http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...70627225459.htm

Foods of the kind that were consumed during human evolution may be the best choice to control diabetes type 2. A study from Lund University, Sweden, found markedly improved capacity to handle carbohydrate after eating such foods for three months.

During 2.5 million years of human evolution, before the advent of agriculture, our ancestors were consuming fruit, vegetables, nuts, lean meat and fish. In contrast, cereals, dairy products, refined fat and sugar, which now provide most of the calories for modern humans, have been staple foods for a relatively short time.

Staffan Lindeberg at the Department of Medicine, Lund University, has been studying health effects of the original human diet for many years. In earlier studies his research team have noted a remarkable absence of cardiovascular disease and diabetes among the traditional population of Kitava, Trobriand Islands, Papua New Guinea, where modern agrarian-based food is unavailable.

In a clinical study in Sweden, the research group has now compared 14 patients who were advised to consume an ‘ancient’ (Paleolithic, ‘Old stone Age’) diet for three months with 15 patients who were recommended to follow a Mediterranean-like prudent diet with whole-grain cereals, low-fat dairy products, fruit, vegetables and refined fats generally considered healthy. All patients had increased blood sugar after carbohydrate intake (glucose intolerance), and most of them had overt diabetes type 2. In addition, all had been diagnosed with coronary heart disease. Patients in the Paleolithic group were recommended to eat lean meat, fish, fruit, vegetables, root vegetables and nuts, and to avoid grains, dairy foods and salt.

The main result was that the blood sugar rise in response to carbohydrate intake was markedly lower after 12 weeks in the Paleolithic group (–26%), while it barely changed in the Mediterranean group (–7%). At the end of the study, all patients in the Paleolithic group had normal blood glucose.

The improved glucose tolerance in the Paleolithic group was unrelated to changes in weight or waist circumference, although waist decreased slightly more in that group. Hence, the research group concludes that something more than caloric intake and weight loss was responsible for the improved handling of dietary carbohydrate. The main difference between the groups was a much lower intake of grains and dairy products and a higher fruit intake in the Paleolithic group. Substances in grains and dairy products have been shown to interfere with the metabolism of carbohydrates and fat in various studies.

"If you want to prevent or treat diabetes type 2, it may be more efficient to avoid some of our modern foods than to count calories or carbohydrate," says Staffan Lindeberg.

This is the first controlled study of a Paleolithic diet in humans.

Finally! That was a very small study, but hopefully it will provide further incentive to keep going in this direction.

Very interesting article - thanks for posting.

Lies, lies, lies. Paleo hunters needed, loved and ate as much fat as they could get their hands on. Aboriginals have been observed hunting kangaroo for the fat only, and leaving the lean meat.

They always forget the bugs, brains, and guts.

That may be because wild game does tend to be lean, not like our modern force fed livestock which is very fatty. To the hunter, the fat part is the most prized.

This study belongs in the category of having a stranglehold on the obvious. The tragic part is that they couldn't see the obvious right in front of them. The framing of the study is very curious. They were interersted in how to improve glucose tolerance in diabetics. Why . . . so diabetics could continue to eat carbohydrates; so they could continue to believe that a high carbohydrate diet is a "normal" diet?

Their conclusion that "Substances in grains and dairy products . . . interfere with the metabolism of carbohydrates . . ." is very odd. They're barking up the wrong tree. Some of us already know what that substance is. It's the carbohydrates themselves that lead to insulin resistance and glucose intolerance. Had they framed their study to look at insulin levels rather than how to improve glucose tolerance, they wouldn't have come to such odd conclusions.

They're also off on what constituted the paleolithic diet, as many have just noted. I remember reading recently about Indian pemmican, that the plains Indians used to get through the winter. They pounded dried bison meat into airy fibers; then they rendered a large amount of bison fat and added the dried meat fibers to it, sealed it in a skin bag, and buried it to take advantage of natural refrigeration. During winter, they would dig up the bags and eat the pemmican as ther primary food. The mixture was about 80% fat to 20% protein. It is also known that predators eat the offal and fat of their kills, sometimes leaving the lean muscle protein for the scavengers. The idea that the paleolithic diet was low fat is an example bias masqueraing as objectivity.

Eskimos often ate the fat and gave the lean to their dogs. Also I think modern fruit as almost as unhealthy as processed carbs due to their high sugar content-- Stone Age fruits no longer exist.

http://wilstar.com/lowcarb/fruit.htm

And just look at the results they got by ditching the grains and dairy- even without including adequate quantities of natural fats or restricting unnaturally sweet fruits!

It only mentions refined fat.

What a terrible but probably true comment. I'd guess the berries I pick while out walking my dogs were around 10000+ years ago, but I wonder if any commercially available fruits could qualify as healthy in a LC sense? Have all fruits been heavily modified?

Well, I would guess that man and other fruit eaters probably selected the sweetest fruits and then deposited their seeds, either intentionally or not.

I once visited an orange "grower" in the Central Valley here in California. What I learned is that orange trees are not grown in the conventional sense; rather, they are constructed. They plant one type of tree for its superior root stock, and then splice in whatever other kind of citrus they want. You could have a single "tree" growing oranges, tangerines, and grapefruits. The fruit is not necessarily grown for sweetness, I also learned. Thr proimary characteristic they were looking for was shelf life and how it looks on the supermarket shelf. If it looks good, people will buy it whether it's the sweetest variety or not.

I would imagine that even wild fruit trees have been affected by thousands of years of hybridization. I think the sour crabapple is probably as close as we could come the the ur-apple. Johnny Appleseed wasn't spreading the growth of crabapples.

yeah, that's called "grafting".

size (in addition to taste, appearence and shelf life)is another attribute that has been bred into the modern versions of fruit.

I never have liked store-bought fruit much myself. Fruit from the store is tasteless and usually underipe and hard.

As far as fruit being genetically modified I would say it is most likely and that goes for vegetables too even most homemade ones. Sometimes your best bet for non-altered food is to buy or grow non-traditional varieties (at least non-traditional in the U.S.) such as star-fruit, Surinam cherries, qumquats, etc. For instance, you can get just as much vitamin C and a lot less sugar from a qumquat compared to an orange.

Thanks ce, If I had to guess a fruit that wasn't modified I would have guessed citrus! And thanks Jackie-o, I wondered if there were heritage or non-traditional fruits that were available which might be relatively unmodified. I guess I'll go looking for qumquats!