Human Evolution

[Clawg]

There is a simple diet called "If man made it, don't eat it"

i.e. don't eat processed food (no, I don't mean raw food, you can cook it, but always use fresh ingredients and remove flour and sugar)

Edited September 25, 2009 by Clawg

[brian0918]

There is a simple diet called "If man made it, don't eat it"

i.e. don't eat processed food (no, I don't mean raw food, you can cook it, but always use fresh ingredients and remove flour and sugar)

That's a good diet, although you have to be careful - fruits have been made to contain more sugar than they previously did. The banana, for example, was not yellow or sweet till the 1800s. Now it's packed full of sugar. Fructose is probably the particular sugar responsible for insulin resistance (and thus obesity and type 2 diabetes), so that is especially bad.

Edited September 25, 2009 by brian0918

[D'kian]

I try not to get involve in food fights. So just two fact and one question:

1) Carbohydrates and proteins contribute 4 calories per gram

2) Fats contribute 9 calories epr gram.

So fats are probably more fattening. Of course, there's the matter of how the body metabolizes them. As far as I know the human metabolism, as well as that of other species, changes to adapt to diet, at least under some conditions.

Question: have there been any long-term studies regarding the role of dietary cholesterol on arteries?

Choleterol is produced by many species, that's how it winds up in food int he first place. I don't know if the human body also produces it, but I suppose it does (it produces fat, after all, for energy storage).

Bonus speculation: in the future we'll either 1) change ourselves genetically to thrive on whatever diet we choose, 2) engineer foods to be guaranteed healthy and delicious or 3) to borrow from Aldiss, develop a symbiotic intestinal parasite to get rid of excess food consumption.

[Clawg]

That's a good diet, although you have to be careful - fruits have been made to contain more sugar than they previously did. The banana, for example, was not yellow or sweet till the 1800s. Now it's packed full of sugar. Fructose is probably the particular sugar responsible for insulin resistance (and thus obesity and type 2 diabetes), so that is especially bad.

Yes, I only eat blueberries and raisins from time to time.

[Jake_Ellison]

Until you understand the problem, you won't realize why your recommendations are pointless. You cannot possibly take a 2000 calorie diet high in carbs (as the mainstream usually means by a "balanced diet") and say it will work for everyone.

How did you arrive at "everyone, inluding obese people", from my sentence, in which I am clearly talking about the fighter pilots in your experiment?

Watch the UCSF professor's lecture, 90 minutes, and maybe I'll bother to continue replying. It's not worth my time to teach this to you.

I'm questioning your advice, and pointing out how ridiculous your arguments are, I'm not looking to learn what to eat from you. If you don't like it, get a blog, don't bother me with nonsense I'm not supposed to reply to on an open forum.

You cited a ridiculous experiment in which some people were supposedly kept hungry for years until they were hallucinating, as proof that people who control their calorie intake can't lose weight. It's lunacy, most people trying to lose weight do exactly that, and it works just fine, as long as they also exercise and they don't starve themselves, causing the body's metabolism to slow down. I lost weight by eating less and exercising, how the Hell is it not possible?

The last thing I wanna do is watch a 90 minute video you linked to, after this nonsense.

[brian0918]

How did you arrive at "everyone, inluding obese people", from my sentence, in which I am clearly talking about the fighter pilots in your experiment?

That has been the context of the discussion the whole time. Of course they haven't tested a 2000 calorie regular diet on fighter pilots, but fighter pilots aren't insulin resistant, so their bodies won't demand more calories be consumed. You try to do the same with obese people, and their bodies will demand more insulin response from them, making them hungrier, forcing them to eat more carbs to spike blood sugar (spiking insulin).

I'm questioning your advice, and pointing out how ridiculous your arguments are

You are? Where? The closest you've come is saying it doesn't "make sense" - well where did you get this sense from? Is it intuitionism?

I'm not looking to learn what to eat from you.

I'm not looking to teach you. I saw nonsense, and I had to correct it.

If you don't like it, get a blog, don't bother me with nonsense I'm not supposed to reply to on an open forum.

Well there is such a thing as intellectual honesty. The folks who run this forum are not open to allowing any amount of intellectual dishonesty, as I have learned first hand in the past (re: global warming).

You cited a ridiculous experiment in which some people were supposedly kept hungry for years until they were hallucinating, as proof that people who control their calorie intake can't lose weight.

I did no such thing.

It's lunacy

Of course it would be lunacy, had I attempted to cite such a study as proof of anything. I didn't. I sent you to the links with the studies. You have yet to even scratch the surface. You still believe HDL and LDL are cholesterol, so you don't even understand the basic science. Need I say more?

most people trying to lose weight do exactly that, and it works just fine

What's the source for this claim? If that were so, it would seem the obesity epidemic is a myth.

as long as they also exercise and they don't starve themselves

Well, exercise is unnecessary, and can actually be counterproductive as it induces a hunger response, making it that much more difficult to lose weight, especially if they are still eating high carb diets, inducing further insulin spikes, causing increased insulin resistance.

I lost weight by eating less

Eating less what? Did you cut out certain foods, or reduce consumption of certain foods? Or did you equally reduce caloric intake from carbs, fat, protein? If you want to cite your situation as a counterexample, you first have to demonstrate that it is contrary to what I have suggested.

and exercising

How much, how often?

The last thing I wanna do is watch a 90 minute video you linked to, after this nonsense.

Where is this coming from?! What nonsense? What "sense" is this that I am running contrary to? You haven't said anything yet.

How blindingly obvious does the link have to be? Only one thing spikes blood sugar - carbohydrates. Only one thing spikes insulin - blood sugar. Only one thing causes insulin sensitivity to drop - continually spiking insulin. That causes insulin resistance. Increased demand for insulin means increased demand to spike blood sugar, means increased demand for carbohydrates. Eating more carbohydrates means eating more calories. And people who are obese or with type 2 diabetes are insulin resistant (to varying degrees). Refute any of it - you can't. It's basic science that you've basically ignored in favor of government-induced dietary guidelines, backed up by govt-funded epidemiological correlative studies that confound variables and confuse causes with effects. Why do you hand over responsibility for your health to the government but nothing else?

Since you seem to prefer second-hand advice to actual science, I will once again refer you to the Objectivist blog Noodlefood, run by Dr's Diana and Paul Hsieh (the former a philosopher, the latter an MD). You seem to have never heard of them... somehow. There is also Oist Dr. Monica Hughes as another contact. You claim doctors know what's best - well these doctors actually do.

Edited September 25, 2009 by brian0918

[Clawg]

Well, exercise is unnecessary, and can actually be counterproductive as it induces a hunger response, making it that much more difficult to lose weight, especially if they are still eating high carb diets, inducing further insulin spikes, causing increased insulin resistance.

Mmh... well, depends on how much weight we are talking about. You also have to get all the poisons out that are stored in the fat cells. But the first step is always a diet change, yes.

Just buy as much vegetables as you can and eat them whenever you're hungry, with no limitations After a month you will notice some difference

You claim doctors know what's best - well these doctors actually do.

Unfortunately most doctors don't know much about nutrition. You need a special training for that.

Many nutrition related health problems are treated by treating their symptoms instead of the cause.

[D'kian]

If the food fight's over, I ahd another thought (jeez! two thoughts in two weeks!).

All mammals are born with the ability to digest lactose, but loose the capacity to do so once they are weaned. This makes all sorts of metabolic sense. Once man learned to keep cattle and found a permanent source of milk, he retained the ability to digest lactose, as did many of his domestic animals. Well and good.

But is this necessarily a mutation, or something much less dramatic?

What I've got in mind is that maybe the body will keep on producing the enzymes needed to digest lactose as long as it keeps consuming milk and dairy. The body gets used to such a state of affairs and adapts to it. One type of therapy for allergies consists of exposing the patient to minute doses of alelrgens so his immune system will get used to them and stop over-reacting to their prescence. I'm saying maybe something similar happans with lactose (similar as in I know the immune system has nothing to do with digesting lactose)

This could easily be tested on domestic animals. Take a number of dogs (of the same race or type) and divide them in two groups. One group gets no milk or dairy at all after weaning for, say, two years. The other is fed some milk, cheese and other dairy daily. After two years see how many in the first group can digest lactose, and see how many in the second group have become lactose intolerant.

[mindcruzer]

Certain types of cholesterol (the kind found in high fat beef, pork, cheese) get deposited on the walls of people's arteries, cause blockages and increase the risk of hearth attack.

You're referring to LDL cholestrol, but the main risk factors for CAD are actually the following:

• Hypercholesterolemia
  
• Smoking (especially)
  
• Hypertension
  
• Hyperglycemia
  
• Type A Behavioural Patterns
  
• Hemostatic Factors
  

All of these will significantly increase your chances of CAD, far more than the intake of saturated or trans fats. In addition, low carbohydrate intake is recommended as a prevention technique. There are plenty of places where the people have high fat diets and an abnormally low risk of CAD, such as in the Mediterranean. You also need to realize that most of the people who die of CAD eat lots of animal products, but they don't eat very many fruits or vegetables, which help to lower LDL cholesterol levels. I actually remember reading somewhere that atherosclerosis may be caused by a virus, though I can't speak for it's accuracy.

[mindcruzer]

Choleterol is produced by many species, that's how it winds up in food int he first place. I don't know if the human body also produces it, but I suppose it does (it produces fat, after all, for energy storage).

The average person's body makes about 1000 mg (if memory serves me correctly) of cholesterol per day. This of course will vary from person to person for variable reasons. Production is mainly in the liver, however, synthesis does occur in other organs as well. The cholesterol is transported from the liver via LDL to various tissues in the body. Take note that as mentioned above, LDL and cholesterol are not the same thing. LDL is merely a molecule that transports the cholesterol (as well as other fatty acid molecules) in order to keep it soluble in your blood plasma. HDL, "good cholesterol", which you also may have heard of, transports cholesterol back to the liver.

Edited September 16, 2010 by mindcruzer

[Imogen]

I have my doubts about much of any of the mutations we're seeing as foils to modern disease as evidence of human evolution, except in the grossest sense. This is not adequate time for more than obvious cause and effect, which I'm not aware of being considered evolution of the species any more than the loss of squatting burrs on peoples' feet who don't spend sufficient time in that position.

The vast majority of reported disease is directly caused by or allowed to proliferate as a result of poor diet. I have spent ten years reading, researching and otherwise subjecting my family to experiments related to relieving disease/illness and at the end of every trail, no matter how convoluted the journey, has been the reality that our diet to a major extent, dictates our state of health. The further we deviate from real food prepared properly, the sicker we are. Sleep, another oft-neglected aspect of western life, is another indicator.

How many people seek proper testing to arrive at the diagnoses of lactose intolerance? Everyone I know of has simply told the doctor that he feels bloated and ill after consuming milk products. I guess I am surprised that anyone would expect to feel any other way after eating pasteurised, dirty milk, usually with mineral-depleting sugary cereal products or some other non-food. I only eat cultured milk products- raw cheese, homemade yogurt, etc... and I have none of the physical problems that I do if I consume pasteurised uncultured milk.

One problem among many is that with so much convenient technology in the kitchen, people have forgotten how to eat. Grains should be soaked, milk should be cultured, fermented veggies should be consumed every day and better- at every meal. Bones should be boiled for 12-24 hrs and the stock consumed every day if possible. Meats should be eaten with the fat, and some raw meat prepared with a culture should be taken regularly, as well as organ meats. Unrefined salt and oils are good! Raw fermented drinks should be part of every day- beer, wine, kvass, rejuvelac, kefir, kombucha, etc... There are many from which to choose, but they must be prepared with live culture and then left alive for consumption.

This information is hardly more than a few generations lost.

Then again, maybe this is a period of selection for aware eaters...

[Jake_Ellison]

How many people seek proper testing to arrive at the diagnoses of lactose intolerance? Everyone I know of has simply told the doctor that he feels bloated and ill after consuming milk products. I guess I am surprised that anyone would expect to feel any other way after eating pasteurised, dirty milk, usually with mineral-depleting sugary cereal products or some other non-food. I only eat cultured milk products- raw cheese, homemade yogurt, etc... and I have none of the physical problems that I do if I consume pasteurised uncultured milk.

Based on very well documented and in depth scientific research, lactose intolerance in adults is caused by a genetic trait in some races of people (pretty much everyone except Northern Europeans and their descendants in North America and Australia), that prevents the creation of the enzyme which helps metabolize lactose, after childhood.

Pasteurization isn't what makes people lactose intolerant. If whole milk doesn't make you bloated, that's because you're not lactose intolerant.

How many people seek proper testing to arrive at the diagnoses of lactose intolerance? Everyone I know of has simply told the doctor that he feels bloated and ill after consuming milk products.

Over two thirds of the global adult population is lactose intolerant. It's not that difficult for a doctor to realize that bloating and cramping comes from undigested lactose, not "dirty milk".

Then again, maybe this is a period of selection for aware eaters...

I'm aware of your list of foods that are supposedly good or bad. I'm also aware of a few other hundred people's lists, which contradict yours and each other. So now what, am I supposed to flip a coin to figure out which one of you is right, or are you going to prove you're right with something more than claims of what is "real food" and what is "dirty food", based on information that was lost two generations go and miraculously found by you?

[Imogen]

Based on very well documented and in depth scientific research, lactose intolerance in adults is caused by a genetic trait in some races of people (pretty much everyone except Northern Europeans and their descendants in North America and Australia), that prevents the creation of the enzyme which helps metabolize lactose, after childhood.

Pasteurization isn't what makes people lactose intolerant. If whole milk doesn't make you bloated, that's because you're not lactose intolerant.

Over two thirds of the global adult population is lactose intolerant. It's not that difficult for a doctor to realize that bloating and cramping comes from undigested lactose, not "dirty milk".

How many people drink whole milk in industrialised nations? Homogenised milk, even if called 'whole' is not whole milk.

An interesting scientifically understood fact is that human babies who receive a disproportionate amount of foremilk from their mothers, also bloat because they are receiving too much lactose without an adequate amount of fat to properly digest the milk. This happens from improper feeding by switching the child from one breast to the other at every feeding, thereby preventing the child from obtaining the fatty hindmilk that is supposed to be consumed at the end of the feeding (a trend started by misinformed yet insistent doctors).

It is likely that people get bloat from drinking high lactose, low fat milk, and just like their non-lactose intolerant babies, experience the negative effects of doing that. If the milk is absent of its fat, there is a disproportionate amount of lactose by volume. The ensuing illness could be from too much lactose because of that, or from the introduction of pathogenic bacteria to milk post-pasteurisation. Whole, raw milk doesn't go bad; it goes sour, then turns to curds and whey and finally dehydrates (yet remains edible throughout this process); it doesn't turn into slimy, nasty-smelling poison; that only happens to 'dirty,' pasteurized milk.

Natural, raw, whole milk from pastured dairy cows is alive with bacteria that keeps it from going 'bad.' This is how milk works. It's a whole food responsible for colonizing the entire gut of an infant with the necessary enzymes and flora for both present digestion of said milk, and future digestion of grass in the case of bovids, and table food in the case of humans. It's very important that it is raw and full-fat.

I'm aware of your list of foods that are supposedly good or bad. I'm also aware of a few other hundred people's lists, which contradict yours and each other. So now what, am I supposed to flip a coin to figure out which one of you is right, or are you going to prove you're right with something more than claims of what is "real food" and what is "dirty food", based on information that was lost two generations go and miraculously found by you?

Well, it was no miracle that I found it: I happened to have a direct line through my grandmother. In any case, I meant lost to most western people, in a practical way. Obviously there are millions of people who do adhere to their traditional diets and where their ancestors adapted generally determines what their traditional diet looks like. My ancestry is European, and I haven't any trouble with raw milk and milk products.

I actually bought into the idea that milk is for babies and that adults shouldn't consume it, a long time ago. I was milk-and-grain-free at different and overlapping times within seven years- so plenty of time to adapt if it was going to happen. Through that experience, I discovered that I need little, but still some grain to feel energetic. I also discovered that I need raw milk in some form every day to be in the best state of health possible for me. If my ancestors were Asian, I would have a greater need for grain and no or little need for milk.

In answer to your question, it is neither here nor there to me how you eat, but if your diet doesn't consist of the traditional foods of your ancestry, it is the wrong diet for you.

I am surprised at how a lot of very ingeniously designed machinery by very creative individuals could have been the catalyst for such a widespread eating disorder as is epidemic in the western world. Somehow, learning to mass produce has meant forgetting how to eat. It's like billions of people suddenly developed pica, so they just eat whatever fits in their mouths and tastes good to their ill-developed palates.

Human beings need food from its sources. It will yet be a long while before we can adapt to the nutrient-vacant food-like products that most people eat, and maintain a state of actually good health- as in free of disease. So perhaps I am doing a disservice to future generations by not feeding my children crap, but I am happiest having well-developed, strong, truly healthy, intelligent and capable children, and not spending my time at a doctor's office and force-feeding my children antibiotics as a matter of course.

Of note (to me anyway), because of the easily observable contrast between my children and others, my children are fawned over in public because they are remarkably vibrant, intelligent, well-mannered, pleasant to look at, and strong- unusually so- and these are the compliments we regularly receive. Both my partner and I were not fed well by our parents, and we suffered the tell-tale results of that- especially improperly formed jaws and teeth that caused crowding and misalignment; that's not poor genetics- it's poor food.

So in answer to your challenge to 'prove it,' I will skip the lab (though if you are interested, there are myriad sources of such information confirming the veracity both of what I have written and my own anecdotal experience), and just accept that some people refuse to/cannot understand that what we put into our human bodies provides the material for preserving and building the cells that make those bodies, so like anything, if it's made of crap, it's going to look like, and function like crap.

You get what you pay for. You are what you eat.

Edited September 17, 2010 by Imogen