunters/gatherers had excellent sanitation practices: they left when it got dirty), and the increasing desire for material acquisition caused internal strife.

One theory (I don't agree with this but I think it's really interesting) is that the reason people decided to raise crops is for alcohol. Grain, rice, potatoes, and corn all make alcohol. There is actually some archaeological evidence for this.

there is significant archaeological evidence from caves (a good example is Franchthi Cave in the Argolid in Greece) where paleolithic and mesolithic peoples spent a good part of each year for centuries, eating small game and a great deal of fish, as well as some lentils and other vegetables. All the Low-calorie advocates say we don't know what paleolithic and mesolithic people ate. As an archaeologist, I take that personally we do in fact know a great deal, and it is reliable--not only WHAT they ate, but HOW MUCH (relative proportions) of what they ate, and we can identify plant species, animal species, etc. Those low-calorie people say we only have evidence from teeth marks on bones! Oh PLEASE!! My area of expertise is Greece and the Mediterranean, but since many of us are ultimately of European extraction, this actually applies to many of us.

Of course the reason that our life expectancy is long now is that we artificially prolong it with antibiotics, antiviral drugs, anti this and anti that. We don't live healthier lives, even if they may be longer. We live lives supported by constant health care and ultimately die of one of our self-inflicted diseases. I wish I could be more articulate in this post, but it's very late at night so I can't, but I really would like to help people understand that if ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY WERE CONSIDERED TO HAVE LASTED FOR ONE YEAR, AGRICULTURE WOULD HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED ON DECEMBER 15. That means that we simply haven't evolved to be able to handle it yet!

I hope people find this interesting, there's more of course

Best, Kypraia

"I hope people find this interesting, there's more of course"

and do tell...(more, of course!)

Thanks for the sources, Captxray.

Amy

Hi, kypraia and Janeydi!!
I discussed this earlier, but there is another reason for population increase after the advent of agriculture...something in the grain-based diet makes women more fertile as is evidenced by the late (as late as 23 years old!) onset of menstruation and fertility in hunter and gathering groups. So, it's not just the need for more labor...although that is one reason...a very big reason as people moved into a labor-intensive lifestyle.

The latest studies of young girls, worldwide, show that menstruation (in girls) and other aspects of physical development (of boys and girls) have been moving into the lower age brackets since the advent of agriculture. Only recently (last 50, or so years) there has been an explosion in the earlier development of young girls, especially in Western "civilized" countries...notice that it is the Western countries who have the greatest amount of food preservatives, additives, flouride and other chemicals in our water, and variety of grains available for human and animal consumption.

Another thing about that alcohol thing...grains contain a highly addictive and somewhat euphoric set of chemicals that only recently have been found. The addiction is sometimes considered almost as hard to break away from as from cigarettes or certain illegal drugs. The euphoria that comes from eating grains is not like heroin, or even alcohol, but it is a feel-good thingy. There is a certain feeling of well-being that comes from the eating of grains. Add to that the ability to make alcohol drinks from grain fermentation and you have a "deadly combination."

Another interesting thing...just read it in latest issue of Popular Science, I believe...seems that scientists are now finding traces of chemical isotopes of certain foods imbedded in fossil teeth...soething like that, anyway...I refer you to the most-recent issue of Popular Science about using teeth from our ancestors to tell what they ate.

I love this thread. Awaiting more input from all of you knowledgeable low-carbers, out there. The Glory of God (or your higher power, or the power of the Universe) is Intelligence!!