PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

[Guest]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Would you recommend a diet with lots of meat to your mother or father when they are 70 years old? If not, why not?

I LOVED my mother's Indian food - 99% vegetables, wheat, potatoes, rice, lentils. Still love indian food of all types. Living with my grandmother in Punjab (price of stringy, tough meat = 5 to 10 times the price of dahl) for a couple of months last year was hog heaven for me (though very bad for my health & blood lipids, I found after getting back)

So I'll give you one more data point - the more meat I ate/eat, the more I like it.

The last steak I had was a poor cut, badly cooked and it tasted better than the $100 filet mignon I had in NY 5 years ago.

[Prazak]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Prazak - Nobody drums up a cottage industry in "revolutionary diet books" like Americans. Nobody even remotely approximates the number of diet books this country cranks out. Why do you think that is? Why do you think it is, that very few of those diet books are simple collections of the healthful recipes from all over the world - but rather - they all instead propose a "revolutionary new understanding" of the basis of really healthy nutrition, which implies all these other nations could benefit from our latest groundbreaking nutrition ideas instead?

Why also when posing such a revolutionary concept, do fans of revolutionary new nutition theories promptly ignore the healthful cooking from all over the world, in those many places where people simply don't have all the illnesses which these modern students of nutrition rail on about? It is the cultural hubris of a nation whose own food traditions are among the least civilized on the planet, although Americans evidently love to assert that we must devolve understanding of sound nutrition to our (American!) doctors. I don't know how to put it any more plainly than that. Is it not clear enough?

We have produced many many many revolutionary diet books in this country, while other nations produce few to none - and I wll wager you that in fifty more years we will produce many more diet books. Each one causes the fad conscious Americans to forget or choose to disregard the one that came before- or at very least their memory of their past dietary enthusiasms dims in the light and glamour of the newfound version. On and on it goes.

And no, I have zero interest in "glorifying Italy" - I include in my admiration for the sensible quality of their tradtional (not modern) diet, an equal admiration for the diets of many other nations. You may be misunderstanding the general point I wished to make. We have had many **many** doctors having Eureka moments about what constitutes a wise diet for men, and this begs the question - why so many of these, in America alone?

At least they might consider restricting themselves to recommending such a diet for the nutritionally dysfunctional Americans, rather than suggesting 2000-5000 year old other cultures need to completely revamp their own ideas on nutrition. It is the cultural hubris, which I remark on. Also last time I checked, we were approaching a population of seven billion in the world, and a great number of these people only dream of eating meat at all.

Can you imagine the scorn (or even just plain bewilderment) that many of these would feel to read yet another American doctor suggesting that they must all eat more meat and less starch for good health? We will be soon approaching a world where all of us actually must eat LESS meat, as peak cheap oil will make the cost of ALL FOOD rise for everyone worldwide. Therefore this new diet theology is running straight into a moral conundrum all of it's own. Do these observations not seem acceptable to you?

Roger says he's "not interested" in what they may prefer to eat in Bangladesh. His children or grandchildren by default will be much more interested than he is, if we do not invent abundant alternative sources of energy to sustain the world's present elevated levels of agricultural production worldwide which are sustained by petroleum based energy and fertilisers. The notion of an American medic, writing a book on sound nutrition, saying he is "not interested" in Bangladesh frankly only illustrates more starkly the general state of Americans self-preoccupation with "peak performance" nutrition.

You doth protest too much, Lukester. Everybody and every culture, no matter how ancient and healthy, benefits from sound nutritional and medical science, whether it be dispensed by a Fin or a Gringo. I imagine there are scientists even in Italy who have been led by their research to believe that some aspects of the traditional Italian diet to be unhealthy.

There's no arrogance or cultural elitism involved in pursuing scientific inquiry suggesting that humankind evolved on a diet of meat, berries, and plants. And I have yet to hear anyone here lecturing another country on its diet -- except you lecturing all the Americans on the board.

Americans do obviously have a problem with over-consumption and its discontents, and I am likewise skeptical of the various cottage industries that spin off regularly in response. But there is also much excellent nutritional science done in the States. I am always happy to be challenged by good science.

When I lived in France the natives often remarked that they consumed more medicine per capita than any other country. I don't know if that's true, but most of my French friends can readily recommend a pill for this or that ailment. Nevertheless, if a French doctor on this site recommended a supplement for stress and referred me to solid research in support, I wouldn't just discount the research out of hand simply because it was suggested by a Frenchman. That would make me the arrogant cultural elitist, not the French doctor.

There is more than good science behind the benefits of fasting. It's something that human cultures have used to purify body and soul since well before Italian cuisine came along. So to dismiss RogMex's reference to intermittent fasting as another American Dieting Fad is to throw the baby out with the bathwater -- belying either ignorance or rush to judgment. (I assume the latter.)

I don't know that I agree with the science involved with so-called Paleo Nutrition, but I find it intriguing enough to do a bit more research on it, particularly to the extent that it challenges some of my beliefs about human health and nutrition. And so I do not appreciate your or Rajiv's previous suggestion, at least as I read it, that anyone who were to give any credence to such a theory somehow possessed a defect of intellect or character -- whether as an unthinking sycophant of RogMex or as a fad-following American.

Arrogance indeed.

[Guest]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

To my understanding Rajiv has made no direct mention of this one way or the other, other than to object on one or two technical points. Maybe leave him out of your attributions? As for me - my view is, that this apologia of yours on behalf of the armies of medical doctors, each curiously enough sporting a radical rethinking of nutrition (they all regularly cite many of their predecessors as wrong), sits uneasily with the fact that this same country has some of the worst health stats in the world where nutrition is concerned". You make it sound as though the procession of radical rethinks of nutrition producedfor the most part in America are a robust expression of the world's search for the perfectly balanced diet.

It isn't really though, is it? What we are doing with the procession of revolutionary re-thinks about nutrition, is we are intensely studying our own dietary issues in countries like the US (UK fits in real closely there in it's heavily meat oriented diet) and we are seamlessly (and expansively!) presenting these insights as insights for all of humanity as well. At very least, this America centric distinction might be made quite explicit - to fan away some of the wafts of hubris surrounding this enthusiasm for revealing "dietary truths" to the world that the poor benighted world has not yet had the native intelligence to discover about food in 5000 years.

Forget what you think I'm lecturing about. Think about the issue. Think about our all fully endorsing a new balanced nutrition that is squarely in favor of meat, with the largest footprint of all foods in terms of resource consumption, in a world careening towards 8 billion people, with Peak Cheap Oil breathing down our necks. Meanwhile we Americans propose to go out with bows and arrows and start taking down bison in order to achieve our peak potential. I don't know about you, but for me there is something hubristic (and even a bit comical, in a ghastly sort of way) in denying the validity of grain - source of 2/3 of the world's population's nutrition, any place as a viable source of food to keep them alive.

What exactly does our esteemed Paleo-Nutrition thesis propose we do to feed all of those if we deny them the grain, on grounds of good health? And what do we propose to do with all our elderly parents? Stuff them full of more meat in order to "optimize their performance"? Roger wasn't paying attention - the world overshot the population level sustainable with a meat abundant diet by three or four billion people in the last century.

You doth protest too much, Lukester. Everybody and every culture, no matter how ancient and healthy, benefits from sound nutritional and medical science, whether it be dispensed by a Fin or a Gringo. I imagine there are scientists even in Italy who have been led by their research to believe that some aspects of the traditional Italian diet to be unhealthy.

There's no arrogance or cultural elitism involved in pursuing scientific inquiry suggesting that humankind evolved on a diet of meat, berries, and plants. And I have yet to hear anyone here lecturing another country on its diet -- except you lecturing all the Americans on the board.

Americans do obviously have a problem with over-consumption and its discontents, and I am likewise skeptical of the various cottage industries that spin off regularly in response. But there is also much excellent nutritional science done in the States. I am always happy to be challenged by good science.

When I lived in France the natives often remarked that they consumed more medicine per capita than any other country. I don't know if that's true, but most of my French friends can readily recommend a pill for this or that ailment. Nevertheless, if a French doctor on this site recommended a supplement for stress and referred me to solid research in support, I wouldn't just discount the research out of hand simply because it was suggested by a Frenchman. That would make me the arrogant cultural elitist, not the French doctor.

There is more than good science behind the benefits of fasting. It's something that human cultures have used to purify body and soul since well before Italian cuisine came along. So to dismiss RogMex's reference to intermittent fasting as another American Dieting Fad is to throw the baby out with the bathwater -- belying either ignorance or rush to judgment. (I assume the latter.)

I don't know that I agree with the science involved with so-called Paleo Nutrition, but I find it intriguing enough to do a bit more research on it, particularly to the extent that it challenges some of my beliefs about human health and nutrition. And so I do not appreciate your or Rajiv's previous suggestion, at least as I read it, that anyone who were to give any credence to such a theory somehow possessed a defect of intellect or character -- whether as an unthinking sycophant of RogMex or as a fad-following American.

Arrogance indeed.

[Prazak]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

To my understanding Rajiv has made no direct mention of this one way or the other, other than to object on one or two technical points. Maybe leave him out of your attributions? As for me - my view is, that this apologia of yours on behalf of the armies of medical doctors, each curiously enough sporting a radical rethinking of nutrition (they all regularly cite many of their predecessors as wrong), sits uneasily with the fact that this same country has some of the worst health stats in the world where nutrition is concerned". You make it sound as though the procession of radical rethinks of nutrition producedfor the most part in America are a robust expression of the world's search for the perfectly balanced diet.

It isn't really though, is it? What we are doing with the procession of revolutionary re-thinks about nutrition, is we are intensely studying our own dietary issues in countries like the US (UK fits in real closely there in it's heavily meat oriented diet) and we are seamlessly (and expansively!) presenting these insights as insights for all of humanity as well. At very least, this America centric distinction might be made quite explicit - to fan away some of the wafts of hubris surrounding this enthusiasm for revealing "dietary truths" to the world that the poor benighted world has not yet had the native intelligence to discover about food in 5000 years.

Forget what you think I'm lecturing about. Think about the issue. Think about our all fully endorsing a new balanced nutrition that is squarely in favor of meat, with the largest footprint of all foods in terms of resource consumption, in a world careening towards 8 billion people, with Peak Cheap Oil breathing down our necks. Meanwhile we Americans propose to go out with bows and arrows and start taking down bison in order to achieve our peak potential. I don't know about you, but for me there is something hubristic (and even a bit comical, in a ghastly sort of way) in denying the validity of grain - source of 2/3 of the world's population's nutrition, any place as a viable source of food to keep them alive.

What exactly does our esteemed Paleo-Nutrition thesis propose we do to feed all of those if we deny them the grain, on grounds of good health? And what do we propose to do with all our elderly parents? Stuff them full of more meat in order to optimize their performance?

You're right. Sorry Rajiv. I thought someone on this thread was reacting in the same knee-jerk fashion Lukester did, but I don't really remember who it was.

I think if you spent a little bit of time reading through some of the clinical studies underlying nutritional science you might stop shadow-boxing cultural stereotypes. Again, I'm not a believer myself, but there are enough interesting studies out there that it's worth considering in more depth. I can't figure out why that makes me the target of your ire, other than the cultural baggage you have imputed to the discussion.

You've lived in the States long enough to know that this is the land of contradictions, with some of the most obese people on the planet living side-by-side with some of the world's fittest athletes, with vast numbers of educational dropouts co-existing with large numbers of researchers on the cutting edge of their fields, with cultural drivel swamping beautiful works of art. And on it goes. So the problem of obesity in this country does not in any way disqualify the quality of health science in this country, any more than Hannah Montana disqualifies Terence Blanchard. Why reach for this kind of reductive reasoning?

I don't see anyone "denying grains" as a viable source of food. But as straw men go, it's been set alight with some panache. To conclude that a diet centered on meat protein produces better health in the human body than a diet centered on grain is not to say people who don't have access to meat cannot therefore live on grains. To conclude that natural gas produces cleaner electricity than coal is not to say people who don't have natural gas cannot burn coal. And so on. This is specious reasoning.

And by the way, grain as produced in modern agriculture is a highly petroleum and water-intensive enterprise. It doesn't get a pass in a world of Peak Oil. Neither do any of us burning electricity to chit chat on this board. Perhaps we should all switch off our laptops, in honor of all in the world who do not have electricity (but hopefully grain).

[Guest]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

I don't see anyone "denying grains" as a viable source of food. But as straw men go, it's been set alight with some panache. ... And by the way, grain as produced in modern agriculture is a highly petroleum and water-intensive enterprise. It doesn't get a pass in a world of Peak Oil. Neither do any of us burning electricity to chit chat on this board. Perhaps we should all switch off our laptops, in honor of all in the world who do not have electricity (but hopefully grain).

Buddy, I have no animus towards you. That is your presumption, but it is no based on any fact you can clearly display here. As for your suggestion that you "don't see anyone denying grains" as a viable source of food - I am nonplussed, as that is at the core of the dietary thesis Roger presents. Have you and I been reading the same thread? Hang it up therefore, with the "But as straw men go, it's been set alight with some panache".

And as to your pooh-poohing the notion that there is any substantive difference between feeding an overpopulated world with grain vs. feeding it with a larger portion of meat going into the middle part of this century, this is truly specious argument. The energy for food takes precedence over the energy for laptops - is a notion that does not need to be explained to a ten year old. The notion that beef requires one heck of a lot more resources to produce than grains also should not require explaining to a ten year old.

No need to get so dismissive as to the core point - that Roger advocates "largely eliminating grains" in a world where at very least one third of the global population is left perplexed as to what exactly else they should eat. Please hang it up also, with my presumed arrogance which is quite minor in comparison to this world-scale conceit. I don't care how much we are the "land of wonderful contradictions".

When someone notes they "aren't particularly interested" in "what food is preferred" in Bangladesh, while extolling a meat rich diet in the early 21st century in America, then have no comment on how applicable their diet may be when rolled out to a global population heading into a population explosion - my "reaching" for this kind of "reductive reasoning" may have a wee bit more basis than you allow. The animus towards you personally is a figment of your imagination old sport.

[Sharky]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

When someone notes they "aren't particularly interested" in "what food is preferred" in Bangladesh, while extolling a meat rich diet in the early 21st century in America, then have no comment on how applicable their diet may be when rolled out to a global population heading into a population explosion - my "reaching" for this kind of "reductive reasoning" may have a wee bit more basis than you allow.

Why do you think that a diet that's low in grains is "meat rich"? If you look back on the first post in this thread, it says nothing about eating a lot of meat.

I think the point is more along the lines that eating meat from properly raised animals isn't bad for you, and that the human digestive tract is actually better adapted to meat than to an all-vegetable diet.

Also, you are making an implicit assumption that the diet that's best for individuals will also be optimal when rolled out on a global scale. I don't think that's even close to true.

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

To conclude that a diet centered on meat protein produces better health in the human body than a diet centered on grain is not to say people who don't have access to meat cannot therefore live on grains. To conclude that natural gas produces cleaner electricity than coal is not to say people who don't have natural gas cannot burn coal. And so on. This is specious reasoning.

And by the way, grain as produced in modern agriculture is a highly petroleum and water-intensive enterprise. It doesn't get a pass in a world of Peak Oil. Neither do any of us burning electricity to chit chat on this board. Perhaps we should all switch off our laptops, in honor of all in the world who do not have electricity (but hopefully grain).

Fine Points, there, Prazak.

The issue of how 6 billion people can eat in an optimal fashion deserves its own discussion. I might join in but I'm not much of a central planner. As you can see, it's tough enough just to get consensus on what is the best car. How to buy one for everyone I will have to leave to the social architects.

I would be happy to just have a few souls do some further reading on their own and at least start questioning the government and AHA dogmas about fat, healthy animal products, and and grains.

I would like to clarify that if you read my 12-part list carefully, I don't anywhere say that animal products must be prodominantly the flesh of large mammals, nor that the total protein should be much more than 25% of calories. I have said there is no individual harm in more than that, but I am not advocating it on a world population basis.

Eggs, fish, poultry, seafood, butter, cream and cheese are all animal products and one could easily go forever without eating an angus steak, grass-fed or not. The vision of all of our ag land given over to feedlots and pasture is understandable given the common usage of meat to mean "steak", but when I say animal products, I mean it quite generally. If insects and grubs are agreeable to you, eat them. They are not in any shortage.

Re Land usage: Free ranging, omnivorous pigs who will eat invertebrates are about 2-3 times less land-intensive per pound of meat produced than beef.

Thanks for your contribution.

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Why do you think that a diet that's low in grains is "meat rich"? If you look back on the first post in this thread, it says nothing about eating a lot of meat.

I think the point is more along the lines that eating meat from properly raised animals isn't bad for you, and that the human digestive tract is actually better adapted to meat than to an all-vegetable diet.

Also, you are making an implicit assumption that the diet that's best for individuals will also be optimal when rolled out on a global scale. I don't think that's even close to true.

Jeez, Sharky, I really do need Bart's tinfoil hat - you just read my mind as I was typing!

[Guest]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Sharky - are we now seeking to wiggle away from Roger's original thesis? Lots of talk of meat - wild game - rich creamy milk, eggs and so forth. Talk of squirrels, wild deer and other venison, rabbit, I forget which varieties of wild birds, and so forth. You got the gist of that bountiful and healthful wild food just as well as I did.

If Roger's proposed diet were that amenable to bulking up on mostly vegetable fats it would have been indistinguishable from an Italian diet, (with or sans the grains becomes optional), and I'd be all for it, and they know how to dress up plates of vegetables quite temptingly. Point being, that's a diet with preponderance of vegetable fats and less meat consumption.

But he never wanders over in that direction. Emphasis of all his posts has been on nutrient rich animal proteins, meat and animal fats. One third or more of the world would look at that and say "nice work if you can get it!".

If he's instead extolling the benefit of mostly vegetable fats and a diet which leans towards vegetables, whose great virtue here is that they are "somewhat more affordable an item" to many other countries (in very many countries rural areas, owning one cow is not trivial wealth), I would have been on board with it in a minute.

And regarding whatever "implicit assumptions" you conclude I'm making about the suitability of any single diet rolled out worldwide, I'll venture to guess every last group of peoples around the world, from a Sudanese in the desert to a Borneo tribesman, to an Inuit, would benefit and glow with health were they provided a diet rich in vegetables.

Well, the Inuit and other genetically homogeneous arctic circle peoples may indeed have a big problem, as they've evolved for many centuries to live on a diet rich in meat. Only serves to illustrate the point further - if we put half the world on a higher meat diet, good luck to the Inuit to hang onto replenishable stocks of game. The rest of us can live on vegetables and rice much more feasibly once we get up to 7.5 billion.

Not saying OECD nations should give up their enjoyment of meat in the slightest. I'm saying that one might pause to think about the thesis, before pronouncing more meat consumption as the great leap forward nutritionally for the world.

You guys suddenly are making these dietary recommendations sound downright amenable to rolling out to many peoples around the world. :rolleyes: The wild game. The fresh cream and butter, and olive oil. The abundance of healthful fats that can be put on the table. The healthful glass of bordeaux.

Doubtless they would benefit from more fresh meat in their diets, as they currently have little of it!

Meanwhile, don't forget all the gout that afflicted the wealthier eaters of the middle ages, or those stats Rajiv presented evidencing deterioration of health among Asians on a sharply rising trend as they migrated to higher meat and protein based societies. That awkward data certainly got the quick scuttle treatment, didn't it, and nobody so much as blinked?

If Roger's thesis here had been less about the restorative benefits of wild game, and more about which protein and fat sources are the healthiest compromise enabling us to not only feed Americans optimally, but also give a balanced diet to the world, I know for a fact that I would have recognised that impulse and endorsed it warmly.

Instead, it sounds like a boutique nutrition program admirably suited for financially enfranchised OECD people to clamber onto with gusto.

QUOTE: "If you look back on the first post in this thread, it says nothing about eating a lot of meat."

If I may suggest it Sharky, this comment is disingenuous to the entire theme of the "hunter-gatherer diet from the Paleolithic" which this "Pa-Nu" program seeks to emulate. Presumably those stalwart 25 year old Paleolithic men were doing something more with their bows and arrows and spears than going out to pick berries.

Why do you think that a diet that's low in grains is "meat rich"? If you look back on the first post in this thread, it says nothing about eating a lot of meat.

I think the point is more along the lines that eating meat from properly raised animals isn't bad for you, and that the human digestive tract is actually better adapted to meat than to an all-vegetable diet.

Also, you are making an implicit assumption that the diet that's best for individuals will also be optimal when rolled out on a global scale. I don't think that's even close to true.

[Prazak]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Buddy, I have no animus towards you. That is your presumption, but it is no based on any fact you can clearly display here. As for your suggestion that you "don't see anyone denying grains" as a viable source of food - I am nonplussed, as that is at the core of the dietary thesis Roger presents. Have you and I been reading the same thread? Hang it up therefore, with the "But as straw men go, it's been set alight with some panache".

And as to your pooh-poohing the notion that there is any substantive difference between feeding an overpopulated world with grain vs. feeding it with a larger portion of meat going into the middle part of this century, this is truly specious argument. The energy for food takes precedence over the energy for laptops - is a notion that does not need to be explained to a ten year old. The notion that beef requires one heck of a lot more resources to produce than grains also should not require explaining to a ten year old.

No need to get so dismissive as to the core point - that Roger advocates "largely eliminating grains" in a world where at very least one third of the global population is left perplexed as to what exactly else they should eat. Please hang it up also, with my presumed arrogance which is quite minor in comparison to this world-scale conceit. I don't care how much we are the "land of wonderful contradictions".

When someone notes they "aren't particularly interested" in "what food is preferred" in Bangladesh, while extolling a meat rich diet in the early 21st century in America, then have no comment on how applicable their diet may be when rolled out to a global population heading into a population explosion - my "reaching" for this kind of "reductive reasoning" may have a wee bit more basis than you allow. The animus towards you personally is a figment of your imagination old sport.

Luca, I have no animus toward you either. In fact your posts are among my favorites, when I'm able to keep up with my online perusing. On this thread, though, I think you've imputed a whole lot of cultural baggage into what is, or ought to be, a legitimate matter of scientific inquiry, without having bothered to scratch beneath the surface of the matter. And yes, you have flamed a couple of straw men to unfairly characterize my statements or those of others. Here's an example:

""Meanwhile we Americans propose to go out with bows and arrows and start taking down bison in order to achieve our peak potential. I don't know about you, but for me there is something hubristic (and even a bit comical, in a ghastly sort of way) in denying the validity of grain - source of 2/3 of the world's population's nutrition, any place as a viable source of food to keep them alive.""

Did anyone suggest we're going to run around with bow and arrows? Did anyone deny that grain is a "viable source of food to keep [2/3 of the world' population] alive?" Of course not. I do appreciate the theatricality of the imagery, though.

To say that meat is a better source of nutrition than grain is not to say that 2/3 of the world's population may not be permitted to consume grain to keep them alive. That's just absurd, old chap, and I know you're capable of better reasoning, when not firmly with bit in teeth.

Here's another one: "The energy for food takes precedence over the energy for laptops - is a notion that does not need to be explained to a ten year old. " I said nothing at all so silly: of course energy for food takes precedence over the energy for laptops. What I said, in response to your noting that Peak Oil ought to preclude cultivating sources of meat, was that Peak Oil presents a problem for cultivating grain as well -- and indeed presents a problem for all uses of energy, including much less essential uses like energy for laptops.

Since energy for food does indeed take precedence over energy for laptops (as any ten-year-old knows) then I gather your concern over Peak-Oil food shortages will one day lead you to respect animal husbandry rather than use electricity to protest its cultivation?

Being organisms, we are all of us fundamentally selfish. Being humans, we are all of us hypocrites as well.

One hopes another round of written twister will not follow, but if it does I will have to leave it at that. I've spent more time than I have, unfortunately.

Best regards.

[WildspitzE]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

How about red herring? Does that count as seafood? ;)

Anyway, thanks to those that made constructive comments and asked pertinent questions regarding the science behind the paleo diet. Your posts are very helpful to those of us who are seeking to understand it better.

Please do keep those coming.

[Andreuccio]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Vegetarians combine beans and rice because the amino acids complement each other. Eating high carbs is quite desirable in some circumstances - like when the alternative is starvation!

My emergency food consists mostly of frozen game that could be canned in an emergency, and beans and rice. No cereals necessary

Thanks for the reply, and for bringing the topic up. It's been an interesting discussion.

I was going to make a suggestion to you that might also improve your health, but in reviewing your posts over the last couple of days it appears you may have discovered it yourself. I find if I avoid feeding trolls my stress level goes way down, and I believe my blood pressure improves dramatically.

Cheers.

[Guest]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

What I said, in response to your noting that Peak Oil ought to preclude cultivating sources of meat, was that Peak Oil presents a problem for cultivating grain as well.

Well the point Prazak, was that when hydrocarbons are prohibitively expensive (in about 5-10 years time actually), it's a fair bit cheaper to produce the grain, than the meat. Translates as "more affordable" to those poor sods all over the world that haven't got tuppence to rub together. Apparently this assertion is shrouded in mystery and paradox, as I've not managed to put it across convincingly to you yet.

Since energy for food does indeed take precedence over energy for laptops (as any ten-year-old knows) then I gather your concern over Peak-Oil food shortages will one day lead you to respect animal husbandry rather than use electricity to protest its cultivation?.

With respect, this appears to me just fluff. Can't make heads or tails of what it means. It's not my concern over peak oil or my disdain for animal husbandry Prazak, to express which, I'm consuming what you suggest are symbolically significant amounts of electricity while posting. It's that we haven't a prayer, either today or tomorrow, to keep half the world alive without grains, and Roger says we mustn't eat them if we wish to stay healthy.

Who is "we" for Roger here? The Americans? The people in the first world? Everyone else? Who is he recommending this healthful diet to? We should define the group, lest we mistakenly conclude it is a diet recommended as constructive for people the world over.

If it's really only addressed to us in the the US and other first world nations, that puts into notable contrast how we vigorously promote protein, meat and fats rich diets, while suggesting to avoid the grains, and then presumably we turn around and "recommend" the grains as the most "practical" nutrition to the other half of the planet.

And the interesting thing about the availability of meat nutrition is, and here I am speaking in collective net terms across the globe, (not bound by which nations have an abundance of grazing land relative to their populations) - that for us to eat meat readily, the other half of the world really needs to stay on the grain diet, otherwise 7 billion people all eating meat would put a breaking strain on the world's animal stocks.

One hopes another round of written twister will not follow, but if it does I will have to leave it at that. I've spent more time than I have, unfortunately.

I enjoy your posts too Prazak, and see the world much the same way you do I suspect on many issues.

[Guest]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Excellent. Sounds like Roger and the Paleo-faithful here are coming around to endorsing the vegetable-fat rich Mediterranean diet after many perambulations towards the Paleolithic meat-hunter side. "60 percent total fat in the diet" is a datum which can be too easily misconstrued to suggest we are having a lot of meat in our diet really. No, but seriously. Seems these recent posts everyone is now carefully hedging their endorsement of plentiful meat. It's like watching meat lovers walk gingerly on eggshells. :rolleyes:

Those Paleolithic young hunters which inspired the PA-NU dietary guidelines would be looking at our newfound vegetable fats enthusiasm with forlorn disappointment right about now.

It certainly had me fooled. With all the talk about how paleolithic man ate, I assumed it was a half a carcass of nutritious meat on the hearth most evenings in between the bouts of starvation. After all chasing about as a caveman with all the tribal wars was quite an exertion. Couldn't fend of the warring neighboring tribes that well unless the young warriors were kept properly beefed up. So that's settled then is it? We've abandoned the meat-rich thesis which Paleolithic Man embodies here, and the PA-NU wild paleolithic trademark becomes more ornamental than literal?

Maybe we can re-brand the vegetable-fat-rich mediterranean cooking with a Paleo veneer, drop all the grains and pasta (they do know how to make a few dishes other than dough) and that will be more feasible to roll out as a one size fits all nutrition program? Roll that tasty menu out to the world without any grains - with plenty of readily available local vegetable fats, and a haunch of meat added as a bonus whenever the Somali mother can source it for the family.

BTW, did I forget to ask whether we should feel free to recommend the 60% fat diet to our elderly parents or to the young children? When it's heavily balanced with vegetable fats as the Meditteranean diet is, I'd recommend it without any qualms. When it's heavily balanced with meat fats, I'd have a moment's pause before suggesting that to my nearest elderly loved one. Paleo nutrition is having an identity crisis here. Wants to be mainly carnivorous, but can't quite pull that off on a mass scale in today's drably constrained world?

When it starts getting practical with the inclusion of a preponderance of vegetable fats, it turns Meditteranean! :eek: :p Yes - "Paleo-Mediterranean". It's got a nice ring to it.

Fine Points, there, Prazak.

The issue of how 6 billion people can eat in an optimal fashion deserves its own discussion. I might join in but I'm not much of a central planner. As you can see, it's tough enough just to get consensus on what is the best car. How to buy one for everyone I will have to leave to the social architects.

I would be happy to just have a few souls do some further reading on their own and at least start questioning the government and AHA dogmas about fat, healthy animal products, and and grains.

I would like to clarify that if you read my 12-part list carefully, I don't anywhere say that animal products must be prodominantly the flesh of large mammals, nor that the total protein should be much more than 25% of calories. I have said there is no individual harm in more than that, but I am not advocating it on a world population basis.

Eggs, fish, poultry, seafood, butter, cream and cheese are all animal products and one could easily go forever without eating an angus steak, grass-fed or not. The vision of all of our ag land given over to feedlots and pasture is understandable given the common usage of meat to mean "steak", but when I say animal products, I mean it quite generally. If insects and grubs are agreeable to you, eat them. They are not in any shortage.

Re Land usage: Free ranging, omnivorous pigs who will eat invertebrates are about 2-3 times less land-intensive per pound of meat produced than beef.

Thanks for your contribution.

[Rajiv]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Amylase inhibitors and sucrase inhibitors are typically classified as "antinutrients" --

As an example of the food processing I am talking about - "Thermal heat processing effects on antinutrients, protein and starch digestibility of food legumes"

Similar effect happens in wheat (raw wheat is full of amylase inhibitors)

Also, was the addition of "gum arabic" to Indian desserts -- gum arabic is full of sucrase inhibitors.

In my view, a paleo diet probably contained only a small amount of meat, and fish. More likely was the use of raw and or sprouted grains and legumes. These are typically much harder to digest (read have a lower glycemic index) than cooked products.