To subscribe fill out this questionnaire and send to: PaleoDiet-request@listserv.icors.org Name: Title: Institution: Preferred E-mail Address: Phone Number (administrative use only): Research Areas: Other Areas of Interest: Questions about this LISTSERV can be directed to one of the following listowners. Contact should be in the order shown.
As maelstrom will close its mailing list service in January, I would like to offer an alternative free service for you.
I have recently investigated mailing list software for Trevor Beard and the low salt crowd with a satisfactory conclusion. Mailman software is pretty much the universal standard for university mail lists now. Major-domo is going out. I have a couple of other web lists now on a Mailman server and it is satisfactory but does not have a search option. The admin interface is simple to use. I am getting the service free
I would like to see the list continue in some form. And thank you, Ben, for looking into the options. Liza May, M.S. [log in to unmask]
> -----Original Message----- > From: Paleolithic Diet Symposium List > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Balzer, Ben > Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 5:16 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Mailing List Changes > > Dear Paleodiet Listowner and fellow members, > > As maelstrom will close its mailing list service in January, > I would like to > offer an alternative free service for you. > > I have recently investigated mailing list software for Trevor
Dear All it appears some moves are already afoot to move maelstrom lists to http://www.icors.org/ with archive preservation. It's not clear which software will be running the email lists. Please monitor this situation and if you need an alternative please let me know. I suggest that the listowner downloads an archive of members details. Ben
At 06:52 PM 10/17/2005 +1000, you wrote: >As you know, maelstrom are closing their lists. I suppose this affects your >lists.
>I would like to see the list continue in some form.
This list will continue in the same form at www.icors.org. It will still be Listserv software. Old archives will be restored. The only change will be the address will change from maelstrom to icors.
Paleodiet is one of the best lists I have ever belonged to. I would very much like to see it continue in some form, and would contribute as and when I am able.
Dick
Dr R J Bird Visiting Scholar Northumbria University
>-----Original Message----- >From: Paleolithic Diet Symposium List >[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Balzer, Ben >Sent: 17 October 2005 10:16 >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Mailing List Changes > >Dear Paleodiet Listowner and fellow members, > >As maelstrom will close its mailing list service in January, I >would like to offer an alternative free service for you. > >I have recently investigated
> I enquire whether members of the list might have information as to > whether any hunter gatherers have been documented to consume the > thyroid gland of prey. > > Iodine has the most profound effect of any single factor on IQ: > iodine deficiency reduces IQ an average of 13.5 or 15 points
> Ben wrote: > > >>I enquire whether members of the list might have information as to >>whether any hunter gatherers have been documented to consume the >>thyroid gland of prey. >> >>Iodine has the most profound effect of any single factor on IQ: >>iodine deficiency reduces IQ an average of 13.5 or 15 points > > > Would this be signficant as some direct effect of iodine on brain > function or as an agent for sufficient thyroid activity? I believe > hypo thyroid is often associated with decreased mental fuction and > chronic fatigue. >
Dear All I enquire whether members of the list might have any information as to whether any hunter gatherers have been documented to consume the thyroid gland of prey.
Iodine has the most profound effect of any single factor on IQ- iodine deficiency reduces IQ an average of 13.5 or 15 points depending on which authority one reads. This is sufficient to triple the number of children with mild developmental delay and increase 7 fold those with severe developmental delay (by simple consideration of leftward displacement of the IQ curve by 15 points). http://www.who.int/nut/idd.htm
Very interesting topic Ben. I would like to be kept informed of what you might discover on this, if you are able to learn something from sources other than this list. May I ask you to keep me posted? Thanks, Liza
I assume they will have consumed the thyroid gland because they didn't have so extensive histologic knowledge. (Like some butchers?)
The link between iodine and omega-3, or better DHA (docosahexaenoic acid), is very substantial, indeed. Thyroid hormone acts through the thyroid hormone receptor (THR).THR needs (like the vitamin D-receptor) the so called retinoic X receptor (RXR) as partner to take effect. The natural ligand of the RXR is - n o t - retinoic acid, but DHA. DHA is essential for man, in contrast to the other omega-3 fish oil acid, EPA, which can be synthesized of vegetable omega-3
My experience with Aboriginal hunter gatherers in Australia is that all internal organs were consumed (except the large intestine, contents of the small intestine and gall bladder). Regards kerin O'Dea
-----Original Message----- From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Liza May Sent: Tuesday, 18 May 2004 9:18 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Thyroid as an iodine source in hunter gatherers
Original Recipients:To:[log in to unmask]
Very interesting topic Ben. I would like to be kept informed of what you might discover on this, if you are able to learn something from sources other than this list. May I ask you to keep me posted? Thanks,
Dear List I have suddenly started getting the list again. I don't know if it is of interest but since I have food sensitivities which make it advisable I don't eat grains or potatoes or related roots. I haven't for a long time now. My doctor thinks I am young looking and basically very healthy.( recently became 66yrs old)
A recent Nature article (18 March) refers to concerns about safety of low-carb diets: 'One recent review of the safety of low-carbohydrate diets reeled off an alarming list of potential problems: "Complications such as heart arrhythmias, cardiac contractile function impairment, sudden death, osteoporosis, kidney damage, increased cancer risk, impairment of physical activity and lipid abnormalities can all be linked to long-term restriction of carbohydrates in the diet."'
> A recent Nature article (18 March) refers to concerns about safety of = > low-carb diets: =20 > 'One recent review of the safety of low-carbohydrate diets reeled off an = > alarming list of potential problems: "Complications such as heart = > arrhythmias, cardiac contractile function impairment, sudden death, = > osteoporosis, kidney damage, increased cancer risk, impairment of = > physical activity and lipid abnormalities can all be linked to long-term = > restriction of carbohydrates in the diet."'
> Mandi Smallhorne wrote: > > >>A recent Nature article (18 March) refers to concerns about safety of = >>low-carb diets: =20 >>'One recent review of the safety of low-carbohydrate diets reeled off an = >>alarming list of potential problems: "Complications such as heart = >>arrhythmias, cardiac contractile function impairment, sudden death, = >>osteoporosis, kidney damage, increased cancer risk, impairment of = >>physical activity and lipid abnormalities can all be linked to long-term = >>restriction of carbohydrates in the diet."' > > > These are the standard criticisms of low-carb dieting. Most don't have > much research
I was required to argue both sides, so I spent > *hours* searching PubMed for any evidence that those 6-11 servings of > grain per day were good for *anything* -- I ran "carbohydrate > hypertension" "carbohydrate atherosclerosis" "carbohydrate NIDDM," etc, > etc, etc. I found some evidence that if you're going to eat all that > starch, you'd do best to limit fats. But I found *nothing* to convince > me there was *any* benefit to eating all that carbohydrate in the first > place. > > Dana (8 1/2 years low carbing, and still alive
Interesting, but tantalising in places Nature feature on scientific studies of slimming. It's pretty equivocal about any advantage of low-carb diets over high-carb diets for weight loss.
>>QUOTE Science of dieting: Slim pickings The dieting industry is a massive money-spinner. Yet across the developed world, waistlines continue to expand. In this free feature, Declan Butler examines the sparse evidence behind the claims made for leading diet plans. http://info.nature.com/cgi-bin24/DM/y/eOOC0BfdPV0Ch0JvN0Al <<ENDQUOTE
I would like to direct the attention of the l ist members to a paper (1) that closes a crucial gap in our understanding of the sequence of metabolic events finally resulting in diabetic blindness.
There is growing evidence that an accumulation of omega-6 fatty acids and especially their elevated blood levels (free fatty acids, FFAs) are causative factors in the development of endothelium dependent vascular diseases (1,2).
BOSTON (Reuters Health) Oct 27 - The high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet often recommended for morbidly obese patients with fatty liver disease is associated with increased liver inflammation, physicians at Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions report.
Conversely, high fat diets were associated with a lower risk for inflammation, according to study results presented at the 54th Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.
This is consistent with the known association of NASH/FLD with hyperinsulinaemia/ insulin resistance syndrome. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi? cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11826411&dopt=Abstract
It is also associated with oxidative stress . Paleo diets have far more antioxidants than high carb diets.
> BOSTON (Reuters Health) Oct 27 - The high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet > often recommended for morbidly obese patients with fatty liver disease > is associated with increased liver inflammation, physicians at Johns > Hopkins Medical Institutions report. > > Conversely, high fat diets were associated with a lower risk for > inflammation, according to
New Clue on Which Came First, Tools or Better Diets By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
Published: October 21, 2003
The discovery in Ethiopia of stone tools almost 2.6 million years old could help resolve a debate over human brain size, diet and toolmaking.
On a hillside in the badlands of Ethiopia, an ancestral home of the human family, an international team of scientists has uncovered the earliest known stone tools to be found mixed with fragments of fossilized animal bones. The scientists think the material, almost 2.6 million years old, is the strongest evidence yet that the primal technology was used
Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 2003 Sep;136(1):35-46
'Cooking as a biological trait'
Wrangham R, Conklin-Brittain N.
Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Peabody Museum, 11 Divinity Avenue, MA 02138, Cambridge, USA
No human foragers have been recorded as living without cooking, and people who choose a 'raw-foodist' life-style experience low energy and impaired reproductive function. This suggests that cooking may be obligatory for humans. The possibility that cooking is obligatory is supported by calculations suggesting that a diet of raw food could not supply sufficient calories for a normal hunter-gatherer lifestyle. In particular, many plant foods are too fiber-rich
Archaeologists believe they may have stumbled upon a major Stone Age site - on the route of a new bypass. The site dates back between 250,000 and 300,000 years and may even provide evidence of one of the earliest uses of fire.
Archaeologists discovered a range of items at the location in Harnham, near Salisbury in Wiltshire, including 44 "very rare" flint hand axes - the earliest form of tool used by man.
Paleolithic diet, sweet potato eaters, and potential renal acid load Thomas Remer and Friedrich Manz Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2003 78(4): p. 802-803 http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/4/802?ct
There are several important, only recently understood, and not yet widely appreciated, points to be made about vitamin D: Healthy/desirable levels are much higher than was thought. Laboratory reference ranges for 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) are still stated at around 40-100 nmol l-1. But people who live in equatorial regions, and spend much of their days in the sunlight (farmers and lifeguards, for instance), consistently show levels over 100 nmol l-1, and even above 200 nmol l-1. Because humanity evolved in such an environment, it is clear that the vitamin D exposure that parallels the Stone Age diet, as the environment
WASHINGTON (Reuters) --A non-human molecule found in red meat and milk makes its way into the human system when eaten -- and seems to build up especially in tumors, U.S. researchers reported on Monday.
The compound, called sialic acid, is found on the surfaces of animal cells but is not found in people, and may be one reason why animal-to-human organ and tissue transplants do not work well. Animals have a version called Neu5Gc, while humans carry Neu5Ac.
But much research has focused on the fat content of animal fat or byproducts of cooking meat as the cause of disease.
Varki's collaborator Dr. Elaine Muchmore developed an antibody -- an immune system targeting protein -- that would hook onto Neu5Gc. The team found Neu5Gc in human tumor samples and to a much lower degree in healthy tissue.
The article on sialic acid, which purports to explain the probable adverse effects of meat consumption, is somewhat misleading (against the backdrop of controlled observations regarding these postulated adverse effects). The quote that I will "pick on" is the following:
"Varki, who is not a vegetarian, noted that many studies have linked a diet rich in meat and milk with cancer, heart disease and other diseases."
Edward Thompson wrote on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 11:56 PM: > The article on sialic acid, which purports to explain the > probable adverse effects of meat consumption, is somewhat > misleading (against the backdrop of controlled observations > regarding these postulated adverse effects). ... > one must conclude that the weight of evidence on > the matter, while not conclusive, IS conclusive that meat is > NOT the "health hazard" various PhDs have maintained up to now.
matesz wrote on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 5:58 PM: > Why did you leave out this part?: > > [Snip] > > But much research has focused on the fat content of animal > fat or byproducts of cooking meat as the cause of disease. > Varki's collaborator Dr. Elaine Muchmore developed an > antibody -- an immune system targeting protein -- that would > hook onto Neu5Gc. The team found Neu5Gc in human tumor > samples and to a much lower degree in healthy tissue.
it's a well known fact that milk sugar (lactose) is not simply any sugar. Actually it causes baby's gut to become leaky for some of the valuable milk constituents that are provided by mother's glands and that should not be digested (hormones like IGF1) or got lost (like the calcium from mummy's bones).
I would be very interested to see the data that lactose enhances GI permeability
best.. Todd Caldecott
On Wednesday, October 8, 2003, at 02:33 AM, Roland Rohde wrote:
> Liza, > > it's a well known fact that milk sugar (lactose) is not simply any > sugar. > Actually it causes baby's gut to become leaky for some of the valuable > milk > constituents that are provided by mother's glands and that should not > be > digested (hormones like IGF1) or got lost (like the calcium from > mummy's bones). > > Pastoral tribes like the Samburu
> There is considerable scientific evidence that at least the saturated > fatty acid stearic acid is sort of semi-essential for man. > I don't want to bore you. Literature or discussion on request. > > Roland
I would be interested in knowing what literature supports this and also under what conditions would stearic acid become essential. For it appears to me people produce buckets of it.
> I would be very interested to see the data that lactose enhances GI permeability
Todd,
that lactose does something special with our gut must have been known for a long time because I saw this mentioned in textbooks from the sixties (without citations). But there are newer ones, too.
An experimental paper [1] concludes "These and other data indicated that lactose is not interacting directly with Ca++ in solution but is interacting with the absorptive cells of the intestine to increase their permeability to Ca++."
> ... people produce buckets of it. [of stearic acid. roro]
Don,
they do. But something eats it up at once. This something is called StearoylCoA-Desaturase (SCD-1) and transforms a supposedly bad guy (saturated stearic acid, SA) into a good one ('mediterranean' oleic acid, OA). Did you ever think about why the adipose tissue of starch-fed animals like pigs (and of many humans) contains a lot of OA, much palmitic acid and only small amounts of SA?
Public release date: 22-Sep-2003 Contact: Joel Schwarz [log in to unmask] 206-543-2580 University of Washington
Bones from French cave show Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon hunted same prey
A 50,000-year record of mammals consumed by early humans in southwestern France indicates there was no major difference in the prey hunted by Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon, according to a new study. The paper, published in the online Journal of Archaeological Science, counters the idea proposed by some scientists that Cro-Magnon, who were physically similar to modern man, supplanted Neanderthals because they were more skilled hunters as a result of some evolutionary physical or mental advantage.
Much as I enjoy the lively discussion going on, can I just suggest that we all move away from the 'individual as proof of a theory' idea?
Bob Avery writes: > What's likely to "fall back" are your gum lines when you eat it. In 10 > years of all raw, I have had NO new cavities or any increase in > periodontal disease, yet my teeth are full of existing holes from my > prior cooked diet. I believe that cooked food is the primary cause of > dental caries, which is certainly not a natural occurrence.
>Dear all, > >Much as I enjoy the lively discussion going on, can I just suggest that we >all move away from the 'individual as proof of a theory' idea? > >
I'm going to use this suggestion as an opportunity to issue a gentle reminder that this list is meant to occupy a niche somewhere in between an academic journal (which it cannot be) and a chat list (which it could). What we want to do here is share our research, challenge each others' ideas, and so forth. Ideally, those doing scholarly work in the relevant
> ON the archaeological evidence, caries generally increases with > increasing > agriculturalisation in the neolithic, but the evidence is equivocal in > some areas. Overall, most archaeologists believe it is the increasing > starchy content of the diet that results in caries, but this can be > moderated by a number of other factors.
I tell people the liver is the "juicer" rather than the filter. Physiologically it certainly has both roles and "juicer" sounds nicer and helps explain its huge content of mineral vitamins and other micronutrients. The toxin aspect makes it particularly important to look at the farming method and pasture fed will be much superior (esp. if organic). Grain fed meat requires more antibiotics and other chemicals and also is more prone to liver abscesses etc, and it has an inferior profile of vitamins minerals and other nutrients (see e.g. www.eatwild.com )
I am not sure if I buy this one. Suppose that there was an epidemic of measles in New York. Would we conclude that this was because New Yorkers were eating one anothers' brains? Yet we jump to this conclusion in New Guinea because two stories, the story about cannibalism and the story of prion transmission, fit neatly together, and the cause of mad cow disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE) and its human equivalent, variant CJD, has thus apparently been identified.
> Bob Avery said > > > > Is there any proof that all or most of the Earth was ever covered in ice?
In short: No.
> Is there any doubt? When there was so much water stored in ice that sea > levels were low enough for animals and humans to walk between what is now > mainland Europe and the British Isles, then I submit that the whole globe > must have been considerably cooler than it is today.
I'm sorry I haven't the time to do a full critique of the piece but there are many holes in it. The physiology argument is old and perhaps someone can invite the author to beyond the law of the excluded middle and embrace his fuzziness: we are omnivores, not ruminants and not carnivores. The evidence of this to my mind is the fact that we are still here, unlike our less adaptable hominid cousins.
> This article poses some interesting challenges to the paleodiet > nutritional theory, based primarily on comparative anatomy and > physiology. > > http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall/030700pumeatinthehumandiet.htm > > Comments anyone?
A bit more spin than serves the seeker of fact. The effort to create a correspondence and close parallel with other primates falls apart when the fact that we are tool users with complex language skills is factored in. Looking at human dentition and noting that it isn't like wolves or lions is a moot discussion point when the fact of cooking enters the picture. We don't need teeth
There are both truths and truths that are misinterpreted in this article. I haven't time to comment on every point. However, here are justa few:
Article "A traditional Arctic Eskimo, living in a subfreezing climate, could expend 6000 calories and more a day just to keep warm and hunt for food. The high-fat animal food sources - fish, walrus, whale, and seal - from his local environment were the most practical means of meeting the demands of those rigorous surroundings. Modern Eskimos living in heated houses and driving around in their climate-controlled SUVs, still consuming a high-meat diet,
> > Oh, by the way, animal products -- meat, fat, cholesterol -- have > never been > shown to cause either heart disease or cancers or, as far as I am > aware, any > other disease (except from infected produce or man-made chemical > pollution). > Only processed plant material has.
> > Barry Groves > http://www.second-opinions.co.uk
The problem with these studies is that modern clinical trials are conducted in the wrong context -- that of a 'healthy', processed-carbohydrate, relatively low-fat diet. The addition of fibre to diet might mitigate the effects of such diets but don't address the causes. There are also contradictory studies in the modern literature, which show low levels of cancer in peoples with a low-fibre, high meat intake, and increases of cancers with increasing dietary fibre. There are also "paradoxes":
Hi, a quick response to Barry repeating a number of points that I made on the list a few months ago.
> On teeth, the article makes out that our teeth are designed to cope with > plant foods. I defy anyone to clench their teeth together and then move > their jaws sideways to "grind" in the way that herbivores do.
A letter in last week's Nature gives evidence that in the British Isles there was a sharp switch between fish eating and meat eating in about 5 000 BP. Analysis of C13 content in bones has shown a wide range of values in remains before this date but a very narrow one (corresponding to the meat diet) which cuts in afterwards. The authors speculate that this was the beginning of herding.
If we accept that "you are what you eat (and absorb)" this makes ratios are questionable value given the fact that the diet of the now-domesticated animals has changed radically. Beneficial lipids and minor excipients in the muscle, bone and fat of wild grazing animals are no longer there, having been replaced by uniformity born of a grain-based finishing diet.
Ed Blonz wrote: > > If we accept that "you are what you eat (and absorb)" this makes ratios = > are > questionable value given the fact that the diet of the now-domesticated > animals has changed radically. Beneficial lipids and minor excipients = > in > the muscle, bone and fat of wild grazing animals are no longer there, = > having > been replaced by uniformity born of a grain-based finishing diet.=20 >
re: " With long cold winters and short cool summers, for most of the year there would have been very little plant material to eat." Barry Groves
Sagittari latifolia (wapato) is a wetland plant that produces a tuber that was and is available and harvestable from about now (September) through April in the Northwest part of the US. This plant was prolific during the last Ice Age in North America, the North American Great Basin, Siberia and Northern Europe according to pollen data. It is a 'pioneering' species of wetland plant that occupied newly open areas as the ice receded.
and contemplating the impact upon patient health and compliance, I thought that it would be interesting and helpful to get your feedback upon what y'all think of what proportions of different foods should comprise of the diet. Because most folks don't pay all that much attention the specific caloric content of their diet, and nor do most actually weigh out the foods they eat, I usually recommend dietary components in basic proportions (i.e portions of the proverbial pie): it makes it easier for patients to actual visualize what to eat. According
A major problem with prescribing dietary ratios using percentage of calories is that meat and fat are up to 45 times more calorically dense than vegetables and fruits.
Consequently, meat and fat can supply more than 50% of calories in a diet while being less than 30% of the weight.
Example:
100 g of beef brisket (182 cal) 114 g of sweet (or white) potato (120 cal) 100 g of broccoli (31 cal) 100 g of blueberries (65 cal) 10 g of butter (72 cal) 12 g of whipped cream (unsweetened) (36 cal)
I take a very different route, although I too recommend in ratios. In my case, as it is far healthier for fat to be the major source of fuel as it was in palaeolithic times and in more recent primitive cultures, I recommend 10-15% of calories from carbs, mainly from fresh green and yellow veges, 15-25% of calories from good quality animal proteins, and 60-70% of calories from fats, again mainly from animal sources.
Don Matesz wrote > A major problem with prescribing dietary ratios using percentage of calories > is that meat and fat are up to 45 times more calorically dense than > vegetables and fruits. >
This is a good point, particularly as it tends to refute Cordain's ratios. While our ancestors may have eaten sufficient plant material to supply 35-55% of their calories from plant foods before the advent of the Ice Ages, there is no way they could have done so during them. With long cold winters and short cool summers, for most of the year there would have
>And even if such uncooked material could have been digested. We have no dietary enzymes or micro-organisms that will do the job today. If we had them then, why don't we now?
I have them. Uncooked fruits and veggies, nuts and seeds make up the vast preponderance of my diet and have done so for 10 years now. If I didn't have the enzymes to digest them, I'd be long gone by now. Even the occasional animal parts I consume are taken raw.
> While our ancestors may have eaten sufficient plant material to supply > 35-55% of their calories from plant foods before the advent of the Ice Ages, > there is no way they could have done so during them. With long cold winters > and short cool summers, for most of the year there would have been very > little plant material to eat.
> "most [of us] don't live in a paleolithic environment (i.e. most > of us live in a semi-tropical indoor environment for much of our > lives), I have modified the diet to reflect this as well," > > You may be interested to learn that traditional Eskimos kept their > dwellings > pretty warm. In his Harper's article "Adventures in Diet", Stefansson > wrote > that in midwinter the Eskimo family he lived with "burned seal or > whale oil" > for cooking and heating. "The temperature at night was round 60 > degrees F," > but when the
On Saturday, September 13, 2003, at 09:12 AM, Barry Groves wrote:
> Hi all > > I take a very different route, although I too recommend in ratios. In > my > case, as it is far healthier for fat to be the major source of fuel as > it > was in palaeolithic times and in more recent primitive cultures, I > recommend > 10-15% of calories from carbs, mainly from fresh green and yellow > veges, > 15-25% of calories from good quality animal proteins, and 60-70% of > calories > from fats, again mainly from animal sources.
>Moreover meat also is much more digestible after cooking.
I have to disagree with you there. The simple fact that eating cooked meat produces body odors and putrefactive stool odors while eating raw meat does not should be sufficient to contradict that statement.
>Cooked meat is much easier to chew and cooking denatures the proteins more completely than the stomach's HCl,
Bob Avery said > > Is there any proof that all or most of the Earth was ever covered in ice? >
Is there any doubt? When there was so much water stored in ice that sea levels were low enough for animals and humans to walk between what is now mainland Europe and the British Isles, then I submit that the whole globe must have been considerably cooler than it is today.
Bob Avery wrote: > > Don, > > > >I know of no evidence indicating that any known modern human tribe ever > maintained itself on an all raw food diet. Stefansson reported that even > the > Eskimos ate much of their food cooked. > > I don't know of any such tribes either, but I know of individuals such as > myself who do so, and with superior health results to show for it. > > >Cooked plant food, on the other hand, is a viable fallback food for > early > humans because it fits the changes
> > >Moreover meat also is much more digestible after cooking. >
No, it isn't.
At first, all our food, whether from animal or vegetable sources, was eaten raw. Now cooking food has become a way of life. Most people in Western society today would not eat uncooked meat. As possible pathogens would not be killed, it may be unwise to eat raw meat. But, while boiling parallels the first stages of digestion, and may be helpful in that process, over-cooking in a way that chars food can present the digestive processes with food that it has more difficulty digesting.
> > In 1838, in Canada, Dr. William Beaumont performed a remarkable series of > experiments on a man named Alexis St. Martin. St. Martin had an opening in > the front wall of his stomach from a gunshot wound. Even after the wound had > healed, there remained a small opening through which the mucous membrane of > his stomach could be seen and, through which, substances could be introduced > into the stomach or removed from it. Dr. Beaumont was able to introduce > foodstuffs through the opening and observe the rate of digestion. By so > doing,
Humans evolved beyond their vegetarian roots and became meat-eaters at the dawn of the genus Homo, around 2.5 million years ago, according to a study of our ancestors' teeth.
In 1999, researchers found cut marks on animal bones dated at around 2.5 million years old. But no one could be sure that they were made by meat-eating hominids, because none appeared to have suitable teeth.
In a message dated 8/27/2003 9:18:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [log in to unmask] writes: In general they eat real foods, not fake ones. Does this makes sense to anyone else? Yes, It has long been my opinion that manufactured (processed) foods have been our downfall. These foods include all dairy products, all grain products - - -any food that would not exist in nature without mans intervention. JerrySteg
> I, on the other hand, have the theory that it comes from what they don't > eat. So my theory is the paradox comes from their consuming less trans > fats. They use real butter, not margarine. They tend not to deep fry foods. > French fries are pan fried in oil. In general they eat real foods, not fake > ones. Does this makes sense to anyone else?
Don Wiss wrote: > it comes from what > they don't eat. So my theory is the paradox comes from their > consuming less trans fats. They use real butter, not > margarine. They tend not to deep fry foods. French fries are > pan fried in oil. In general they eat real foods, not fake > ones.
Don Wiss wrote: > > When people look for reasons for the French Paradox they look for what they > are adding to their diet to get protective benefits. Todd Moody suggests > they are eating more organ meats and root vegetables. Recent news article > suggest it comes from their drinking red wine. This focus on what to add > probably comes from a marketing mentality. If we can just find what it is > we can sell it to everybody else. > > I, on the other hand, have the theory that it comes from what they don't
It may also be related to the way they eat. I have listed a number of differences below, but perhaps the most significant difference may be that meals around the Mediterranean aren't eaten on the run, under stress. (The various differences below are to be read together -- Mediterranean 1 with British 1, and so on)
I gave a talk for a conference organized by Dr. George Mann's Veritas Society in November 1991, and then wrote the chapter for George Mann's book of this conference, which was published in 1993 in the UK. The data for fat intake in France match your understanding completely. Less trans in the diet, more animal fat in the diet, and the French regulations do not allow frying in partially hydrogenated fats or for that matter deep frying in either soy or canola oils.
As I live in France and I've spent one year in the United States, I think I am in a good position to compare both diets and eating patterns:
1. Breakfast: mainly consists of bread, butter and jam. Although none of these foods are part of a Paleolithic diet, breakfast is usually much lighter (in terms of calories) than the average American breakfast.
On Monday, September 1, 2003, at 01:14 AM, jean-louis tu wrote:
> As I live in France and I've spent one year in the United States, I > think I > am in a good position to compare > both diets and eating patterns: > > 1. Breakfast: mainly consists of bread, butter and jam. Although none > of > these foods are part of a Paleolithic diet, breakfast is usually much > lighter (in terms of calories) than the average American breakfast.
Dana W. Carpender wrote: >I had a debate on a totally > non-nutrition-related newsgroup recently because one of the > posters came up with the old canard about liver being > unhealthy because it's "the filter of the body" -- as if > livers were like oil filters, and all the toxins just stayed > in them.
Note that the recent message concerning root vegetables was written by Ben Balzer but forwarded to the list by me while Ben's new mail address was pending approval.
So, the old chestnut: are humans adapted to be carnivores or omnivores? I have to conclude, looking at all the evidence, that I believe that we are definitely omnivores. My responses to the number of points made are below.
1. Gut shape etc Our gut is NOT that of a carnivore (pace Barry Groves) or herbivore (folivore) in terms of proportion. For the best discussion of this area, see work by Katharine Milton, with an excellent essay in the fantastic book by Harris and Ross (1987). Food & Evolution: Towards a Theory of Human Food Habits. The most similar guts
Just want to say everyone, that after a long silence on the Palaeolithic Diet symposium, what a great discussion this is. Have decided that I am going to reply to lots of points raised by different people in two emails, separated by subject, as otherwise we are getting longer and longer messages with things copied in. I shall reply to Ed Thompson's more specific email re his and my views in another, so everyone can skip that if too bored or not enough time!
[More ...] I don't think we can blame the food industry, because all they are > doing > is capitalising on a natural urge. We are programmed to prefer energy > dense foods, and this programming came about long before the food industry > happened. Look at the goddess figurines from Neolithic Catal Huyuk in > Turkey (6000BC) - they are hugely fat. Fat has been recognised and > worshipped as desirable for a long time in human culture and society, > until very recently when all of a sudden there was no shortage of foods >
I wasn't going to speak further, but since this post appears to have been directed at me, I will elaborate.
>This desire for energy-dense foods is also why people will never be able to eat as much as they like and be as thin as they like, despite what Bob Avery says.
And I still disagree with you. I've seen countless examples. It's what you eat, not how much you eat, that counts most.
When people look for reasons for the French Paradox they look for what they are adding to their diet to get protective benefits. Todd Moody suggests they are eating more organ meats and root vegetables. Recent news article suggest it comes from their drinking red wine. This focus on what to add probably comes from a marketing mentality. If we can just find what it is we can sell it to everybody else.
Perhaps the French eating more organ meats and root vegetables is part of their better health. Also for the Greeks. Organ meats and root vegetables are strongly featured in hunter gatherer diets- I strongly encourage them as firstly I suspect they are important to good health and secondly I don't like Paleo diets being diets of exclusion- if one concentrates too much on what NOT to eat one gets monotony, so these give us some room to broaden the diet (even if many people find turnips and liver unappetising, that is their freedom to choose). I was never able to
Reply to Tamsin (see below for my response to some points made)
Tamsin: I am afraid that yes for a lot of people, it really is that simple. In a world where 200million people are obese, with all the consequent health risks that this entails, and with an increasingly sedentary lifestyle in the developed world, taking in any amount of essential fatty acids and fish oils is not going to do as much for you as adjusting one's energy balance: eating less or exercising more as a first step to improving health will do more good as a whole
Edward Thompson wrote: > What weighs heavier in influencing outcomes, > energy balance or diet quality?), but I have to ask you: How > did 200 million of us become obese? Was it a pure lack of > will-power, or did the food industry have something to do > with it? Are there ways that food scientists have > capitalized on human physiology to create foods that > encourage consumption, or not?
Comments on the following draft (already sent; waiting for editor's reply) are welcome.
---------begin draft-----------
LETTER TO THE EDITOR (Scientific American magazine):
An Unscientific American?
On the surface of it, and from the standpoint of informing public health policy and/or research direction, the article by Leonard ("Food for Thought") published in the 'Human Evolution' Special Edition issue appears to be strikingly uninformative. This perception is perhaps best illustrated and verified by a take-away message from the article that appears as a bullet point on page 65:
>Comments on the following draft ... are welcome. > Ed, I'm sure you enjoyed writing it! I hope the length doesn't - on its own - rule it out.
>A case in point would be >the notable reduction in all-cause >mortality (from fish oil >supplementation) in the GISSI-Prevention >Trial1, a trial involving over >11,000 people with coronary heart disease.
>Comments on the following draft (already sent; waiting for editor's reply) are welcome.
My take upon initial reading? Too verbose and polemical to get published, but good luck! I estimate that you could have made the salient points in about 1/4-1/3 of the space. Editors love brevity.
I must admit to be slightly stunned at reading Ed Thompson's response to William Leonard's article in Scientific American, which appears to be a massive over-reaction to what I felt was a pretty well-balanced article. [I have to admit here to not having read the article as it appears in the recent Human Evolution special, but as it first appeared in SciAm in Dec 2002, but as the Dec02 version has exactly the same title, and the same quoted bullet point by ET, I assume it has much the same thrust.]
>Until the message is clear that most people will never be able just to eat as much as they want and stay as thin as they like, then the growing trend of increasing obesity will continue
If one eats only uncooked fruits and veggies, one can accomplish just that. It's been proven over and over. You will probably even get thinner than you like! (:-)
Tamsin O'Connell said: > > I am afraid that yes for a lot of people, it really is that simple. In a > world where 200million people are obese, with all the consequent health > risks that this entails, and with an increasingly sedentary lifestyle in > the developed world, taking in any amount of essential fatty acids and > fish oils is not going to do as much for you as adjusting one's energy > balance: eating less or exercising more as a first step to improving > health will do more good as a whole for individuals AND
> I have to disagree with Tamsin as weight isn't about calories and energy > balance; it is far more about constituents of diet. For example: In a trial > of different diets in 1932 by Drs Lyon and Dunlop in the Edinburgh Hospital, > Scotland, overweight patients on 1,000 calorie diets lost an average of 49g > a day on a high carb, low fat diet, but over 4 times that amount, 205g, on a > low-carb, high-fat diet. Kekwick and Pawan also showed that a diet high in > fats
Andrew Millard wrote: > > Overweight lions will fail to catch food even if it is abundant, and then > they will become thinner lions. One might equally ask how many fat koalas > does one see? None and they are vegetarian, move slowly and have an > abundant food supply. Just because another species is not seen to be > over-weight does not make it a good analogue for humans. What evidence is > their that humans are carnivores rather than omnivores?
>But both these studies are on diets of average to low calories compared to >recommended adult intakes. What's the difference in weight gain between >people on, say, 4000-calorie and 1000-calorie diets? It's not surprising >that at constant calories the composition of the diet can make a >difference, but reducing calories has an effect too. It seems incredible >to me that adults on a 1000-calorie diet could gain weight, as their >metabolic expenditure ought to exceed this with even a modest amount of >activity, and if the energy is not coming from burning of body reserves, >then our
FWIW I use dietary strategies in my daily practice as a clinician and from my experience a diet high in carbohydrates, whether from cereals and grains OR fruits ends up having the same effect in promoting insulin resistance and hyperinsulinemia. Fruit has certainly always been an important part of the human diet but with two important caveats:
Andrew Millard wrote: > > But both these studies are on diets of average to low calories compared to > recommended adult intakes. What's the difference in weight gain between > people on, say, 4000-calorie and 1000-calorie diets? It's not surprising > that at constant calories the composition of the diet can make a > difference, but reducing calories has an effect too. It seems incredible > to me that adults on a 1000-calorie diet could gain weight, as their > metabolic expenditure ought to exceed this with even a modest amount of > activity, and if the energy is
Public release date: 21-Aug-2003 Contact: Steve Bradt [log in to unmask] 215-573-6604 University of Pennsylvania
Smaller food portions may explain the 'French paradox' of rich foods and a svelte population
PHILADELPHIA -- The "French paradox" -- the perplexing disconnect between France's rich cuisine and slender population -- can be explained in part by portions that are significantly smaller in French restaurants and supermarkets than in their American counterparts. So say researchers at the University of Pennsylvania and CNRS in Paris, who compared the size of restaurant meals, single-serve foods and cookbook portions on both sides of the Atlantic.
Perhaps the fact that the French eat more slowly is also a factor? Dr John Fletcher Reediehill Farm, Auchtermuchty, Fife KY14 7HS Scotland Tel (44) 1337 828369 Fax (44) 1337 827001 www.fletcherscotland.co.uk e-mail:[log in to unmask]
> Andrew Millard wrote: > > > > It seems incredible > > to me that adults on a 1000-calorie diet could gain weight, as their > > metabolic expenditure ought to exceed this with even a modest amount of > > activity, and if the energy is not coming from burning of body reserves, > > then our fundamental understanding of where biological systems get their > > energy from is in doubt. > > > > Did these studies control for the activity levels and energy expenditure > > of
Andrew: So, how does someone on a 1000 calorie diet, but who must > be extracting less than this from the diet, gain weight even if they lie > in bed all day? (Human adults' basal metabolic rate is 70-80 Watts > depending on sex and age, so the minimum kilocalories required per day is > about 3600*24*75/4200=1542.)
Scientific American have a special on human evolution which has something to offend just about everybody.
There are article on many aspects including diet, childbirth etc. I haven't read much of it yet, but thought I'd post it up as it won't be on the news stands much longer.
The article on "if humans were built" to last focuses on the (totally incorrect) assumptions of western medicine that diseases like osteoporosis and osteoarthritis are inevitable (and presumably of genetic origin). Indeed I thought the paleopathological evidence was clear that osteoarthritis was rare (aside from in a spear throwing elbow
I am beginning to work in earnest on two parts of my book, one on soy and the other on teh cholesterol hypothesis. If you would like to steer me toward other reseach, researchers, or experts, I'd love to know about them.
It's called REAL FOOD, for Harper Collins next year, and it's about - well, here's the intro again.
Thanks for posting this. I read some of this article, but got sick to my stomach [from it]! You are [so] right about them being so wrong!
Sometimes I cannot believe how the activity that we call "science" can be so entrenched with commercial interests and how individual scientists must be corrupted (or at least corruptible) in order to appear so intellectually dishonest! I mean: What does it take to state ANY confidence in a notion that "potatoes, etc" (read: carbohydrates) are the dietary change that enlarged our brain?! I cannot BELIEVE the
We have to be careful about generalizing about the Inuit, however. They led a generally more physically gruelling existence than many other hunter/gatherers: kayaking tends to compress vertebrae, running and jumping and generally hunting on frozen tundra or ice tends to be harder on the legs, hips, and back, falls tend to be more damaging, and so on. A lot of the increase of compression fractures and osteoarthritis may be due to a harder lifestyle, not necessarily the extremes of the diet. Or of course it could be the diet, or could be some of both. But it's not safe
Some members of this list are aware that I am the new moderator, but for those who do not know it, this is a brief introduction.
Unlike just about everyone else on the list, I do not have any credentials in the relevant areas of nutrition, physiology, anthropology, etc. My Ph.D. is in philosophy, which I teach at St. Joseph's University in Philadelphia. As far as the subject-matter of the list is concerned, I am strictly an auto-didact. As moderator, my only claim to competence is that I have some understanding of what is and isn't professional-level discourse.
I've some comments on the potassium (K+) and acid/base discussion.
One of the first lessons every medical student has to learn is about the sensitivity of the blood K+ -level. The correct function of many physiologic systems severely depends on it, especially the rhythm of the heart contraction. If he doesn't, he will have to learn it the hard way: you can kill a laboratory animal (or a patient) very efficiently and fast by carelessly playing around with K+ - containing infusions. Another clinical experience is that the only reliable method to bring a high K+ -level down is
My understanding of your reply to my posting (about dietary potassium, dietary protein, and renal acid load) seems to do 2 things:
1. To negate the perceived importance of the protein/potassium ratio [which you seem to do by arguing that protein does not induce a net acid load]
2. To implicate a new dietary ratio (ie. carbohydrate/potassium or carbohydrate/cations) to be of primary functional importance in maintaining human health [which you seem to do by arguing that carbohydrate intake in the context of a subclinical potassium deficiency may be at the root of most (all?) of the modern-day diet-related
nothing could be farther from me than separating protein from potassium. In fact, I used their ratio for my calculations. Nor dit I want to establish new dietary ratios. What I simply wanted to show is that it's not necessary to explain the deleterious effects of potassium deficiency by acid/base calculations. Actually they are physiologically not very relevant, to say the least.
Anyway I would very strongly support the concept of liver as an essential nutrient for man, too. There surely are many vitamins and trace elements contained in liver that make it a complement to meat (and milk in babies). And there are continuously discovered new vitamin-like constituents, like the RXR-receptor hormone phytanic acid [1,2].
I have two lines of contribution to the discussion on high protein diets, in which I have tried to summarize what is in some of the literature.
Firstly, from a metabolic point of view, is there a maximum limit on protein intake by the body? If one considers the physiological outcome of eating protein, Ben Balzer is right in that it is the body's rate of production of urea that is the primary limiting factor. Excess intake of nitrogen leads in a short space of time to hyperammonaeia, which is a build up of ammonia in the bloodstream,
I was glad to see Staffan's comments about dental caries in agriculturists. A large majority of dietitians think sugar is still the only cause of dental caries and recommend high starch diet on these grounds.
A question about high protien diets:
Have any of you any experience of putting people on high protein diets with little CHO?
I am interested in your proposed concept regarding organ meats and the dietary protein ceiling. It is my understanding that urea formation is the limiting physiological factor (as you had mentioned earlier). If urea formation was at its maximum, additional protein channeling into catabolic pathways would theoretically yield an increase in ammonia production (neurotoxic). It is also my understanding that the only way to curtail urea formation, at least in a physiological sense, is to curtail net protein catabolism. This would require a close match between dietary protein intake and anabolism/maintenance of tissue proteins (protein deposition into tissues, such
This list has been quiet. I have a question about the following assertion, "The coastal diet composition was nearly all animal foods, mostly seafood with some birds and kangaroo, and was approximately 80% protein, 20% fat, and less than 5% carbohydrate." It is based on the following research: O'Dea K (1984) "Marked improvement in carbohydrate and lipid metabolism in diabetic Australian aborigines after temporary reversion to traditional lifestyle." Diabetes, vol. 33, no. 6 (Jun.), pp. 596-603.
As I understand, pre-agricultural man was taller than modern man. I understand that the transition to agriculture is largely responsible for this, with the three important factors being: 1) the mineral blocking effects of the phytates in grains; 2) the decrease in animal protein and bone building vitamins A and D that are found in animal fats; and 3) decrease in calories consumed per person as the population grew (including periodic famine due to lack of reliable harvests). In the last 100 years, at least in Western societies, we have recovered much of that height. Why? 1) Are we eating
I have an interest in the subject because the young infant's dependence on exogenous Fe is very high. It provides another argument to support the hypothesis that meat must have played an important role in paleolithic diets. There must have been more than enough meat if even infants got to share the spoils.
VilhjalmurStefansson talks of the feeding of Inuit infants and children in several of his books. Their traditional children's food was fish-head soup. The heads of Arctic fish have large fat deposits so this food is very caloriticly dense. My own son Gray-Hawk (now 5) weaned himself after his first year and would eat almost nothing but pemmican for about a year after that.
I am a MD (Paris) with a PhD in nutrition, working for the last 20 years + on problems of infant and child feeding in developing countries. I am now involved in the development of foods for treatment / prevention of child malnutrition.
I became interested in paleo diet after reading several papers on the subject (discussing mainly its implications on prevention of chronic diseases related to affluence in adults) which also led me to question the "traditional" approach to feeding children. It is widely believed that children aged 4 to
Thanks Loren for your detailed reply to my question regarding carbohydrates. I apologise for the delay in replying. Your response clarified a question for me. As I stated in my last post, Gould (1966), observed that a 97-lb (44kg) kangaroo yielded only 4 ounces (114g)of removable fat. Assuming for the sake of argument that the useable carcass is around 65% of the total weight (Cordain et al. 2000:685)(although I suspect a kangaroo would produce a higher useable weight than an ungulate). So, we're looking at about 29kg of meat with 114g of fat. It would be unlikely for one individual
Richard Keene and Bob Avery have brought to my attention an upcoming article in the June 20 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:
Michael P. Richards, Paul B. Pettitt, Erik Trinkaus, Fred H. Smith, Maja Paunovic, and Ivor Karavanic; Neanderthal diet at Vindija and Neanderthal predation: The evidence from stable isotopes
I am a bit confused about the whole carbohydrate issue. It appears that most hunter-gatherers utilised some form of concentrated carbohydrate, whether it be yams, seeds, rootstarch or whatever. (The arctic peoples used fat as an alternative since carbohydrate was scarce, as did the people of Pacific Northwest America). There seem to be four reasons for including carbohydrate resources in the human diet. One is to counteract (offset might be a better word) high levels of protein from animal resources (if animal resources are abundant). The second reason is to spare protein from being converted into energy which is an
Moderator's note: message from Michael J Rae, [log in to unmask]
All:
There's been a fair amont of research over the last few years into the absorption and retention of members of the vitamin E complex. The "alpha-tocoherol transfer protein" is an hepatic mechanism whereby the body conserves a-tocopherol preferrentially by incorporating it actively into LDL; not only are other tocoperols not conserved by ATTP, but gamma tocopherol is actually prefe-rentially excreted as well, as part of a blood pressure regulating measure (the metabolite, LLU-alpha, into which g-toco is degraded before excretion is a natriuretic factor).
Earliest Pleistocene Hominid Cranial Remains from Dmanisi, Republic of Georgia: Taxonomy, Geological Setting, and Age
Leo Gabunia, Abesalom Vekua, David Lordkipanidze, Carl C. Swisher III, Reid Ferring, Antje Justus, Medea Nioradze, Merab Tvalchrelidze, Susan C. Antón, Gerhard Bosinski, Olaf Jöris, Marie-A.-de Lumley, Givi Majsuradze,and Aleksander Mouskhelishvili
Science May 12 2000: 1019-1025.
-- Liza May, M.S. Email: [log in to unmask] phone:(301)261-0555 fax:(410)451-6105
I would like to bring to your attention the publication of the following paper in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in March 2000. I believe it is an important milestone in paleolithic/hunter-gatherer nutrition, and recommended it to all interested parties. (The moderator may prefer to approach Professor Cordain for comment).
Loren Cordain, Janette Brand Miller, S Boyd Eaton, Neil Mann, Susanne HA Holt, and John D Speth Plant-animal subsistence ratios and macronutrient energy estimations in worldwide hunter-gatherer diets Am J Clin Nutr 2000;71:682-692. http://www.ajcn.org/content/vol71/issue3/
This is a question from Instituto de Investigaciones Antropologicas in Mexico City. Our archaeologists are studying ancient floors from Teotihuacan, some of them are made of dirt and others of stucco. So far they have been able to identify food remains by analyzing remains of seeds, pollen, phytolites, and some inorganic indirect tracers such as phosphorus. They are now planning to simulate ancient house floors and see how food remains are preserved, and how their remains can be identified. Has any of you done similar studies, or have an idea of other remains that should be sought?
Thank you so much for your love and support going into this unexpected emergent situation with my heart last week. I don't have the words to adequately express my gratitude for all the kindnesses you sent. It has really, really helped~
On the healing front, I'm back from UCLA Medical Center and on the mend back at home now after surgery last Friday... also off the narcotic pain killers so I can put two words together again without slurring and finally answer your e-mails...can't drive for 2 weeks and have to hold off on weightlifting
In my ambition to stimulate discussion, I fear some posts have been accepted which perhaps should not have been. To be more specific, the thread on the evolution of intelligence initiated by Ben Balzer has been too speculative in tone for this forum. To avoid this escalating into something that could harm the general tone of this list, no further posts in that thread will be published. If anyone has any suggestions where that discussion could continue, I will forward them to the list.
Luke Barr will be the author of an article about Paleolithic Nutrition in the April issue of this very popular men's fashion magazine. He is interested in hearing from those who can provide scientific information for this article.
This is your chance to de-bunk the mis-information that has surrounded this way of eating since low-carb diets became popular in the mid 19th century. Please respond to: [log in to unmask]
Seely's research [1,2] found a strong correlation between milk intake and heart disease, but interestingly that correlation was not present for cheese, considered separately from dairy intake as a whole. I am wondering if this could be because cheese is relatively high in dairy fat, which is a source of conjugated lineoleic acid. CLA apparently has anti-atherogenic (and anti-carcinogenic) properties. But if that is so, wouldn't the protective effect be even stronger for butter?
If a mere lurker may suggest. We don't know there wasn't an ozone hole in the past! Volcanoes can cause some depletion in ozone and volcanoes have been very active in some parts of the period of human development. There has been global warming and cooling. Some very cold periods which were coterminous with drought conditions which suggest changes in vegetation and therefore in the distribution of herd animals. There are sites which deal with vegetational change, my favourite is Jonathan Adams' http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc.html This could result in humans either competing for scarcer resources or scattering further a field. M E
I read the core point that competing intelligence of a species is a factor in selection for gain in intelligence.
I must add: I've read that some sociologists claim actual fertility of our highest mental level functioning citizens is lower than average. We note that professional workers tend to have smaller numbers of children than average.
This is an original theory of mine that hasn't been published as yet- I thought I'd bounce it around.
Intelligence, like all animal attributes, is subject to evolutionary pressures. Evolution occurs on the basis of survival advantage for particular attributes, often in response to an environmental stress or opportunity. There is also a limit as to the amount of the evolution depending on the degree of the stress or opportunity. For example, giraffes have evolved a long neck and great height and this gives them an advantage in foraging from tall trees. If, however, there were no trees in their
The Paleodiet list has been very quiet lately, which probably has prompted some of you to wonder if it has silently passed away. This is not the case. Due to other commitments, Dean Esmay has not been able to actively moderate the Paleodiet list the past months, which has caused some lag. After discussions between him and co-owners Loren Cordain, Staffan Lindeberg, and Don Wiss, it was decided that I should assume the responsibility of the daily management of the list. As list creator, Dean Esmay will retain a moderator emeritus role. There will certainly be more than one time
Steve McBride asked two questions which I can help answer:
1. Can anyone point me to data that disputes protein as an aggravator of renal disease in man?
My understanding of this issue is that dietary protein does not CAUSE renal disease but that in the presence of renal disfunction (as often occurs as a complication of diabetes), some experts believe that high protein diets will aggravate it. However, when put to the test, there is conflicting evidence. A point of difference is the definition of high vs low protein diets. I'm sorry I don't have time at present to
It's not really directly related to our list subject, but it's a fascinating and exciting discovery that I suspect most of our members would enjoy reading about. I also find myself wondering if in a decade or three I might not be able to order wooly mammoth steak from my favorite restaurant. An amusing thought, anyway.
I just wanted to briefly introduce myself. I am a veterinarian in private practice that has been recently introduced to the subject of paleonutrition. My undergraduate education is in physics and biology at Notre Dame University and my DVM is from Michigan State University. I have broadened my interest in nutrition from primarily that of our canine and feline friends, to human nutrition. I stumbled across this current forum after reading NeanderThin by Ray Audette and doing some research on the internet. I am familiar with movements in pet circles to return to their native diets (BARF diet --
--- Don and Rachel Matesz <[log in to unmask]> Next Generation Nutrition. (419) 476-2967
Wrt the article on cooked vegetables "Early humans got smart by cooking veggies, study says": This idea that we got smart by cooking vegetables, not by hunting and meat eating, may be politically correct, but it is illogical and biochemically incredible. Here are my reasons:
> > "We strongly suspect hominids began using fire about 1.9 million years ago, > when Homo erectus appeared," he added
This is also the time that many other species increased in size to take advantage of vast areas of steppe-tundra. These species were collectively known as the Pleistocene Megafauna. Hominids had to evolve into a mega form to take advantage of this new enviroment. Game of all kinds existed in this enviroment in densities unknown in historical times and far surpassing the original tropical grassland enviroment of the original hominids. > > "Learning how to cook probably also allowed
This message was originally submitted by [log in to unmask] to the PALEODIET list at MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU. You can approve it using the "OK" mechanism, ignore it, or repost an edited copy. The message will expire automatically and you do not need to do anything if you just want to discard it. Please refer to the list owner's guide if you are not familiar with the "OK" mechanism; these instructions are being kept purposefully short for your convenience in processing large numbers of messages.
The argument put forward for the role of cooking plant food in human evolution seems rather speculative.
The connection between cooking vegetables and increased body size does have a certain logic to it, but how strong is the evidence for such cooking?
"We strongly suspect hominids began using fire about 1.9 million years ago, when Homo erectus appeared," he added. He said colleagues working in Kenya have recently contacted his team and said they have evidence that humans were controlling fire that long ago. The most recent accepted evidence puts fire use at just 200,000 to 500,000 years ago."
"This is a preview of an article to be published in Current Anthropology in December. it apparently suggests that the consequences of cooking vegetables outweigh the consequences of cooking meat, not just nutritionally but socially as well.
This is a popular (Reuters) account of a paper due to be published in Current Anthropology later this year. As it's a popular account we can probably expect the story to be rather shallow on details. It's also interesting that these scientists have chosen to speak to the press even before their paper is published. I'm
The suggestion that cultural pressures exert a change on our diet, and may explain unhealthy eating patterns, at a certain level this seems unsatisfactory. There is almost indisputably some influence from culture (for example, most Americans have a strong aversion to eating insects, which are popular in many other cultures). But can this be the primary explanation for bad eating patterns?
I'd like to invite some comments on the question of human adaption to spice herbs.
First, let me set this up. I'm accepting as a premise the proposition that the less exposure a population has had to a given food, the less likely that population is to be well adapted to it. This, I take it, is the basic premise of attempts to emulate or implement paleolithic diets in the modern world, for health purposes. It implies a second premise, namely that lack of adaptation to a food makes it more likely to cause health problems.
> This brings us to my question. The various spice herbs are > mostly vanishingly low in calories, and are pungent enough in > taste that it seems doubtful that anyone would eat very much of > them at a time anyway. Many spices have potent health-promoting > effects, it seems, because of antioxidants and other ingredients > present in them, but prehistoric humans wouldn't have known of > that. Indeed, it's hard to see why they would have bothered with > these plants at all. If that is correct, the contribution of > these plants
On Mon, 2 Aug 1999 Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]>
> I'd like to invite some comments on the question of human adaption to > spice herbs. ......snip....... > Optimal foraging theory indicates that hunter-gatherers will > always favor calorically denser foods when they can get them, and > certainly avoid foods that require more energy to gather than > they actually provide.
Here are excerpts of an old article I found quite interesting.
When an animal eats, it acts like a computer; that is, the most sophisticated kind of computer, that could choose the best quality foods in the right amounts, better than an expert dietitian ever could. Conversely, man is like a broken-down computer, which compels him to eat anything, anyhow, and which sometimes leads him to obesity or alcoholism .... Food, according to its chemical composition, is broken down into fats (glycerides), sugars (saccharides), and proteins (nitrogenous food such as eggs, grains, meat, and fish).... When it makes its choice,
> As an anthropologist, I think it is culture that results in this type of behavior. > So, perhaps one question that we should ask is: "is cultural pressure strong enough > to overcome instinctual eating patterns in humans?" I would argue yes, it is -- > particularly over long periods of time.
The latest issue of Am Jour Clin Nutrition reports Harvard study showing higher protein intake associated with reduced risk of heart disease among women. This may be first prospective cohort study showing such an effect.
From Abstract:
Results: We examined the association between dietary protein intake and incidence of ischemic heart disease in a cohort of 80082 women aged 3459 y and without a previous diagnosis of ischemic heart disease, stroke, cancer, hypercholesterolemia, or diabetes in 1980. Intakes of protein and other nutrients were assessed with validated dietary questionnaires. We documented 939 major instances of ischemic heart disease during 14
>On the gluten (celiac) list , many say that if a breast feeding mother eats >gluten and casein, they will be present in the breast milk. > >On the other hand, I had a breast feeding expert email me that gluten and >casein do NOT get into the mother's milk.
I don't know what you mean by a breast feeding expert. You mean someone expert in the techniques of breast feeding? The reason people on the celiac list state what they do is this has been researched. Below is just one of two articles written by Dr.
Superb interview. A few questions for clinical applications:
1. RE: unleavend bread. Would the problems associated with this food be mitigated (and to what degree) by SPROUTING the grains and making an unleaved bread?
2. RE: "Foods which yield a net acidic load mainly as sulfates... Foods which cause a net acid excretion include meat, fish, cheeses and grains. Excess dietary protein can adversely affect bone." What then is the effect of supplemental sulfur, as MSM (Methyl-Sulfonyl-Methane), for the symptoms of arthritis? Are we merely adding to the acid burden in the body with MSM, resorbing more bone?
This is an extensive course description for a class at the University of Nebraska on hunter/gatherer lifestyles. The instructor is one Raymond Hames. Hunters and Gatherers Anthropology is a course taught by Raymond Hames at U. of Nebraska. Includes lecture notes on the book The Foraging Spectrum which outlines the important research issues, theory, and problems in hunter-gatherer research.
The Paleolithic Diet and Its Modern Implications is an Interview with Loren Cordain, PhD done by Robert Crayhon, MS (both, by astonishing coincidence, members of our little group). The interview is at:
Most of us like the smell and the taste of fried or grilled meat (potatoes ...hmmh). Obviously this preference has something to do with substances, that are produced during the Maillard reaction. But chemical analyses do not explain why we like these substances. Are we only imprinted to mothers steaks or does this reflect an adaptational process, fixed in our genes? Have our nutritional preferences changed to cooked and fried foods as an adaptation to a long hominid use of fire?
I would appreciate comments on this text about the problems of cooking.
"Through the working of natural selection, each species adapts to the conditions of its habitat. Such adaptation, however, takes many generations ; the genetic code changes very slowly over time (less than 1 % in the six million years since our forebears diverged from the chimpanzees). The practice of cooking is quite recent in relation to the biological time scale, each new alimentary challenge introduced by intelligent artifice may pose a new metabolic problem and entail pathological consequences. For any culinary artifice, there is a reason to
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Jacques Laurin <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I would appreciate comments on this text about the problems of cooking. > > "Through the working of natural selection, each species adapts to the > conditions of its habitat. Such adaptation, however, takes many > generations ; the genetic code changes very slowly over time (less than > 1 % in the six million years since our forebears diverged from the > chimpanzees). The practice of cooking is quite recent in relation to the > biological time scale, each new alimentary challenge introduced by > intelligent artifice may pose
>Such adaptation, however, takes many generations ; the genetic code changes >very slowly over time (less than 1 % in the six million years since our >>forebears diverged from the chimpanzees). The practice of cooking is >quite >recent...
It's not the genetic code that's changing here but the DNA sequences that regulate the expression of and code for proteins (i.e. enzymes). The often quoted 1% or 2% figure between humans and chimpanzees is an average (of single copy, coding DNA) with some genes being identical and others being more divergent (see Sibley and Ahlquist 1987). Also, not
I would like to thank you all for your time, this was really enlightning. There are few minor points I would like to address in order to clarify my thoughts on the subject.
Andrew Millard wrote:
> I'm not convinced that alimentary change is that much of a challenge. For > one thing the 1% change is across the entire genome and we don't know the > percentage difference in the minority of the genome which is coding and > this is the important figure in terms of adaptive difference. Secondly the > gorilla diverged from humans and chimpanzees at
On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 Jacques Laurin <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > If we have the right to hope for a future adaptation to the new proteins of > wheat, corn or cow's milk, it seams to me that it is a different story when we > are talking about cooked food. Many new chemical species generated by the > action of cooking, isomers for instance, differ too much from the natural > molecules to expect our digestive enzymes to be active on them. Do we know what > happens to the isomers that go through the intestinal barrier? I guess
CHAMPAIGN, Ill. -- A new hypothesis about recent human evolution suggests that a horrific "volcanic winter" 71,000 years ago, followed by the coldest 1,000 years of the last Ice Age, brought widespread famine and death to modern human populations around the world. The abrupt "bottleneck," or decrease, in our ancestors' populations, in turn, brought about the rapid "differentiation" -- or genetic divergence -- of the surviving population.
On Fri, 25 Jun 1999, Dean Esmay <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Subject: "New" hypothesis > > Submitted by one of our archaeologist friends: > > --- > > http://www2.ari.net/rjohnson/articles/VOLCANO.UIL.html
Not so new - for those who want the full details, it was published about a year ago as:
Ambrose, SH (1998) Late Pleistocene human population bottlenecks, volcanic winter and the differentiation of modern humans. Journal of Human Evolution 34 623-651
I notice that the above-mentioned article about the dig in Kenya found fish bones among the fauna apparently processed with stone tools at the site.
If I'm not mistaken, this may be the earliest evidence of fish consumption by humans to date. Although the fish bones were less than 1% of the fauna remains found at the site, they were clearly there, along with other aquatic animals. (see http://www.nature.com/server-java/Propub/nature/399057A0.table-1 ) -=-
>I notice that the above-mentioned article about the dig in Kenya found fish >bones among the fauna apparently processed with stone tools at the site. > >If I'm not mistaken, this may be the earliest evidence of fish consumption >by humans to date. Although the fish bones were less than 1% of the fauna >remains found at the site, they were clearly there, along with other >aquatic animals. (see >http://www.nature.com/server-java/Propub/nature/399057A0.table-1 )
Oops. Remind me to tell the list administrator to read more carefully before commenting. Only the tortoise bones and ostrich eggs show evidence of being there due to the toolmakers.
Coterminous with Loren Cordain's appearance on Dateline NBC will be an article on Evolutionary Fitness and Diet to appear in Women's Health and Fitness (this month's issue I am told). In addition, one episode of a PBS TV series called Closer to the Truth will feature Roy Walford (the UCLA scientist who exposes under eating) and myself, along with geneticists and doctors discussing diet and fitness. The Closer to the Truth series will air in the top 25 PBS markets starting next fall.
Since Dean has recently posted some URLs related to lectins, I thought I'd add this one: http://www.dadamo.com/literature/lrc.htm
This is Peter D'Adamo's web site and a lenthy essay by him about lectins. On the same page, further down, is some interesting material about ABO-specific differences in alkaline phosphatase secretion and its possible relevance to fat digestion.
In reference to Dean's recent posting, here is the main point:
THE idea that our ancestors died very young may be a myth based on a statistical error, according to a team of British archaeologists. They say a bias in the methods used for analysing human bones can underestimate the true age of death by as much as 30 years.
Recently receieved in email, a call for papers. This appears to have been translated from Spanish and in parts the language is a little rough.
DOC 012 INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ETHNOBOTANY MEDICINAL PLANTS, FOLK TRADITIONS, HISTSORY, PHARMACOLOGY Under auspices Universidad para La Paz, Costa Rica, Set.,14-18,1999
GuideIines for authors
1. Deadline for manuscripts: 28 May, 1999.
2. Manuscript Length and Preparation Max. 30 pages of 30 lines each (~ 20%) typed on standard-size (8.5 x 11 inches ) paper using 1.5 line spacing.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 14:55:13 GMT From: Ms HB BRICKLEY <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Conference Announcement
Announcement & Call For Papers First Annual Conference of The British Association of Biological Anthropology & Osteoarchaeology.
10th-12th September 1999, The University Of Birmingham.
The association is aimed at all individuals interested or working in any related field at any level, be it funerary archaeology, osteoarchaeology, physical anthropology or human evolution. The assocaition aims to provide a forum for the exchange of ideas and information, and to improve standards in all aspects of the study of the biology of
"If evidence of negative effects of hunter/gatherer diets is to be had, I'd quite like to know about it. Any references or research or direct experience to that effect is welcome here. We've been too quiet of late, and any discussion which includes verifiable data is valuable."
I have no data, just a general comment. One would expect instances of negative effects of H/G (or other) diets, but to the extent that the "negative" practices constrain the survival of the group and are discovered as such, one would expect such practices to be selected out over time.
The name of this list is "The Paleolithic Diet & Exercise Symposium," which is shortened to "The Paleolithic Diet Symposium" on our web page (http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?A0=paleodiet&D=&F=&H=&O=&S=&T=). I don't see why an email address would be mistaken for a name, but I'll talk to Don about clarifying it.
If evidence of negative effects of hunter/gatherer diets is to be had, I'd quite like to know about it. Any references or research or direct experience to that effect is welcome here. We've been too quiet of late, and any discussion which includes verifiable data is valuable.
Thanks to Dean for pointing out a term which seems to require further clarification. The term 'Roussouians' was used not to describe particular people as much as a tendency, often implicit, that I have noted in the thinking of a variety of nutritional schools. Nor is the term necessarily pejorative, but often seems to be an ideological obstacle to obtaining a more complete picture. For example, in many vegetarian writings we find musings and longings for a 'Golden Age' when the human diet was 'pure' prior to the 'Fall.' This is evident in the Macrobiotic literature where the goal is
First, I am not comfortable this creeping use of the term "paleodieters" that we see here and there used in reference to members of this symposium (not just in Brian's message--I've seen it used in other submissions to this list). The term implies either that people on this list are specifically eating a certain way, or that there is some sort of monolithic point of view on the issues discussed here. Neither is the case. This is a silly word and I'd like to see it go away.
To: All Paleodieters From: Brian J. MacLean Re: Response to Loren Cordain and Sally Fallon and Mary Enig
This letter is in Reponses to comments made by Loren Cordain on November 18, 1998 and by Sally Fallon and Mary Enig on December 4, 1998 to a letter I posted on November 16,1998 ( Paleo Querries). I apologize for the delay in response, but I have been off the net and intensively 'studying' free radicals' effects on the skin in the Florida and California sun ( Loren's right-there's really something to that theory- I've got all kinds of new wrinkles!). I
Del Thiessen, Professor of Evolutionary Psychology at the University of Texas in Austin, and member of our Symposium has written a book with the title "The Darwinian Diet and Exercise Program". On his homepage you can find more information about it, a newsletter, and some links:
Looking for successfu paleodieters in Boston area for netwrk news feature to shoot in about 30 days. Please email me ASAP with your name, brief bio, phone & best times to reach you. Thanks! Charles Hunt fax 310.474.5711 phone 310.470.1339
I am interested in the sugars in paleolithic diets. As far as I'm aware there's almost nothing on the individual sugar ratios. However, my guess it that there would have been more fructose than glucose or sucrose. Honey is a rich source of fructose and many fruits have higher amounts of fructose than other sugars. Although domesticated fruit have higher sugars content, I think the present individual sugar ratios would be a reasonable estimation of paleolithic ratios.
Here's a post from a while back that I happened to save; maybe Jennie has more to add...
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 11:27:10 +0700 From: Jennie Brand Miller <[log in to unmask]>
Sucrose would have been one of the major sources of energy in primate diets coming from the fruits and berries in roughly equal proportions with glucose and fructose. Thus high levels of sugars have been in a diet since the beginning of evolution of humans. Even though sucrose is the starting product in many sweet foods, by the time we eat it it has been hydrolysed to glucose and fructose
Are any subscribers to the Paleolithic Diet Symposium aware of any published information or any research into the kinds of sugars which would have formed part of the paleolithic diet? I am especially interested in results concerning fructose, and the overall balance of sugars as opposed to other carbohydrates. Mandi Smallhorne, editor, PhysioForum South Africa
Many of you may recall the very interesting dialogue that took place last year between Loren Cordain and Sally Fallon and Mary Enig. Two of the main points of contention were:
(1) The levels of saturated fat that were likely present in Paleolithic diets, and
(2) The association between dietary saturated fat and coronary heart disease (CHD).
I haven't researched the Western diet vs. the rest of the world to any sizable extent, but the more I hear about it, the more I wonder how much data there is about those *not* in the West who adopt a Western diet.
Do we know that the same rate of disease prevails among Westerners living in Europe or Asia but with the eating habits usually attributed to Americans?
INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ETHNOBOTANY Medicinal Plants: Folk Traditions, History, Pharmacology 14-18 September, 1999. San José (Costa Rica)
Organised by: «Geodata Center», Costa Rica, «Sciences et Lettres, Belgium», under the auspices of: Universidad para la Paz, Costa Rica
From 14 to 18 September 1999, the 1st International Symposium on the History and Folk tradition of Medicinal Plants will be organised in Costa Rica, the largest biodiversity center of the World. The amin topics will be the history of medicicnal plants from antiquity to present times, folk traditions (past and present), scientific knowledge, integration of folk tradition into medicine, ethnobotany and pharmacology, with
On Sat. 9 Jan 1999, Todd Moody wrote: >>The arg:lys ratio of the nut proteins is >>significantly higher than that of most >>other foods...
This is a thought provoking concept for a layman like me that unhealthy foods might have a certain amino acid profile.
Has anyone ever seen an amino acid breakdown for beef from organic, free-range cows? Would the ranking of amino acids be different than that in beef from grain-fed cows? How difficult would it be for an individual to have a lab run an amino acid analysis on both types of meat?
Off the top of my memory, bovine (cow) dairy products actually have a relatively high amount of arginine compared to lysine, hence many people with herpes I or II, which may be activated or aggravated by too much Arginine, can take lysine to hasten recovery from herpes painful lesion outbreaks. In your references, the second one clearly states the ratio as Lysine:Arginine, not Arginine: Lysine. This means, if I am correct, that your table is headed incorrectly. The ratios may all be for Lysine::Arginine, or am I incorrect?
In light of recent postings concerning the benefits of nut consumption, in conjunction with the fact that nuts would have been part of the human diet during most or all of our evolutionary history, I want to share a conjecture or two. Since I am not a scientist or any sort of expert in nutrition, I hope those who are more qualified will comment.
From: ALLEN EWART GALE <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re Book for the overweight teenager
>The authors of a popular book advocating a "paleolithic diet" would be well >advised, in my view, to seek rigorous criticism before they publish. >Asking for criticism from experts in fields other than biology and medicine >would be an important part of that. Agreed. Have a look at the Vancouver Document at :- http://www.mja.com.au/public/information/uniform.html A relevant passage reads:- "Medical Journals and the Popular Media The public's interest in news of medical research has led the popular media to compete vigorously to get information about research as soon as
Doctors Peterson & Peterson ask in their message of 28 December 1998 about whether popularization of dietary theories limits the credibility of the theories espoused. In that regard I have some thoughts:
A disturbing trend I've noticed in our discussion group has been the apparent assumption by some members that there is a universally acknowledged definition of a "paleolithic diet" (or pre-agricultural diet). This seems to revolve around the work of people like Boyd Eaton and analyses of the dietary patterns of pre-agricultural groups that exist now or did exist in the last few centuries which all seem to point
>Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 19:15:29 +0300 >From: Raymond Peterson <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Book for the overweight teenager >I am a pediatrician with an extensive research and clinical background. >Together with my son, a cardiologist, we are writing a book for the parents >of overweight teenagers regarding the utility of the "paleodiet".
I am a pediatrician with an extensive research and clinical background. Together with my son, a cardiologist, we are writing a book for the parents of overweight teenagers regarding the utility of the "paleodiet". Our considerable clinical experience with patients prompts us to assemble the substantial data on this subject in a form that will be credible and understandable to the lay public.
The Paleodiet Symposium recently reached 270 members, I'm pleased to announce.
A question has come up as to how researchers and academics should be invited to the listserv. For those who wish to encourage their colleagues to join our discussion group, simply forward the following to them:
----[snip here]----
THE PALEOLITHIC DIET & EXERCISE SYMPOSIUM is a non-profit, semi-private, semi-formal online discussion forum for professional scientists and educated laymen to discuss evolution as it involves the human diet and physical activity patterns. Members are made up primarily of biologists, archaeologists, paleontologists, medical doctors, dietetians, and graduate students in related fields.
> I suppose this is almost too obvious and trivial to mention, but peanuts > are not nuts. Dean, that's right, it is ALMOST too obvious and trivial to mention 8-).
If you are referring to the Science Online article and its references, the full body of the article clearly states the difference between legumes and true nuts...I'd rather assumed the full text of the article would be read by those interested, and the references were provided to show the breadth of the studies; finally, if I remember correctly, the clear "winner" in the nuts/nut oils/lipids was, overall, whole almonds;
More > Support for the contention that the human animal may have evolved a need > for monosaturated fats in the diet
Science News Online (11/21/98): High-Fat and Healthful, http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc98/11_21_98/Bob1.htm for full text of article and "further reading"
excerpt:
>...The good news is that not all of this high-fat fare is necessarily bad for ones health. In fact, some of the treats could serve as a springboard to a healthier diet, a variety of researchers believe. The trickand, of course, there is a trickis not only to sample these foods in moderation but also to steer toward those that derive
Regarding Linda Scott Cummings' comments on seeds in the paleolithic diet: I offer no opinion on the matter, but I point out that Mavis' point seems to have been that it's unlikely that wild grass seeds could have been a -primary- food source in most of the world, since these are a seasonal item and are just one of a wide variety of foods available to pre-agricultural peoples.
To Dana's question about refined carbohydrates being a possible confounding factor in studies relating meat consumption with the development of cancer, here is slightly tangential but not too far afield response Recent studies in animals have demonstrated a tumor promoting effect for hyperinsulinemia. See, for instance,
Koohestani N, Tran TT, Lee W, Wolever TM, Bruce WR. Insulin resistance and promotion of aberrant crypt foci in the colons of rats. on a high-fat diet. Nutr Cancer 1997;29(1):69-76
An appendix to Brian Mac Lean=B4s question and Loren Cordain=B4s post about paleolithic longevity: The existence of a female menopause in humans is a strong evidence for a maximal paleolithic lifespan that widely exceeds average life expectancy. Can we suppose, that the paleolithic population pyramid of Homo sapiens was slim (due to higher mortality rates in each decade), but had the same height as a modern one? In Austria (8 million inhabitants) we have more than 300 centenarians. Were there sporadic centenarian humans 100.000 or 15.000 years ago? Or in modern paleolithic surrogates: There is no question, that some of
3) Is there a reference to support the claim that prior to 1922 the Joslin Clinic had never had a live birth to a live woman?
There was a review article in the american Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology about 1985, from the Joslin Clinic. I'll try and track it down. Dr. K. Emmott
On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, Loren Cordain wrote: "Females of our species are quite unusual in the animal world; except for a single species of whale, no other mammal experiences menopause."
Maybe we are less unique.... The following article quotes some other female mammals with a post-reproductive phase:
ME Wood writes: << Paleolithic man lived by definition before agriculture and therefore before cities and industrialisation. Therefore he must have subsisted by hunting,gathering and fishing. Before agriculture any wild grains would be harvested, if at all, when the seeds were ripe and are unlikely to have been a major part of the diet.
I'm at a loss about the interpretation that Paleolithic man was unlikely to have included seeds as a major part of the diet, if they were present at all. Where does this come from? Is there any evidence? Certainly agricultural grains are not the only seeds
In a message dated 11/24/98 3:28:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, [log in to unmask] writes:
<< Females of our species are quite unusual in the animal world; except for a single species of whale, no other mammal experiences menopause. How is it that natural selection could have ever selected for early shut down of reproductive capacity before the end of the full lifespan? >>
At 10.52 -0500 98-11-24, Sandy Rzetelny wrote: >... >Is there evidence indicating that the paleo hunter gatherer woman did undergo >menopause?
Oh, yes. Available data suggest an average age at menopause of approximately 47 years.
1 Phillips JCM et al. New field techniques for detection of female reproductive status. Am J Phys Anthropol 1991; 85: 143. 2 Wood J. Fertility and reproductive biology. In Attenborough R and Alpers M (eds). The Small Cosmos. Oxford University Press 1991.
On Wed, 2 Dec 1998 Staffan Lindeberg <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > At 10.52 -0500 98-11-24, Sandy Rzetelny wrote: > >... > >Is there evidence indicating that the paleo hunter gatherer woman did undergo > >menopause? > > Oh, yes. Available data suggest an average age at menopause of > approximately 47 years.
How was this data obtained for *paleo* H-G women? Ref 1 gives a method for living H-G women to determine whether they are pregnant/ not pregnant/ menopausal using luteinising hormone (LH) in urine. This will be very difficult to detect in skeletal remains. Any method based on population
1) What is the scientific evidence regarding the existence of pesticide residues in modern meats? What is the extent of evidence that said residues are carcinogenic? And what is the evidence regarding whether or not plant foods are somehow safer in this regard?
2) What medical authorities have advanced the suggestion that standard treatment protocols for gestational diabetes are ineffective?
Brian MacLean posted, and Loren Cordain responded:
4. "With regard to pathology, a high intake of red meat has been associated quite consistently with the development of cancers (6)."
There is no doubt that multiple epidemiological studies have shown an association between high consumption of red meat intake and many types of cancers. However, there is just as strong epidemiological evidence to show a relationship between saturated fat intake and cancers (checkout medline, there are thousands of references). Because, modern commercially available red meat contain enormous amounts of saturated fat (a t-bone steak with 10% fat by weight contains 50%
"....And second, many diseases which cause middle aged and geriatric mortality, also markedly decrease fecundity, during childbearing years. One prominent example is diabetes mellitus. This illness is skyrocketing in modern populations, particularly in populations which are not European or Mediterranean, and who have a shorter history of agricultural life. In females who have genetic susceptibility to this disease, it is common to show gestational diabetes with the second or later pregnancy. This state is extremely prejudicial to fetal development, and constitutes a high risk pregnancy. High risk for the fetus and the mother. The baby is
In response to Brian MacLean's questions, Loren Cordain wrote:
>hunter gatherers (n=229) listed in Murdock's Ethnographic Atlas, the >median and modal values for animal food subsistence is 56-65% whereas >the median and modal value for plant food subsistence is 26-35%.
Loren, just to clarify, when these percentages are bandied about, are we referring to (1) caloric values, (2) volume, or (3) weight?
Update: Our list continues to grow, but slowly. Our grouup consists of two hundred-odd members, a majority with Ph.D.'s in various fields, a large number of the remainder being graduate students or people with Master's degrees in fields such as paleontology, biology, archaeology, etc.
I would, however, like to see our list grow to include even more members in academia or professional research. Thus I would like to encourage those of you who are professional scientists to mention the Paleodiet Symposium to your colleagues. Being added to our (completely non-commercial, non-profit, and free) mailing list is a simple matter of
I have recently investigated the Paleolithic diet literature and a number of basic issues interest and puzzle me. First, it seems that to identify with a particular lifestyle or practice, one requires a reasonable body of empirical knowledge of the aforementioned. It appears that this basic condition is not satisfied in the case of aspiring modern day Paleolithic nutritional adepts. The available information on Paleolithic peoples is so scanty that it seems specious to believe that one can follow their nutritional practices with more than a modicum of accuracy. The picture we have of contemporary hunter-gatherers suggests that few conclusions
http://www.otago.ac.nz/Anthropology/Pacific/map.html This is the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand Anthropology department's research in the Pacific. It may interest those who are researchers in Pacific peoples.
I am now working on the expanded hardcover edition of NeanderThin which will be published in the spring of 1999 by St. Martin's Press of NYC.
I have several additional chapters in mind but would like sugestions of topics from those members of this list who are familar with my work and it's current deficiencies. Potential chapter titles in Biblical style are optional!
I've been assigned the task of arranging speakers for a symposium on Indigeous Foods at the World Congress of Food Science and Technology which will be held in Sydney next October. I've decided to give it a paleolithic nutrition emphasis. I'm trying to find speakers from outside of the USA, Europe, or Australia (from which we already have numerous speakers). Would anyone on this list be aware of anyone in South America, Africa, China or SE Asia with an interest in paleolithic nutrition? If so please email me at [log in to unmask] We are primarily interested in speakers with established
From the Paleodiet Digest of 20-23 Oct., I had forwarded your email to the Food Law listserver of the Institute of Food Technologists, http://www.ift.org/
Here forwarded is a first answer from Dr. Beverly McCabe. Hope that it will be of some help to your grandson.
Hi all, I wonder if I could get your help? My grandson, now 3 months old, can't tolerate milk, so he is on soy formula. Unfortunately, he is showing some evidence of reacting to that too. I have recently heard that there is such a thing as a meat-based formula, but I can't find any information on it.
Stefansson's experiment does show that an all meat diet can sustain life for a year. But that is all; I see no other implications beyond that. Whether plaque may have formed in their blood vessels during that year or what possible longer term effects the experiment may have had are open questions.
But, my main point is this: how does any one live for a year in a hospital? What are the consequences of this virtual imprisonment? How does the induced stress of confinement and restricted activities, stimulation, and variety impact on health?
The following list of citations represents all of the scientific publications which occurred as a result of Vilhjalmur Stefansson's famous "Year Long, All Meat Diet" Experiment which was conducted at Bellvue Hospital in New York starting in January of 1928. Stefansson's diet consisted entirely of animal based food with no plant foods and contained a fat:protein energy ratio of 20% protein and 80% fat. During the year long experiment, Stefansson's serum cholesterol levels ranged from 212 mg/dl to 315mg/dl (14) with a mean value of 269 mg/dl (14). Additionally, the all meat diet caused a persistent hypercalciuria and Stefansson was
Art, you may want to review the referenced papers on the all-meat diet again. The subjects were not kept locked in prison conditions, they exercised on a regular basis, and after the first month or so Stefansson himself travelled freely about the country, while always in the company of an observer and under strict oath to eat nothing but meat.