PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Roger - any thoughts on Chia or Flax seeds? Chia seeds in particular have become a part of my regular diet. I can't figure whether your downrating of grains applies to these as well.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

It is a cultural void, a flailing around, due to the loss of sensible food traditions - and it is to a great extent, explicit to THIS country [America] and it's industrialised food cultural ethic.

Certainly watching the waistlines of the customers at my nearby Wal*Mart suggests that something is amiss , or should I say in great excess.

Being of the tin-foil-hat conspiricist persuasion, rather than the cultural depreviation school, I blame the American epidemic of obesity on "big ag" and "big drug" and "big med".

Either way, I am sure it is healthier to have an Italian grandmother from the old country cook ones meals than the chemists in Monsanto's laboratories. Tastier too .

[Spartacus]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

much less sugar, agree
no grains, agree
more meat, agree

you do, however, need to update one piece of data ...

http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.c...-its-hard.html

No, insulin, no fat storage, period.

[Spartacus]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

IMHO no one has studied vegetables with an open mind.

And in many cases proof that vegetables don't do anything great is just plainly ignored


http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/...e-cancers.html

the massive study led by Dr. Walter C. Willett, M.D., at Harvard School of Public Health in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute reviewed here. Examining the data on 71,910 women and 37,725 men followed for 15 years, Willett and colleagues found no relationship between fruits and vegetables and cancer


(based on that 2 year old thread where you posted study after study, you probably already know this and much more, just thought I'd throw my 2c in)


IMHO, without modern supplements, 500 years ago the diet below would leave you anemic for most of your life, or dead - NOt enough iron to replace the iron lost to parasites.

interesting. thanks for posting. i'm curious about your insulin-level theory of aging in relation to the calorie restriction data. do you see this is as opposed to, or complementing, the sirtuin theory?

btw, the same hypoinsulinemic benefit can be attained with a very different diet, albeit with some overlaps in the recommendation, that of joel furhman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Fuhrman


i suppose we could make this an evolution-based theory by asking whether or when our distant ancestors were very good hunters, and when in the evolutionary past they were by necessity more vegetarian.

i find your discussion of insulin far more appealing scientifically than arguments based on history, i.e. what diet we evolved with. it reminds me of discussions i sometimes have with older female patients about the pros and cons of hormone supplementation.

they'll sometimes say "it's not natural," to which i reply that there is nothing natural about a menopausal woman, in 2 senses. first, most of our ancestors didn't live that long. second, evolution doesn't care about the old - there is no selection pressure to optimize or improve the health of individuals beyond the time of having and raising progeny. so, health-wise, once we've passed the age of child rearing, we're on our own; we can't appeal to arguments based on what's "natural" or what evolution did or didn't do.

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

not just self-report. sorry my original omission.
"And nowhere else could researchers afford to hire hundreds of trained workers to collect blood and urine samples and spend three days in each household gathering exact information on what and how much people eat, then analyzing the food samples for nutrient content."

I tried to find the paper on the web but there is no abstract even on pubmed.

My impression is that they did a survey in the homes for three days, took either the actual food eaten or similar samples and analyzed them, and then followed them.

They were therefore looking at food intake at one point? If they really weighed and measured everything eaten over the study period that would be quite impressive.

I have ordered the China Study book to get the answer and also order Fuhrman's book.

It looks like they are colleagues and both vegans, or close to it.

JK, yours is the kind of challenge I enjoy. Fuhrman has obviously impressed you and I will read it as closely as I read Taubes.

FWIW - My paleo diet is emphatically omnivorous, as humans clearly were during evolution. I am as wary as you are of the naturalist fallacy (that whatever is natural is good - death during childbirth is perfectly natural) but:

To me pure veganism is distinctly unnatural and even more radical than advocating nothing but meat.

I know if forced to choose, I would live like Vilmajur Steffanson did with the Inuit - Nothing but rotten fish and large mammals - in preference to a vegan diet.

Finally, and off the point we were discussing, I came across this while skimming pubmed for Campbells work.

Associations between breast cancer, plasma triglycerides, and cholesterol.
Potischman N, McCulloch CE, Byers T, Houghton L, Nemoto T, Graham S, Campbell TC.
Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.
A case-control study investigating the association between plasma lipids and breast cancer was conducted among women aged 30-80 in Buffalo, NY. All eligible women from a large breast clinic and two area physicians' offices were requested to participate over a one-year period. Subjects completed a health questionnaire and donated a fasting blood sample prior to diagnostic breast biopsies. The 83 women found to have breast cancer (cases) had significantly higher plasma triglyceride values than did the 113 women found not to have breast cancer (controls). Lower plasma beta-carotene values were associated with breast cancer, but only in those women with elevated triglyceride or cholesterol. Plasma cholesterol values were lower in those breast cancer cases presenting with more advanced stages of cancer, suggesting that metabolic effects of clinical and preclinical breast cancer may lower cholesterol levels. Although the limitations of case-control studies are well-recognized, these data suggest an etiologic role for plasma triglycerides and beta-carotene or for related dietary factors.

The bolded sentence is support for the insulin hypothesis of cancer promotion, as nothing raises your triglycerides like a high carbohydrate diet

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

much less sugar, agree
no grains, agree
more meat, agree

you do, however, need to update one piece of data ...

http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.c...-its-hard.html

Thanks, Spartacus. Very interesting.

I like three letter acronyms.

[Spartacus]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

the assumption that fat people have worse health may or may not be true. At the very least there are a few countering data points.

search on this page for "obesity paradox"

http://www.junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/

Certainly watching the waistlines of the customers at my nearby Wal*Mart suggests that something is amiss , or should I say in great excess.

Being of the tin-foil-hat conspiricist persuasion, rather than the cultural depreviation school, I blame the American epidemic of obesity on "big ag" and "big drug" and "big med".

Either way, I am sure it is healthier to have an Italian grandmother from the old country cook ones meals than the chemists in Monsanto's laboratories. Tastier too .

The obesity epidemic is big business (no pun intended). Does any of this sound familiar?[*]

Lots of money to be made.
Lots of advanced statistics available to be twisted, to deliver a massaged message
Lots of compliant media to "manage perceptions" (especially the perception that various people should be taxed to pay other people to "cure" the epidemic)

I could go on.

anti-obesity is not as open and shut a case as many believe

[*] reminds me of of the wall st quants, and especially of the ongoing statin disaster - there's no reduction of all-cause mortality ... but how much money is being spent on statins? , no reduction of heart attacks in women, yet one doctor wanted to put my aunt on it a few months back. INSANE

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

IMHO no one has studied vegetables with an open mind.

And in many cases proof that vegetables don't do anything great is just plainly ignored

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/...e-cancers.html

the massive study led by Dr. Walter C. Willett, M.D., at Harvard School of Public Health in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute reviewed here. Examining the data on 71,910 women and 37,725 men followed for 15 years, Willett and colleagues found no relationship between fruits and vegetables and cancer

Spartacus, you seem like another rotten fish and raw caribou guy, like me.

Thanks for joining us.

Off hand, my feelings about veganism or near veganism are the same. However, I want to read the Fuhrman book carefully and not rely on secondary sources.

If asked about Ornish, I would respond more extemporaneously and similar to the way you did.

I am actually much more skeptical of fruit than of vegetables.

Fruit gets treated like a special magic class of food. It is simply popular because most of it gives you the same sugar rush as a candy bar but its "natural".

That goes double for fruit juices. A fresh-squeezed glass of orange juice is about as healthy as a can of coca cola and a tablet of Vit. C. for the effect on your insulin levels.

Relating to your skepticism on the magic of "vegetables" see this review of the newest Campbell China Study by Michael Eades.

They found that eating more veggies makes you more obese and try to blame it on cooking oil, even though their own study showed no difference in fat intake!

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/o...r-china-study/

[Spartacus]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

this dude is extremely anti-wheat as a leading cause of high levels of very small LDL particles, and makes no distinction between germ/fiber/starch. As a Separate issue, he's also anti-rice and potato

http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/20...-oblivion.html

makes a lot more sense to me than the anti choleterol crowd.

rogermexico, found your views on diet quite intriguing

Was wondering if you could clarify your views on the differences between grains and starches, i.e., although they are both packed with carbs, the former may have the vitamins and fiber that have been hyped for the last generation - I myself am a fan of wheat fiber (insoluble) in that it appears to regulate bowel activity (e.g., prevent contstipation) - do you see any issues with wheat fiber?

Also, how does the basal metabolic rate figure into your views on diet. I've long been convinced that the calories in/calories out is not a sufficient metric to gauge weight gain/loss. I believe there is a genetic component involved; we all know thin people who appear sedentary and load on the food as well as those who seem perpetually chubby and don't appear to over-indulge.

Any views of vitamin C?, Coffee?, EtOH?

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

IMHO no one has studied vegetables with an open mind.

And in many cases proof that vegetables don't do anything great is just plainly ignored


http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/...e-cancers.html

the massive study led by Dr. Walter C. Willett, M.D., at Harvard School of Public Health in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute reviewed here. Examining the data on 71,910 women and 37,725 men followed for 15 years, Willett and colleagues found no relationship between fruits and vegetables and cancer

I don't have access to the actual study, but reading its summary (always a risky thing to do, as summaries frequently gloss over critical details) it seems that it finds modest correlation between reported diets and chronic disease, and greater correlations between reported diets and cardiovascular disease.

Chasing down your above link to this summary at JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2004: Fruit and Vegetable Intake and Risk of Major Chronic Disease.

As I believe others have noted on this thread, self-reports of what people eat are unreliable. Also what counts for fruits and vegetables in the American diet includes a number of so-called foods from our industrialized agriculture that I would not feed to a stray dog. The absence of a significant correlation with cancer reports in the five years of the study doesn't tell me much of anything.

Here's the actual text of this summary from the above link:

Studies of fruit and vegetable consumption in relation to overall health are limited. We evaluated the relationship between fruit and vegetable intake and the incidence of cardiovascular disease and cancer and of deaths from other causes in two prospective cohorts. Methods: A total of 71 910 female participants in the Nurses' Health study and 37 725 male participants in the Health Professionals' Follow-up Study who were free of major chronic disease completed baseline semiquantitative food-frequency questionnaires in 1984 and 1986, respectively. Dietary information was updated in 1986, 1990, and 1994 for women and in 1990 and 1994 for men. Participants were followed up for incidence of cardiovascular disease, cancer, or death through May 1998 (women) and January 1998 (men). Multivariable-adjusted relative risks were calculated with Cox proportional hazards analysis. Results: We ascertained 9329 events (1964 cardiovascular, 6584 cancer, and 781 other deaths) in women and 4957 events (1670 cardiovascular diseases, 2500 cancers, and 787 other deaths) in men during follow-up. For men and women combined, participants in the highest quintile of total fruit and vegetable intake had a relative risk for major chronic disease of 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.89 to 1.01) times that of those in the lowest. Total fruit and vegetable intake was inversely associated with risk of cardiovascular disease but not with overall cancer incidence, with relative risk for an increment of five servings daily of 0.88 (95% CI = 0.81 to 0.95) for cardiovascular disease and 1.00 (95% CI = 0.95 to 1.05) for cancer. Of the food groups analyzed, green leafy vegetable intake showed the strongest inverse association with major chronic disease and cardiovascular disease. For an increment of one serving per day of green leafy vegetables, relative risks were 0.95 (95% CI = 0.92 to 0.99) for major chronic disease and 0.89 (95% CI = 0.83 to 0.96) for cardiovascular disease. Conclusions: Increased fruit and vegetable consumption was associated with a modest although not statistically significant reduction in the development of major chronic disease. The benefits appeared to be primarily for cardiovascular disease and not for cancer.

[raja]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

3 Eliminate grains

Animal products, including organs and bone marrow of mammals, fish, and invertebrates (insects) were the staples, supplemented by edible plants (not grains) until the dawn of agriculture.

We are also not adapted to eating grass seeds, to which we have been exposed for only about 10,000 years. They contain glycoproteins that are specifically designed to discourage consumption, as well as other problematic chemicals.

Your suggestion to avoid grains is incorrect.
A little common-sense thinking will demonstrate this.

How do you think agriculture started? Do you think that one day humans woke up and said, "Let's start eating grains"? No.

Before the advent of agriculture, humans were already eating grains that they foraged. They then discovered that if they planted grain seeds in one location, they could make their gathering process more efficient. That was the birth of agriculture.

Also, you fail to note that carbohydrate-rich tubers were a large part of the pre-agriculture diet. Grains were able to take the place of these foraged carbohydrate sources because they are nutritionally similar in macronutrients.

You also fail to point out that the "problematic" chemicals in grains are destroyed by first soaking, then cooking. (Traditionally, grains were soaked overnight before cooking, or made into bread dough and allowed to ferment for many hours.) Fire for cooking has been used for some 125,000 years, plenty of time for genetic adaptation.

I suggest that those studying the topic of nutrition not become overwhelmed by the "science", and use common sense to understand the bigger picture. (See my post here: http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...7133#post97133)

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Roger - any thoughts on Chia or Flax seeds? Chia seeds in particular have become a part of my regular diet. I can't figure whether your downrating of grains applies to these as well.

Hello Cow

Had to bone up on herb botany a bit to answer.

Salvia Hispanica (Chia) is a type of sage. Apparently, (I have never eaten it) it has nutritive value raw. If it truly does not require cooking, and as it is more of an herb seed than grass seed (Salvia Officinalis leaves are quite edible and tasty as common sage) I would put it well down the nastiness gradient along with rice (which I occasionally eat, fwiw)

As far as flax, my familiarity with Linum Usitatissamum is mostly as an amatuer woodworker. Linseed oil is a polymerizing oil in varnishes and oil based paints in use for centuries. Flax as fiber is well known also. Eating flaxseed I am more skeptical of. From Wikipedia:

"Flax seeds are chemically stable while whole, and milled flaxseed can be stored at least 4 months at room temperature with minimal or no changes in taste, smell, or chemical markers of rancidity.[4] Ground flaxseed can go rancid at room temperature in as little as one week.[5] Refrigeration and storage in sealed containers will keep ground flax from becoming rancid for even longer."

Most don't think of grains as a development in food technology, but they are. Technology for storage of seeds, combined with mechanized harvest (scythe, etc.) and the development of mechanical processing and cooking to overcome the biological design of seeds to resist being eaten are what allowed the development of agricultural civilization, for better or worse.

That is why looking back 100 or even a few thousand years or looking at what comparitively healthy peasants eat is useful but limited. I like to look at evidence that is much older and more general than that. My thesis is underpinned by two assumptions: 1) having low insulin levels is healthier 2) Humans are omnivorous animals that can eat a huge variety of things, but in general are not optimally adapted to grain consumption, even if they can tolerate it.

When you read that any food can avoid degradation without refrigeration or storage, realize that if it is a seed, that is because there are glycoproteins protecting it in the hull. The above paragraph tells you that eating whole or crushed flaxseed is exposing you to those glycoproteins that are meant to protect the seed. If you cook it this will be mitigated, but probably not eliminated. In sum, although it is not a true grass, I would see eating flax seeds as closer to wheat than the chia seeds.

Incidentally, true nuts like walnuts (not peanuts or cashews) have a long shelf life too, but are much healthier than seeds. Instead of largely using poisonous chemicals to protect the carbohydrate and oil containing part of the seed, a hard fibrous hull is protecting the edible part of the nut

I am aware that folks are eating flax and I suppose chia for the health benefits of Omega 3 fatty acids, principally a -linolenic acid. As summarized below, I believe the significance of 03s is just their ratio with 06s. To achieve a healthy and evolutionarily appropriate 6:3 ratio, just avoid unnatural sources of excess 6's like grain fed beef, and especially all the popular plant seed derived cooking oils like corn and even rapeseed (canola) and avoid margarine and other machine age oils. Cook with Butter, Coconut or olive oil and no need for supplementation The same goes for fish oil which is probably harmless. My recommended source if you insist on more 03s is King Oscar sardines packed in olive oil -they are delicious!

From Wikipedia:

Important nutritionally-essential n−3 fatty acids are: α-linolenic acid (ALA), eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), all of which are polyunsaturated. The human body cannot synthesize n−3 fatty acids de novo, but it can form 20- and 22-carbon unsaturated n−3 fatty acids from the eighteen-carbon n−3 fatty acid, α-linolenic acid. These conversions occur competitively with n−6 fatty acids, which are essential closely related chemical analogues that are derived from linoleic acid. Both the n−3 α-linolenic acid and n−6 linoleic acid are essential nutrients which must be obtained from food. Synthesis of the longer n−3 fatty acids from linolenic acid within the body is competitively slowed by the n−6 analogues. Thus accumulation of long-chain n−3 fatty acids in tissues is more effective when they are obtained directly from food or when competing amounts of n−6 analogs do not greatly exceed the amounts of n−3

More on 6s and 3s:

Although cows are herbivores, eating predominantly seeds is not really healthy for them either. Beef cows and steers are fed grains (grass seeds like corn) for the financial benefit of humans who raise them, not for the health of the animal. The animal naturally eats grasses. When you feed it just grass seeds, you are giving it something it previously ate in small quantities in huge amounts - a quantitative difference becomes qualitative. The animal will put on more weight faster, will mature quicker and will have muscle that is excessively laden with fat. This fat it adds will go from a 6:3 ratio of 1.5 -2 to more like 10-15, due to the outsize preponderance of 6s in grass seeds. The chemical composition of the animal is now changed for the worse and worse for you if you eat it. You can imagine how many fish oil capsules it takes to re-balance the 15:1 ratio of grain fed beef. I believe its much more effective to just avoid the extra 6s in the first place in the ways I have suggested. When you eat too many 6s, whatever the source, your immune system is weakened against infection and there is evidence that cancer cell growth is promoted. The upside of grain for the farmer is higher profits because the animal can reach market weight and be sold a whole year earlier. This is why grass fed beef is more expensive, even it is not certified organic. (As a side note, beware of grass fed beef that is finished with grains to make it "tastier". The grass-fed animal can have its healthy 6:3 ratio ruined with as little as six weeks of grain feeding)

[raja]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

the food processing changes sufficiently to increase the glycemic index of the foods by decreasing the amylase and sucrase inhibitors associated with the same foods.

Rajiv, do you have a link for more information about this?
How is the processing different?

[raja]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

The archaeological record very clearly shows indigenous north american peoples that went from wild game and vegetables to an agricultural diet (maize and squash) had more disease, worse life expectancy and shorter height.

You fail to note that in the agricultural lifestyle, people lived in closer quarters, had less sanitary conditions, lived in close proximity to their animals and their diseases, and had a less varied diet. Their lower life expectancy and shorter height could be easily attributed to these factors.

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

You fail to note that in the agricultural lifestyle, people lived in closer quarters, had less sanitary conditions, lived in close proximity to their animals and their diseases, and had a less varied diet. Their lower life expectancy and shorter height could be easily attributed to these factors.

You are free to make that interpretation. I don't.

Where is your evidence for this speculation?