8

votes

New M.R. Eades blog post on meat vs starch. What's your take?

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created December 19, 2011 at 10:43 PM

Dr. Eades has responded to Darrin Carlson's "Five Failings of Paleo" article, which I know has been linked and discussed here as well.

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/low-carb-diets/are-we-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-part-iii/

His argument is first presented with a thesis that the Paleo and LC/VLC labels were originally interchangeable:

Now, it seems, many who have taken to the Paleo diet have started to drift from the Paleo-is-basically-low-carb paradigm into the Paleo-is-anything-that-isn???t-Neolithic paradigm. And although Neolithic man grew all sorts of crops, most Paleo dieters consider only grains to be truly Neolithic foods. Some Paleo dieters take it a step further and argue that since pre-agricultural man couldn???t have domesticated animals (other than perhaps canids of some sort), then he couldn???t have eaten dairy products. So, those Paleo purists avoid grain and dairy products. Both the dairy and non-dairy Paleo dieters, however, are starting to include larger amounts of carbohydrates ??? primarily starch ??? into their diets on the presumption that Paleo man would have eaten it.

Then he goes into carbon dating and nitrogen dating related techniques to show how the source of carbon in human fossils must be from consumption of meat, not from starch.

The bulk of the stable isotope studies show both Neanderthals and ancient humans were, at their robust cores, meat eaters to the max. What the stable isotope studies don???t show, is how much carbohydrate these folks ate along with their meat. (Actually some stable isotope studies do show what kind of carbs in the sense that they can differentiate between grains and non-grains, but since there were no grains in Paleo times, that isn???t a concern.) But since we do know that wolves and foxes are predators that consume mainly food of animal origin, and we know that early humans have an even more carnivorous stable isotope footprint, it seems unlikely that these humans would have consumed many calories from non-animal sources.

What do you think? Is this a compelling argument?

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on September 07, 2013
at 01:28 AM

I once mentioned how when I first started on this paleo journey I ate a lot of beef, maybe 1.5 lbs per day, and started having chest pains. My iron levels are off the charts, and blood donation seemed, but even eating about 40g of protein from beef and getting a little iron from eggs, and then some less absorbable iron from plant foods is too much for me. I would die young on Eades' diet.

36ba71ea8bc4f736f4113433fde572bd

(347)

on January 07, 2012
at 12:45 PM

AndyM: sigh. Your answer is unhelpful, but, whatever. I'm just disappointed nobody seems to appreciate that the data Eades presents can be played with mathematically. Your implied judgments of me leave me a bit deflated. You don't understand what I'm doing, and instead of saying that, you say *I* don't understand what Eades is saying. I don't appreciate that.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on December 21, 2011
at 03:53 PM

I'll take your comments under advisement. As of this comment your profile states that in 19 days you've answered 150 questions, upvoted 28 and downvoted 20. No idea how much time wasted on the say-nothing comments. If you don't like my posts, ignore them and spend more time contributing something of relevance here. Other PH'ers are more than capable of assessing what I contribute for themselves. Have a nice day.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 21, 2011
at 11:05 AM

Grow up Evelyn.

2870a69b9c0c0a19a919e54cb3a62137

(1520)

on December 21, 2011
at 10:22 AM

People should get over the notion that being shredded always coincides with health. Some people are underweight due to bad high carb nutrition. Many athletes eating high carb are ripped but unhealthy. I have healthy low bf% on both high and no carb... but I sure feel healthier at the lower end.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on December 21, 2011
at 02:44 AM

@Andy, don't you have something better to do than troll people?

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on December 21, 2011
at 02:42 AM

@Rose: We don't really know how lean or fatty paleolithic ancestors to deer and such were either. But if game were abundant, then their food was too and vice versa. I doubt their diet was as low fat as the Eaton papers, but I equally doubt they sustained themselves on animals alone. Nobody seems to know for sure ...

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 21, 2011
at 01:48 AM

The point is you seem to be completely misunderstanding the point of the charts Eades presented, and then you've implemented your understanding in a way as to present a diverting but meaningless coincidence in coming to 10.4.

36ba71ea8bc4f736f4113433fde572bd

(347)

on December 21, 2011
at 01:43 AM

Melissa, how else would one reach super-predator levels of d15N without eating predators? Either we ate predators categorically like the fox, or the whole basis of Eades' post is flawed. I haven't seen anyone argue that... Also, I don't understand how we can't use the data the way I present it in the spreadsheet, looks like math to me...

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 21, 2011
at 01:42 AM

And you're not happy to speculate? He's just apply Occam. Besides that, repeating what he says doesn't seem to add anything much but thanks for pointing it out.

36ba71ea8bc4f736f4113433fde572bd

(347)

on December 21, 2011
at 01:37 AM

AndyM, the reason I published the spreadsheet was so others could try the model with different assumptions. You should be able to plug in a lower protein/higher fat ratio and see what it does to the outputs. I don't understand what you mean about isotopes and random scenarios. They aren't random, they simply illustrate the possible range of consumption that would calculate to the super-predator levels of delta-15N found.

Cf32992bfa1907147c7cdc451bba9c63

(2890)

on December 21, 2011
at 12:50 AM

Yes someone got the strangelove reference!

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on December 21, 2011
at 12:36 AM

@Andy: My point is we DON'T know, yet Eades is happy to speculate that carb intake is low. Paleo humans probably did consume a higher protein/fat ratio than many claim. The coldwater fish and mammals the Eskimos ate in that paper -- VERIFIED, not speculated -- are rather fatty, and yet the ratios come out far lower than one might imagine. (The fatty acid profile of that high fat diet is like no paleo-devotee menu I've ever seen). I'm not trying to give you info on how many carbs they ate. I'm pointing out that the stable isotope data, by Eades' admission, doesn't tell us.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on December 21, 2011
at 12:29 AM

@Rose: Regarding the Eskimo article, I think all they are saying is that the carb in their diet came from the glycogen in meat/muscle. If you're eating 4-8 lbs/day as was cited, there's gonna be a little carb in there.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on December 20, 2011
at 10:22 PM

Er, Strangelove.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on December 20, 2011
at 09:56 PM

@melissa re: the Finns'susceptibility. The Hudson's Bay Company used alcohol effectively to subdue the Plains Amerinds. Read Peter Newman's series on the HBC if you get a chance.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on December 20, 2011
at 09:48 PM

Don't forget meaty bones, and their relation to the longitudinal stiffening power of starch. This gets us back on point with the question Dr. Doogie.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 20, 2011
at 05:10 PM

And in the broadest sense I would not suggest that 700g+ of carbs is not paleo. But just as you don't want people in the future to base their diet on a lone Durainrider, nor do I think people today should base their diet on Cliff. And if I were on a website answering specific questions from people brought up on the SAD lifestyle about how to eat more paleo-ly, I would not use Cliff's experience as a starting point. I think to do so would be hugely misrepresentative of the body of argument that exists for and against various changes in lifestyle we have a common interest in.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 20, 2011
at 05:00 PM

Nothing we eat was around in the paleolithic is a historical point. I don't use paleo and good as synonymous; I say eating paleo means this to me. Being paleo doesn't particually mean much. No wonder those like KGH don't consider themselves paleo. I consider myself paleo in the broadest sense.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 20, 2011
at 04:46 PM

You see how pointless this is? You just got through saying nothing we eat is paleo, then you're asking me why something we eat isn't paleo. And then you go straight on and use being paleo and being good for someone as synonymous because, as we've both now pointed out, that's how you define it. And you're clearly not open to alternative definitions, even if it affects none of your actual opinions and would help you better understand what other people are saying.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 20, 2011
at 04:34 PM

No, you said it was not paleo. I ask you why? Can 700g not be good for someone or did no one in the paleolithic ever eat 700g? Which one is it Andy?

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 20, 2011
at 04:31 PM

What is paleo? Nothing we eat is ''paleo'' bar honey. Paleo to me just means eating the way my body functions well at and as good as I can get it. Science informs us better on what to eat and how to eat it better than what one paleolithic human ate. Will someone dig up Durainrider in 10,000 years and assume they should all eat 30 bananas a day?

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 20, 2011
at 04:30 PM

My point about your investment was that you took a comment that implied 700g+ of carbs wasn't paleo and assumed that meant there was something wrong with 700g+ of carbs. It may well have simply been a lack of comprehension or laziness on your part, but I gave you more credit than that. No worries though, we can write it off as a simple mistake.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 20, 2011
at 04:27 PM

JRAC, it's paleo by your definition, and since you believe that the label Paleo belongs to the individual there's nothing I can say which will encourage to adopt a more productive and helful attitude in the space of 600 characters. I'm not a low-carb cultist. I wasted a lot of time trying to explain to Travis that he was actually recommending fewer carbs than the 'Paleo literature' and that there wasn't some mighty schism in the movement. Still, I don't think 700g+ of carbs is going to be the best model for most people coming here for advice. Do you really have no idea why?

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 20, 2011
at 04:25 PM

I don't have anything invested in paleo. Most here wouldn't consider the way I often eat in the ''spirit of paleo''. I eat based on science not dogma. All I did is call you out on a statement clearly made as a dig at Cliff.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 20, 2011
at 04:18 PM

True yeah; most things are debated to a certain degree. Apart from the meaning of life... we know that's 42. :-)

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 20, 2011
at 04:16 PM

They change their mind all the time. The article I linked is more recent. :-)

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 20, 2011
at 04:14 PM

You claim 700g+ of carbs is not paleo. I never mentioned good or bad. Why is it not ''paleo''?

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 20, 2011
at 04:08 PM

"Most European males descended from farmers" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8467623.stm I don't think this is the last word since it seems like the consensus shifts every year

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 20, 2011
at 04:03 PM

JRAC, it's interesting to see that the people who are thought to descend mainly from refuge populations like the Finns seem to be more vulnerable to diseases of civilization from modern diets.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 20, 2011
at 04:02 PM

JRAC, my understanding is that geneticists are still arguing about where it came from.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 20, 2011
at 04:01 PM

Yeah, Cordain's papers suffer from the same arrogance, which is ignoring the local faunal remains and dealing with data from a handfull of modern game species that they plug into their consumption equations in an arbitrary way.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 20, 2011
at 03:59 PM

I think you need to look at seasonality of fat and the actual animals there were consuming, which were not American bison and carnivores like arctic fox have never been preferred game. Either way, you can't use the data in the way you are using it. Too many assumptions without data behind them.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 20, 2011
at 03:55 PM

As I said, you place a value judgement on whether a thing is 'paleo' or not, to the extent that you cannot see a difference between saying 'this is good' and 'this is paleo'. It's why most of your arguments are little more than faith-based, which is ironic given that you don't in fact subscribe to the orthodoxy.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 20, 2011
at 03:46 PM

You said ''who thinks his 700g+ carbs a day is paleo'' therefore suggesting it isn't. Now you said that not me. You seem to have the memory of a goldfish...

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 20, 2011
at 03:41 PM

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, you're the one that has so much invested in the Paleo label.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 20, 2011
at 03:26 PM

I'm not sure I'd assume all animals were as low as 10% fat. Evelyn might though. The isotope stuff is jsut a quirk of how you set up your 'random' scenarios.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 20, 2011
at 03:16 PM

That's great Ed, but what does it have to do with a discussion on the difference between pre and post productive nutrition and the impact on evolution?

36ba71ea8bc4f736f4113433fde572bd

(347)

on December 20, 2011
at 02:51 PM

Andy, exploitation precedes adaptation. We are not best adapted to donuts because they are most available right now. I don't know how long a population must eat a static diet in order to become "best adapted" to that diet, do you? I don't know how long my ancestors ate any particular diet (let alone the actual composition of that diet), do you? That my ancestors were adapted to a diet that didn't include donuts, I won't argue against that. But was it 70% protein 30% fat? 40% carb 40% fat? I don't know. And to some extent, I don't care. I care what works for me, today.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on December 20, 2011
at 02:44 PM

And I've never totally understood the glycogen-->carbohydrate in meat argument. Is that intended to be an argument against an all-meat diet, a low-carb diet, or something else? Not a snarky question; I'm genuinely curious about the point being made with that.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on December 20, 2011
at 02:43 PM

And I've never totally understood the glycogen-->carbohydrate in meat argument. Is that suTpposed to be an argument against an all-meat diet, a low-carb diet, or something else? Not a snarky question; I'm genuinely curious about what the point being made with that.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on December 20, 2011
at 02:41 PM

Elk and deer aren't eating the kinds of "herbs" that humans eat. Lots of grass, even in winter -- they'll root under the snow to find the last bits -- and they'll browse on tree needles, shrub leaves, and bark. And fat in the muscle meat ("marbling") depends on season, sex and age of the animal, but as others have pointed out, game meat contains fat in lots of other places.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 20, 2011
at 02:32 PM

Hey Andy make that two. Nothing wrong with 700g carbs.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 20, 2011
at 02:26 PM

"there's at least one poster here who claims his 700g+ carbs a day is paleo" HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 20, 2011
at 02:24 PM

I'm not sure what point you're making. No, we can't assume that herbivores ate very little, clearly they ate enough. There are arguments in every direction, most likely because there is a range of possible survival strategies. Are you arguing that paleo humans must have actually eaten a much higher protein/fat ratio. I still don't see how this gives us any more information on how many carbs they ate.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:48 PM

It all gets very complicated when you look into the details.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:16 PM

Europe wasn't abandoned in the heat (well lack of heat) of the ice ages. The native peoples moved into three refuges; Iberia, the Balkans and the Caucasus. British people (and I assume most northern and western europeans) are genetically the native hunter gatherers ( www.livescience.com/15745-british-men-hunter-gatherer-ancestors.html). How this relates to starch I don't know :-) Did our previous ability to utilise carbohydrate suddenly vanish? The isotope data tells us that the hunter gatherer in question got most of his protein from land animals. Not his macronutrient intake.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 20, 2011
at 11:57 AM

Hemochromatosis is not a particually old genetic condition (I've heard 1000 and 1500 years) most prevelant among northern europeans who are descended from hunter gatherers; not neolithic middle east farmers. I'm also very wary of calorie restriction as a means to longevity; within a species it's a higher metabolic rate that is protective of aging (perhaps due to the reduction in oxidative stress from an increased metabolic rate). A higher metabolic rate is also protective against infections and protective against cancer.

Cf32992bfa1907147c7cdc451bba9c63

(2890)

on December 20, 2011
at 08:30 AM

garymar it sounds like you have experience here. yes, seed oil is quite phallic and therefore toxic. let's also not forget that sex robs us of our precious bodily fluids.

499f188c87c6980742b9ba98caa6f563

(683)

on December 20, 2011
at 08:01 AM

don't forget industrial "seed" oils. It's right there in the name -- "seed". Sounds dirty, doesn't it?

A7768b6c6be7f5d6acc76e5efa66464c

on December 20, 2011
at 07:16 AM

"...if you run the numbers CRON might get you what, 1 more year?" Has CRON been well studied in humans for long enough to "run the numbers" and draw conclusions? And why are animals more sensitive to dietary interventions than humans? (Leaving aside that humans are animals.) I'm curious because I've been reading about CRON for longer than Paleo, and I was under the impression that it was almost totally speculative in humans, and only seen in lab animals where absolutely everything is controlled. Is it the case that the level of control is what makes animals "more sensitive?"

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on December 20, 2011
at 06:48 AM

Yeah there are lots of ways to trigger a particular gene expression. On the other hand there are some extreme dietary restrictions that just haven't been proven to be safe long-term for humans. Namely methionine restriction. I'm not going to say that low carb is unsafe long-term, but it may have downsides. The point is that triggering gene expression is all well and good, but what gets us there is important too.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 20, 2011
at 06:31 AM

Intermittent fasting seems quite promising and less torture-like.

De267f213b375efca5da07890e5efc25

(3747)

on December 20, 2011
at 06:15 AM

Yes but didn't those people migrate from Africa? Only the Neanderthals were native to Europe and they went as far south as the middle east. Maybe they didn't eat apples and bananas but they must have eaten something pretty similar. Persia was a lush place back then.

Cf32992bfa1907147c7cdc451bba9c63

(2890)

on December 20, 2011
at 04:23 AM

Final thing, there's always a compromise. You either inhibit mTOR for cancer fears or you activate it for protein synthesis and protection from breaking a hip. You either shorten telomeres or you get cancer. There's no free lunch and people who try to tell you there is are selling you something, or are planning to sell you something.

B1859f696e88d25460a6b8a333412ea3

(837)

on December 20, 2011
at 04:15 AM

What a lovely image: Paleo Eggs in the Snow.

Cf32992bfa1907147c7cdc451bba9c63

(2890)

on December 20, 2011
at 04:14 AM

Let me add that do whatever longevity research you want and realize if you don't have enough lean body mass you will fall down the stairs, break your hip, and die. Telomeres be damned.

Cf32992bfa1907147c7cdc451bba9c63

(2890)

on December 20, 2011
at 04:14 AM

Yeah... animals are more sensitive to dietary interventions than humans. CRON is the best we've got, but if you run the numbers CRON might get you what, 1 more year? I'd rather not spend my years cold and hungry for an extra year.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 20, 2011
at 03:55 AM

Yeah, I mean I'm quite interested in longevity, but a lot of the research is very preliminary and based on animal studies. You can bet on CRON or VLC for longevity, but you are at the beginning on this experiment and it's still gambling. It might be worth it if you have a history of low lifespan in your family, but which do you pick? Either way, excessive iron isn't good for your lifespan.

Cf32992bfa1907147c7cdc451bba9c63

(2890)

on December 20, 2011
at 03:28 AM

Err. Carbohydrates are not pathological in the context of poor insulin sensitivity. Do you mean that excessive carbohydrates are pathological? Why yes, but that's in the definition of excessive. Other than subjective feeling there's no health benefit to deep vs standard ketosis.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on December 20, 2011
at 03:24 AM

Quilt - I'm interested in longevity, but vitality too. If there is a good argument for a particular macronutrient ratio for longevity based on the hard science, I'll listen, but I just take issue with trying to pass anthropology off as legitimate argument. But it got us looking in the right places, didn't it?

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on December 20, 2011
at 03:22 AM

I once mentioned how when I first started on this paleo journey I ate a lot of beef, maybe 1.5 lbs per day, and started having chest pains. My iron levels are off the charts, and blood donation seemed to help a bit, but even eating about 40g of protein from beef and getting a little iron from eggs, and then some non-heme iron from plant foods is too much for me. I would die young on Eades' die For more Paleo hacks: http://paleohacks.com/questions/84651/new-m-

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on December 20, 2011
at 03:22 AM

Stabby one part of this is that few people in this community have bothered to read the longevity research.....you can claim perfect health without optimal longeivty and longevity is where the rubber meets the road. And when this community realizes what this data is pointing to they will realize what you look like naked matters little to anything resemebling what they believe to represent a perfect macronutrient template. Of course some could care less about longevity. But this aspect of the concept needs to be expanded into the primal template because aging is a neolithic novelty for man.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on December 20, 2011
at 03:18 AM

I'm also excited about more research into hemochromatosis. It is definitely an adaptation to low iron intake, but I have problems with iron and all of my ancestors are Germanic. Not sure if it's hemochromatosis, but my hemoglobin hasn't dropped after 5 blood donations.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on December 20, 2011
at 03:16 AM

Rabbit starvation reminds me of another point. Sometimes there is just no getting around circumstance genetically unless you get hundreds of millions of years. There comes a point where we aren't able to detoxify nitrogen anymore, perhaps those nearly carnivorous hunters didn't have the greatest health in the world because they had to over-rely on protein.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 20, 2011
at 03:15 AM

I'm also excited to see more mapping of genes related to hemochromatosis. Is their presence in Europe related to Neolithic population replacements? Did they come from farmers from the Middle East who settled Europe relatively late?

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 20, 2011
at 03:11 AM

Well some homo sapiens (but not all) have more starch-digesting genes than any other known primates. I'm excited to see what other genes are related to starch. It fits with the overkill model, in which hominids kill off big fatty game in some areas and start having to rely on leaner small game and thus more plant foods in order to avoid rabbit starvation.

8f8ff21a67437febebc70afd19364e95

(153)

on December 20, 2011
at 03:07 AM

And, to note more about BB and starches....many people use starches strategically post WO only. This maintains the muscle gains while they get cut up. This is a common approach for someone when they want to keep their gains. WO in the morning very heavy, eat some starches post WO only, then only protein and fat rest of day (and some people advocate low-fat on WO days...which makes some metabolic sense).

8f8ff21a67437febebc70afd19364e95

(153)

on December 20, 2011
at 03:04 AM

http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance_diet_mass/the_get_shredded_diet http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance_diet_mass/shredded_in_6_days http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance/shredded_in_six_weeks_that_is

8f8ff21a67437febebc70afd19364e95

(153)

on December 20, 2011
at 03:03 AM

Now, there are ALWAYS exceptions, like someone doing ironman cardio would probably be able to get away with it. Someone training for NFL or NBA etc. But, the majority of people would not. And to the person who said they get lean on more starches....this seems very, very dubious. I would wager you probably are able to be lean (ectomorph) no matter what you eat. Good for you. Someone who is very overweight, or looking to go from 12%-18% to 5% should probably limit carbs and starches.

8f8ff21a67437febebc70afd19364e95

(153)

on December 20, 2011
at 03:01 AM

The people that are sub 5% BF eat carbs..yes, from veggies mostly. There are people able to maintain pretty low BF while eating some starches, but the majority do not. A typical BB cycle is carb up to gain weight (the bulk) and protein/LC to cut-up before shows. Not recommending this, just saying that those who think you can get really low BF and still eat a large quantity of starches, well, the BB community wouldn't agree with it, science doesn't support this and most people would never do well on this.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on December 20, 2011
at 02:48 AM

Take it one step further. These dwellers at the edge of the ice sheet aren't paleos, but Neolithic immigrants who adapted to the available food. This group also lost their skin pigmentation and became lactose-tolerant. They didn't just hatch out of paleo eggs laid in the snow.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on December 20, 2011
at 02:40 AM

I think part of it is the complete and utter lack of actual scientific evidence that in the context of good insulin sensitivity, carbohydrates are pathological. The burden of proof is on the ones who say that the Kitavans are just-so-very-unhealthy.

Medium avatar

(39831)

on December 20, 2011
at 01:55 AM

Surely the human body can spin that straw into gold since it doesn't have to turn fat into fat. Eat some low-carb straw and you'll be laying golden eggs in no time.

Medium avatar

(39831)

on December 20, 2011
at 01:42 AM

Seems like he's shown fairly well that a dude who died in cave in England a long time ago ate a lot of meat. He keeps expanding that out to all humans however, which is a mistake. One might say "the whiter you are, the fewer carbs you probably need to eat" but I still wouldn't say that this shows that the English can't eat carbs.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 20, 2011
at 01:36 AM

Go play with your straw men elsewhere Travis.

Medium avatar

(39831)

on December 20, 2011
at 01:33 AM

I'm trying to imagine the traumatic brain injury necessary to completely dismiss all wisdom that might be considered "conventional." Good luck, you'll need it.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:59 AM

Yep, I dislike it even more in the misuse of evidence.

36ba71ea8bc4f736f4113433fde572bd

(347)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:58 AM

@Frank, Umm isn't a common figure competitor final-shred diet composed of plain oatmeal and white meat chicken? I mean, if it's "impossible" to lose fat with carbs, how do you account for that sub-5% BF crowd? (Please don't hand wake and just say it's all about the 'roids).

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:44 AM

There's still an advantage in survival of those past reproductive age for a social species. And the same logic applies, they were best adapted to what was available.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:41 AM

I don't know what you think it says about me. I am agnostic on the whole issue. I do however dislike obvious bias in the use of evidence.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:36 AM

Yes, no-one has any evidence, we cannot apply any reasoning, the science is all flawed, it is simply a matter of faith and individual experience. Still not sure how that particularly enables us to help other people.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:33 AM

What is helpful is not trying to miss-use the evidence of the past to support whatever dogma that is. If you think I hold a bias in any direction on these issues then you are mistaken.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:31 AM

What is helpful is not trying to miss-use the evidence of the past to support whatever dogma you currently believe.

7dc950fc76a046048e683d2a27dced37

on December 20, 2011
at 12:31 AM

'I don't think there is sufficient evidence to compel people who have committed themselves body and soul to a contrary vision." Yeah, that seems to go both ways tho.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:27 AM

Yup, people lose weight on pretty much all diets.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:26 AM

I don't really know where the debate over early neolithic replacement of European populations currently stands. However, if you are European and happen to be descended from some Middle-Eastern neolithic farmers then what ice-age European hunter-gatherers ate maybe rather academic.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:23 AM

Wild boar and honey is totally Cro-Magnon :) Get with the fructose...

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:20 AM

Well that says a lot about you, but I don't see how it's helpful.

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:20 AM

“Someone eating regular starchy carbs will likely NOT be able to get into low body fat range” - You guys do realize that people do actually lose weight on diets other than low-carb right? There is no need to resort to “common sense” or theoretical science. There is plenty of evidence out there.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:19 AM

Yep, it's hard to believe we're the same species. Some people will doubtless perform based on sulphur-based compounds, if only they'd try them.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:17 AM

Wild boar and honey. Totally Cro-Magnon :) Honey leaves no isotopic signature.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:16 AM

Frank, I'm gonna hafta disagree with you. I lean out the best eating lotss of starches. Everybody's different.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:12 AM

"I think a lot of effort goes into trying to justify opinions by rationalising them as fitting into the established paleo framework." I think that is exactly what Dr. Eades blog post is doing.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:10 AM

I understood it, but thanks for the condescension. I appreciate it's much easier than either engaging properly or admitting you over-reacted. But if you really believe I misunderstood you, perhaps you should try to be clearer?

C00e493393828df34be65ddc25456c7c

(610)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:05 AM

Stupid, wasted post of Eades. Yawn.

C00e493393828df34be65ddc25456c7c

(610)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:03 AM

It wasn't a post on meat vs starch at all. Thought he was weighing in on starch debate.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 19, 2011
at 11:49 PM

YOu didn't even understand my original comment, which is that Cordain and Eades were making the same kind of stupid argument.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 19, 2011
at 11:48 PM

Both the carb zealots and the LC zealots here just love the No True Scotsman stuff. "Oh it didn't work for him because he wasn't really doing it!"

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 19, 2011
at 11:48 PM

"Very different from most pork." More different than it is from an apple?! Just what argument are you so desperate to make? I was merely posing the hypothetical yet obvious counter-argument to your own throwaway comment.

8f8ff21a67437febebc70afd19364e95

(153)

on December 19, 2011
at 11:48 PM

@AndyM What do you mean? Someone eating regular starchy carbs will likely NOT be able to get into low body fat range. However, fats and protein are fine (more protein, than anything, really...fat is for satiety and taste).

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 19, 2011
at 11:45 PM

http://books.google.com/books?id=XhAqcIq_pGcC&lpg=PA116&ots=fjEWJ3bmdd&dq=indian%20smallpox%20immune%20HLA&pg=PA116#v=onepage&q&f=false

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 19, 2011
at 11:44 PM

Yes, in the end what they ate only allows us to generate hypotheses, not to know what is good. There is evidence early hominids ate cycad plants, which I will refrain from eating since they can be quite toxic. The explanation for poor immune system robustness of HGs is because of genetic diversity. I would check out 1491 and Guns, Germs, and Steel for more info. http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/06/06/10769.aspx

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 19, 2011
at 11:42 PM

It should be noted that some people don't seem to be able to sustain this diet and need to resort to carbs rather than fat in order to minimise bodyfat. This may be a discipline issue.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 19, 2011
at 11:41 PM

And what seems unlikely to you is not terribly relevant. There are all kinds of things I can't imagine eating, but there is a convincing amount of evidence that neanderthals eating things like Rosaceae-family fruits, which are rather unappetizing and most people in the modern world hardly ever notice.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 19, 2011
at 11:39 PM

And AndyM, have you ever had wild boar? Very different from most pork.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 19, 2011
at 11:39 PM

"the isotopic stuff ONLY tells us about wild boar. It doesn't say whether or not they put a nice berry sauce on the wild boar" That's not what you were saying though, that's all. Besides, it seems rather unlikely to me.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on December 19, 2011
at 11:34 PM

Few people seem to actually care about understanding the reality of the past as it can best be presently understood. All most people ever seem to care about is miss-using the past to support their preexisting biases.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on December 19, 2011
at 11:33 PM

Few people seem to actually care about understanding the reality of the past as it can best be understood. All most people every seem to care about is miss-using the past to support their preexisting biases.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 19, 2011
at 11:31 PM

"That makes it much harder to say with authority whether the adaptations of the time were preserved in the genome." well I think that's where some of the admixture with archaic northern hominids might come in, but most of the work in this area is extremely preliminary.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 19, 2011
at 11:31 PM

I don't think the label matters, and I think a lot of effort goes into trying to justify opinions by rationalising them as fitting into the established paleo framework. And low-carb is subjective, but there's at least one poster here who claims his 700g+ carbs a day is paleo. Do it if it works for you, but I do have to wonder why they need to try and justify it by speculating that they are descended from a rare subset of humanity which thrived without eating fat.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 19, 2011
at 11:30 PM

AndyM, the isotopic stuff ONLY tells us about wild boar. It doesn't say whether or not they put a nice berry sauce on the wild boar. And yes, Matthew it does make me really rather depressed. Dean, I said that Eades was using the same logic that Cordain uses with fat, but using it against carbs.

C56baa1b4f39839c018180bf63226f7d

(3499)

on December 19, 2011
at 11:30 PM

It is Eurocentric and that actually presents a bit of a problem with interpreting the data, since Europe was settled, abandoned, and then settled again in the Neolithic. That makes it much harder to say with authority whether the adaptations of the time were preserved in the genome.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on December 19, 2011
at 11:14 PM

Melissa, now that you know more about the arguments and the actual evidence do you not find these type of debates about what our ancestors ate deeply depressing?

2870a69b9c0c0a19a919e54cb3a62137

(1520)

on December 19, 2011
at 11:11 PM

Plus he doesn't exactly say to avoid high fat intake.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 19, 2011
at 11:08 PM

Well the argument would be that if they ate wild boar, one might more reasonably suggest that a modern-day replacement should be pig rather than apples.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on December 19, 2011
at 11:08 PM

So if it is not low-carb its not paleo? :S

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on December 19, 2011
at 11:06 PM

It was very Eurocentric.

2870a69b9c0c0a19a919e54cb3a62137

(1520)

on December 19, 2011
at 11:01 PM

Same argument by Cordain: http://youtu.be/5dw1MuD9EP4?t=20m50s

Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

13 Answers

11
Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on December 20, 2011
at 03:03 AM

The big flaw of this sort of argument for low carb diets is all of the assumptions that aren't in accordance with evolutionary theory. Supposing that we were mostly hunters for a long time, that probably means that we can consume meat healthfully. But does it mean that we lost our ability to run on carbohydrates healthfully? Somewhere in our past we ate a lot of fruit and tubers, and then became more meat-centric. So these genes for living off of carbs would still be in the genome. The assumption that we ever stopped expressing them is untenable, and furthermore, even if we did lose them, old genes that haven't predominated in a while can easily be selected for again in a short time with the right kind of selection pressure: the new carb-centric agricultural diet. I'm not saying that this did happen, but I don't see how people could say that it didn't either.

The paleo principle makes sense in one aspect that I can identify so far. If there has been something introduced into the diet that we have never ever seen in our evolutionary history, like trans fats, then we can be very suspicious that it might be bad for us, particularly if it has an obvious toxic feature, like grains. We can't say that it is, but we can hypothesize it and be extra critical of this new food. No macronutrient is evolutionarily novel.

I'm pretty sure that we're not biologically vegetarians. But how close to vegetarians can we get without hazard to health?

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 20, 2011
at 03:11 AM

Well some homo sapiens (but not all) have more starch-digesting genes than any other known primates. I'm excited to see what other genes are related to starch. It fits with the overkill model, in which hominids kill off big fatty game in some areas and start having to rely on leaner small game and thus more plant foods in order to avoid rabbit starvation.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 20, 2011
at 04:18 PM

True yeah; most things are debated to a certain degree. Apart from the meaning of life... we know that's 42. :-)

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 20, 2011
at 06:31 AM

Intermittent fasting seems quite promising and less torture-like.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on December 20, 2011
at 03:22 AM

Stabby one part of this is that few people in this community have bothered to read the longevity research.....you can claim perfect health without optimal longeivty and longevity is where the rubber meets the road. And when this community realizes what this data is pointing to they will realize what you look like naked matters little to anything resemebling what they believe to represent a perfect macronutrient template. Of course some could care less about longevity. But this aspect of the concept needs to be expanded into the primal template because aging is a neolithic novelty for man.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 20, 2011
at 03:15 AM

I'm also excited to see more mapping of genes related to hemochromatosis. Is their presence in Europe related to Neolithic population replacements? Did they come from farmers from the Middle East who settled Europe relatively late?

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on December 20, 2011
at 03:22 AM

I once mentioned how when I first started on this paleo journey I ate a lot of beef, maybe 1.5 lbs per day, and started having chest pains. My iron levels are off the charts, and blood donation seemed to help a bit, but even eating about 40g of protein from beef and getting a little iron from eggs, and then some non-heme iron from plant foods is too much for me. I would die young on Eades' die For more Paleo hacks: http://paleohacks.com/questions/84651/new-m-

A7768b6c6be7f5d6acc76e5efa66464c

on December 20, 2011
at 07:16 AM

"...if you run the numbers CRON might get you what, 1 more year?" Has CRON been well studied in humans for long enough to "run the numbers" and draw conclusions? And why are animals more sensitive to dietary interventions than humans? (Leaving aside that humans are animals.) I'm curious because I've been reading about CRON for longer than Paleo, and I was under the impression that it was almost totally speculative in humans, and only seen in lab animals where absolutely everything is controlled. Is it the case that the level of control is what makes animals "more sensitive?"

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on December 20, 2011
at 03:24 AM

Quilt - I'm interested in longevity, but vitality too. If there is a good argument for a particular macronutrient ratio for longevity based on the hard science, I'll listen, but I just take issue with trying to pass anthropology off as legitimate argument. But it got us looking in the right places, didn't it?

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on December 20, 2011
at 06:48 AM

Yeah there are lots of ways to trigger a particular gene expression. On the other hand there are some extreme dietary restrictions that just haven't been proven to be safe long-term for humans. Namely methionine restriction. I'm not going to say that low carb is unsafe long-term, but it may have downsides. The point is that triggering gene expression is all well and good, but what gets us there is important too.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 20, 2011
at 04:02 PM

JRAC, my understanding is that geneticists are still arguing about where it came from.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on September 07, 2013
at 01:28 AM

I once mentioned how when I first started on this paleo journey I ate a lot of beef, maybe 1.5 lbs per day, and started having chest pains. My iron levels are off the charts, and blood donation seemed, but even eating about 40g of protein from beef and getting a little iron from eggs, and then some less absorbable iron from plant foods is too much for me. I would die young on Eades' diet.

Cf32992bfa1907147c7cdc451bba9c63

(2890)

on December 20, 2011
at 04:14 AM

Let me add that do whatever longevity research you want and realize if you don't have enough lean body mass you will fall down the stairs, break your hip, and die. Telomeres be damned.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on December 20, 2011
at 03:16 AM

Rabbit starvation reminds me of another point. Sometimes there is just no getting around circumstance genetically unless you get hundreds of millions of years. There comes a point where we aren't able to detoxify nitrogen anymore, perhaps those nearly carnivorous hunters didn't have the greatest health in the world because they had to over-rely on protein.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on December 20, 2011
at 03:18 AM

I'm also excited about more research into hemochromatosis. It is definitely an adaptation to low iron intake, but I have problems with iron and all of my ancestors are Germanic. Not sure if it's hemochromatosis, but my hemoglobin hasn't dropped after 5 blood donations.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 20, 2011
at 03:55 AM

Yeah, I mean I'm quite interested in longevity, but a lot of the research is very preliminary and based on animal studies. You can bet on CRON or VLC for longevity, but you are at the beginning on this experiment and it's still gambling. It might be worth it if you have a history of low lifespan in your family, but which do you pick? Either way, excessive iron isn't good for your lifespan.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 20, 2011
at 11:57 AM

Hemochromatosis is not a particually old genetic condition (I've heard 1000 and 1500 years) most prevelant among northern europeans who are descended from hunter gatherers; not neolithic middle east farmers. I'm also very wary of calorie restriction as a means to longevity; within a species it's a higher metabolic rate that is protective of aging (perhaps due to the reduction in oxidative stress from an increased metabolic rate). A higher metabolic rate is also protective against infections and protective against cancer.

Cf32992bfa1907147c7cdc451bba9c63

(2890)

on December 20, 2011
at 04:23 AM

Final thing, there's always a compromise. You either inhibit mTOR for cancer fears or you activate it for protein synthesis and protection from breaking a hip. You either shorten telomeres or you get cancer. There's no free lunch and people who try to tell you there is are selling you something, or are planning to sell you something.

Cf32992bfa1907147c7cdc451bba9c63

(2890)

on December 20, 2011
at 04:14 AM

Yeah... animals are more sensitive to dietary interventions than humans. CRON is the best we've got, but if you run the numbers CRON might get you what, 1 more year? I'd rather not spend my years cold and hungry for an extra year.

10
9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 19, 2011
at 11:02 PM

It's kind of hard to see how the post says much of anything. I think most of us already accept that early humans got their protein from animals, not tofu and wild rice cakes, which is exactly what the isotope studies tell us. Unfortunately, they don't tell us how much protein they ate nor what proportion of the diet it was, which at least Eades admits. In order to figure out the rest of the diet (the fat and carbs), we are stuck with analyzing animal/fish bones and looking at relevant climate and botanical data, which are methods that are pretty limited in accuracy, but at least can give us an idea of what was available. I think this is where Eades (and others) show their limits, but part of the fault is that there isn't much collaboration between the archeologists that specialize in animal remains, those that specialize in hominid bones, and paleobotanists.

I disagree for a couple of reasons. First, we can be pretty certain what our European ancestors didn???t eat. They didn???t eat dwarf wheat, Red Delicious apples, bananas, Bartlett pears or any other hybridized or tropical fruits commonly available today. As far as we know, there were no Paleo Luther Burbanks grafting and hybridizing plants to make them bigger and sweeter. Our predecessors would have eaten whatever plant foods were at hand, which is pretty much what you still find if you go out in the woods today. They would have had to battle the birds and other wildlife to get to these fruits, and would have had them available only seasonally.

First of all, this is Eurocentric and while I am quite interested in the idea that northerly groups of people might have some special metabolic adaptations to their diet, so far it's just conjecture. Second, it underemphasizes the immense diversity of plants available, most of which a modern American wouldn't think to eat and many of which are available year round, even in cold climates, and some of which humans don't compete with animals for because they require grinding/cooking/leaching or other advanced processing methods to render edible.

And so what if they didn't eat apples? They didn't eat beef or pork either. It's the same argument Cordain uses when he says to avoid high intakes of fat.

So TLDR: the archeological evidence shows that early hominids ate animal protein + some unknown combination of animal/plant fats and plant carbohydrates.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:48 PM

It all gets very complicated when you look into the details.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:10 AM

I understood it, but thanks for the condescension. I appreciate it's much easier than either engaging properly or admitting you over-reacted. But if you really believe I misunderstood you, perhaps you should try to be clearer?

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 19, 2011
at 11:39 PM

And AndyM, have you ever had wild boar? Very different from most pork.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on December 19, 2011
at 11:14 PM

Melissa, now that you know more about the arguments and the actual evidence do you not find these type of debates about what our ancestors ate deeply depressing?

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 19, 2011
at 11:30 PM

AndyM, the isotopic stuff ONLY tells us about wild boar. It doesn't say whether or not they put a nice berry sauce on the wild boar. And yes, Matthew it does make me really rather depressed. Dean, I said that Eades was using the same logic that Cordain uses with fat, but using it against carbs.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 19, 2011
at 11:48 PM

"Very different from most pork." More different than it is from an apple?! Just what argument are you so desperate to make? I was merely posing the hypothetical yet obvious counter-argument to your own throwaway comment.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 19, 2011
at 11:39 PM

"the isotopic stuff ONLY tells us about wild boar. It doesn't say whether or not they put a nice berry sauce on the wild boar" That's not what you were saying though, that's all. Besides, it seems rather unlikely to me.

C56baa1b4f39839c018180bf63226f7d

(3499)

on December 19, 2011
at 11:30 PM

It is Eurocentric and that actually presents a bit of a problem with interpreting the data, since Europe was settled, abandoned, and then settled again in the Neolithic. That makes it much harder to say with authority whether the adaptations of the time were preserved in the genome.

C00e493393828df34be65ddc25456c7c

(610)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:05 AM

Stupid, wasted post of Eades. Yawn.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on December 19, 2011
at 11:33 PM

Few people seem to actually care about understanding the reality of the past as it can best be understood. All most people every seem to care about is miss-using the past to support their preexisting biases.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:17 AM

Wild boar and honey. Totally Cro-Magnon :) Honey leaves no isotopic signature.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on December 19, 2011
at 11:06 PM

It was very Eurocentric.

2870a69b9c0c0a19a919e54cb3a62137

(1520)

on December 19, 2011
at 11:11 PM

Plus he doesn't exactly say to avoid high fat intake.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:23 AM

Wild boar and honey is totally Cro-Magnon :) Get with the fructose...

De267f213b375efca5da07890e5efc25

(3747)

on December 20, 2011
at 06:15 AM

Yes but didn't those people migrate from Africa? Only the Neanderthals were native to Europe and they went as far south as the middle east. Maybe they didn't eat apples and bananas but they must have eaten something pretty similar. Persia was a lush place back then.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 19, 2011
at 11:31 PM

"That makes it much harder to say with authority whether the adaptations of the time were preserved in the genome." well I think that's where some of the admixture with archaic northern hominids might come in, but most of the work in this area is extremely preliminary.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 19, 2011
at 11:08 PM

Well the argument would be that if they ate wild boar, one might more reasonably suggest that a modern-day replacement should be pig rather than apples.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 19, 2011
at 11:49 PM

YOu didn't even understand my original comment, which is that Cordain and Eades were making the same kind of stupid argument.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on December 19, 2011
at 11:34 PM

Few people seem to actually care about understanding the reality of the past as it can best be presently understood. All most people ever seem to care about is miss-using the past to support their preexisting biases.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 19, 2011
at 11:41 PM

And what seems unlikely to you is not terribly relevant. There are all kinds of things I can't imagine eating, but there is a convincing amount of evidence that neanderthals eating things like Rosaceae-family fruits, which are rather unappetizing and most people in the modern world hardly ever notice.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:26 AM

I don't really know where the debate over early neolithic replacement of European populations currently stands. However, if you are European and happen to be descended from some Middle-Eastern neolithic farmers then what ice-age European hunter-gatherers ate maybe rather academic.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 20, 2011
at 04:08 PM

"Most European males descended from farmers" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8467623.stm I don't think this is the last word since it seems like the consensus shifts every year

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 20, 2011
at 04:03 PM

JRAC, it's interesting to see that the people who are thought to descend mainly from refuge populations like the Finns seem to be more vulnerable to diseases of civilization from modern diets.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 20, 2011
at 04:16 PM

They change their mind all the time. The article I linked is more recent. :-)

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:16 PM

Europe wasn't abandoned in the heat (well lack of heat) of the ice ages. The native peoples moved into three refuges; Iberia, the Balkans and the Caucasus. British people (and I assume most northern and western europeans) are genetically the native hunter gatherers ( www.livescience.com/15745-british-men-hunter-gatherer-ancestors.html). How this relates to starch I don't know :-) Did our previous ability to utilise carbohydrate suddenly vanish? The isotope data tells us that the hunter gatherer in question got most of his protein from land animals. Not his macronutrient intake.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on December 20, 2011
at 09:56 PM

@melissa re: the Finns'susceptibility. The Hudson's Bay Company used alcohol effectively to subdue the Plains Amerinds. Read Peter Newman's series on the HBC if you get a chance.

9
Cf32992bfa1907147c7cdc451bba9c63

on December 20, 2011
at 03:26 AM

I am 21 years old. For the majority of my life I was a virgin. During these years I was certainly my happiest, most carefree, and healthiest.

Recently, in the last 2 years, I have developed a couple non-trivial medical problems (not related to STDs). Strange, is it not, that this aligns closely with the end of my virginity.

For the vast majority of my life I was adapted to not having sex. My n=1 experience says sex causes medical problems. Prompted by this revelation, I decided to dig deeper.

You see, my friends, I discovered that sex is a postpubescent agent of disease

Consider!, if you will, the majority of our evolution. Originally, we arose erratically as reproducing molecules, eventually coalescing into prokaryotic cells. Finally we developed nuclei, engulfed some of our ancestors to develop mitochondria, and lastly we developed sexual reproduction. For the majority of our evolution we did not have sexual reproduction!

Some more points for the nonbelievers!

  1. I also weighed significantly less when I was a virgin (if you average across all years). The conclusion therefore is that sex lowers leptin quantum sensiquackery... err sensitivity. Or perhaps sex makes me insulin resistant? (Never mind the fact that insulin resistance is a pathology that develops to oppose gaining fat). Furthermore, let me point out that my sex is short and hard, HIIT if you will, no chronic cardio for me! This should raise insulin sensitivity and provide a hyooge HGH pulse to make me shed the fat. Not so, as sex is evil.

  2. Sexual reproduction leads to every other thing hated by a majority of paleos. Gluten? Comes from wheat, and you had better believe wheat has sex. Dairy? Meant to help a newborn calf, conceived via the SEX. Nuts? Direct sexual imagery.

  3. The reason we have mitochondrial leptin dysfunctionosmolarity is because mitochondria came form prokaryotes, and were not adapted to having sex!!!

Try my sex reset and I gaurantee you will lose weight. We need to recycle your diurnal sexual rhythmobalance.

First, you cannot have sex (with humans). Instead, you must spend time pleasuring your meals instead of eating. After mating with a few steaks instead of eating them, I gaurantee you that you'll lose weight.

Second, you must avoid all insulin spikes/pulses, as a pulse is clearly a phallic symbol and therefore sexual.

Stay tuned for an explanation of why this works.

Conciliator MD, PhD, Neuro-macgyver.

Cf32992bfa1907147c7cdc451bba9c63

(2890)

on December 20, 2011
at 08:30 AM

garymar it sounds like you have experience here. yes, seed oil is quite phallic and therefore toxic. let's also not forget that sex robs us of our precious bodily fluids.

499f188c87c6980742b9ba98caa6f563

(683)

on December 20, 2011
at 08:01 AM

don't forget industrial "seed" oils. It's right there in the name -- "seed". Sounds dirty, doesn't it?

Medium avatar

(10611)

on December 20, 2011
at 09:48 PM

Don't forget meaty bones, and their relation to the longitudinal stiffening power of starch. This gets us back on point with the question Dr. Doogie.

Cf32992bfa1907147c7cdc451bba9c63

(2890)

on December 21, 2011
at 12:50 AM

Yes someone got the strangelove reference!

Medium avatar

(10611)

on December 20, 2011
at 10:22 PM

Er, Strangelove.

9
8f8ff21a67437febebc70afd19364e95

(153)

on December 19, 2011
at 11:36 PM

He's right, for what the post is saying. Though, as others noted, it is Eurocentric. From my research and N=1 testing on myself and my wife (I'm of European decent, she is African), I am very sensitive to carbs, she is not. I use starches to gain weight when I want to get bigger, and she can eat them much more than I (and in our blood sugar testing, she is much less effected than I am as well).

However, that being said, it is VERY likely from all the research we've done that an optimal diet includes starches, just not that many. However, if one is looking to get very, very lean...no matter the person or ethnicity, no starches should be used. This is just common sense coupled with science.

So, bottom line, know your goals. If you are going for optimal nutrition and don't care what you look like, include starches. If you are going for lean or low body fat, no starches (except for you carb refeed days...I have one every 14 days as I try to get pretty shredded).

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:27 AM

Yup, people lose weight on pretty much all diets.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 19, 2011
at 11:42 PM

It should be noted that some people don't seem to be able to sustain this diet and need to resort to carbs rather than fat in order to minimise bodyfat. This may be a discipline issue.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:19 AM

Yep, it's hard to believe we're the same species. Some people will doubtless perform based on sulphur-based compounds, if only they'd try them.

8f8ff21a67437febebc70afd19364e95

(153)

on December 19, 2011
at 11:48 PM

@AndyM What do you mean? Someone eating regular starchy carbs will likely NOT be able to get into low body fat range. However, fats and protein are fine (more protein, than anything, really...fat is for satiety and taste).

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 19, 2011
at 11:48 PM

Both the carb zealots and the LC zealots here just love the No True Scotsman stuff. "Oh it didn't work for him because he wasn't really doing it!"

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:16 AM

Frank, I'm gonna hafta disagree with you. I lean out the best eating lotss of starches. Everybody's different.

36ba71ea8bc4f736f4113433fde572bd

(347)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:58 AM

@Frank, Umm isn't a common figure competitor final-shred diet composed of plain oatmeal and white meat chicken? I mean, if it's "impossible" to lose fat with carbs, how do you account for that sub-5% BF crowd? (Please don't hand wake and just say it's all about the 'roids).

8f8ff21a67437febebc70afd19364e95

(153)

on December 20, 2011
at 03:04 AM

http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance_diet_mass/the_get_shredded_diet http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance_diet_mass/shredded_in_6_days http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance/shredded_in_six_weeks_that_is

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:20 AM

“Someone eating regular starchy carbs will likely NOT be able to get into low body fat range” - You guys do realize that people do actually lose weight on diets other than low-carb right? There is no need to resort to “common sense” or theoretical science. There is plenty of evidence out there.

8f8ff21a67437febebc70afd19364e95

(153)

on December 20, 2011
at 03:01 AM

The people that are sub 5% BF eat carbs..yes, from veggies mostly. There are people able to maintain pretty low BF while eating some starches, but the majority do not. A typical BB cycle is carb up to gain weight (the bulk) and protein/LC to cut-up before shows. Not recommending this, just saying that those who think you can get really low BF and still eat a large quantity of starches, well, the BB community wouldn't agree with it, science doesn't support this and most people would never do well on this.

8f8ff21a67437febebc70afd19364e95

(153)

on December 20, 2011
at 03:07 AM

And, to note more about BB and starches....many people use starches strategically post WO only. This maintains the muscle gains while they get cut up. This is a common approach for someone when they want to keep their gains. WO in the morning very heavy, eat some starches post WO only, then only protein and fat rest of day (and some people advocate low-fat on WO days...which makes some metabolic sense).

8f8ff21a67437febebc70afd19364e95

(153)

on December 20, 2011
at 03:03 AM

Now, there are ALWAYS exceptions, like someone doing ironman cardio would probably be able to get away with it. Someone training for NFL or NBA etc. But, the majority of people would not. And to the person who said they get lean on more starches....this seems very, very dubious. I would wager you probably are able to be lean (ectomorph) no matter what you eat. Good for you. Someone who is very overweight, or looking to go from 12%-18% to 5% should probably limit carbs and starches.

2870a69b9c0c0a19a919e54cb3a62137

(1520)

on December 21, 2011
at 10:22 AM

People should get over the notion that being shredded always coincides with health. Some people are underweight due to bad high carb nutrition. Many athletes eating high carb are ripped but unhealthy. I have healthy low bf% on both high and no carb... but I sure feel healthier at the lower end.

5
24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on December 20, 2011
at 02:05 PM

From Eades' post, emphasis mine:

???the European Neanderthal diet indicates that although physiologically they were presumably omnivores, they behaved as carnivores, with animal protein being the main source of dietary protein.

...The bulk of the stable isotope studies show both Neanderthals and ancient humans were, at their robust cores, meat eaters to the max. What the stable isotope studies don???t show, is how much carbohydrate these folks ate along with their meat. (Actually some stable isotope studies do show what kind of carbs in the sense that they can differentiate between grains and non-grains, but since there were no grains in Paleo times, that isn???t a concern.) But since we do know that wolves and foxes are predators that consume mainly food of animal origin, and we know that early humans have an even more carnivorous stable isotope footprint, it seems unlikely that these humans would have consumed many calories from non-animal sources. Remember, natural sources of protein are virtually always associated with fat (copious amounts of fat if the protein is from large game and the entire carcass is consumed), so it???s doubtful there would be either the capacity or the necessity for complementing the basic diet of fat and protein with much carbohydrate. But, nonetheless, even if our ancient ancestors did eat some carbs they could scrounge while in season, the stable isotope evidence clearly demonstrates they were not vegetarians.

The thing about hunting something to extinction, is that it's no longer a food source. Even eating modern marbled meats and poultry, Eades still suggests tucking butter under the skin of chicken thighs. Those Mangalista piggies he's so fond of were bred and fed to be fat. If these paleo humans ate very little starch, can we at least assume that most of their prey also ate very little as well? That they were "grass fed", and there wasn't a whole lot of fat on these animals, even if Grok ate all the guts and such to boot.

It's odd how he mentions Cordain, he is referenced in the classic Eaton papers (The ancestral human diet: what was it and should it be a paradigm for contemporary nutrition? and Paleolithic nutrition revisited: A twelve-year retrospective on its nature and implications and so often cited by low carbers. The Eaton works do not seem to indicate a "high fat" diet. Paleo macro ratios are closer to Zone than VLCHF in those papers. The table below is from the second paper:

new-m.r.-eades-blog-post-on-meat-vs-starch.-what's-your-take?

I wonder how these sources all settle out. Did Cordain have any sort of a revelation in the cafe with Eades?

I just posted this link over in the comments about Eskimos whose diets we CAN know with certainty: http://www.jbc.org/content/80/2/461.full.pdf ???According to their data the average daily food partition is about 280 gm. of protein, 135 gm. of fat, and 54 gm. of carbohydrate of which the bulk is derived from the glycogen of the meat eaten.???

Anyone else notice that the 6 Week Cure has done a disappearing act on his blog? LOL!

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 20, 2011
at 02:24 PM

I'm not sure what point you're making. No, we can't assume that herbivores ate very little, clearly they ate enough. There are arguments in every direction, most likely because there is a range of possible survival strategies. Are you arguing that paleo humans must have actually eaten a much higher protein/fat ratio. I still don't see how this gives us any more information on how many carbs they ate.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 20, 2011
at 04:01 PM

Yeah, Cordain's papers suffer from the same arrogance, which is ignoring the local faunal remains and dealing with data from a handfull of modern game species that they plug into their consumption equations in an arbitrary way.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on December 20, 2011
at 02:44 PM

And I've never totally understood the glycogen-->carbohydrate in meat argument. Is that intended to be an argument against an all-meat diet, a low-carb diet, or something else? Not a snarky question; I'm genuinely curious about the point being made with that.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on December 21, 2011
at 02:44 AM

@Andy, don't you have something better to do than troll people?

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on December 20, 2011
at 02:43 PM

And I've never totally understood the glycogen-->carbohydrate in meat argument. Is that suTpposed to be an argument against an all-meat diet, a low-carb diet, or something else? Not a snarky question; I'm genuinely curious about what the point being made with that.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on December 20, 2011
at 02:41 PM

Elk and deer aren't eating the kinds of "herbs" that humans eat. Lots of grass, even in winter -- they'll root under the snow to find the last bits -- and they'll browse on tree needles, shrub leaves, and bark. And fat in the muscle meat ("marbling") depends on season, sex and age of the animal, but as others have pointed out, game meat contains fat in lots of other places.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on December 21, 2011
at 12:29 AM

@Rose: Regarding the Eskimo article, I think all they are saying is that the carb in their diet came from the glycogen in meat/muscle. If you're eating 4-8 lbs/day as was cited, there's gonna be a little carb in there.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 21, 2011
at 01:42 AM

And you're not happy to speculate? He's just apply Occam. Besides that, repeating what he says doesn't seem to add anything much but thanks for pointing it out.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on December 21, 2011
at 02:42 AM

@Rose: We don't really know how lean or fatty paleolithic ancestors to deer and such were either. But if game were abundant, then their food was too and vice versa. I doubt their diet was as low fat as the Eaton papers, but I equally doubt they sustained themselves on animals alone. Nobody seems to know for sure ...

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 21, 2011
at 11:05 AM

Grow up Evelyn.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on December 21, 2011
at 12:36 AM

@Andy: My point is we DON'T know, yet Eades is happy to speculate that carb intake is low. Paleo humans probably did consume a higher protein/fat ratio than many claim. The coldwater fish and mammals the Eskimos ate in that paper -- VERIFIED, not speculated -- are rather fatty, and yet the ratios come out far lower than one might imagine. (The fatty acid profile of that high fat diet is like no paleo-devotee menu I've ever seen). I'm not trying to give you info on how many carbs they ate. I'm pointing out that the stable isotope data, by Eades' admission, doesn't tell us.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on December 21, 2011
at 03:53 PM

I'll take your comments under advisement. As of this comment your profile states that in 19 days you've answered 150 questions, upvoted 28 and downvoted 20. No idea how much time wasted on the say-nothing comments. If you don't like my posts, ignore them and spend more time contributing something of relevance here. Other PH'ers are more than capable of assessing what I contribute for themselves. Have a nice day.

5
96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on December 20, 2011
at 03:35 AM

I find the speculation about what our ancestors ate fascinating. But since the planet is very diverse in terrain and climate, I don't think we should be surprised that humans have adapted in diverse ways.

I'm totally convinced that Dr Eades speaks correctly about me, because my genes are a mixture of at least 3 far-northern countries. So yes, I thrive on meat and like greens and fruit (even if my ancestors only had it in season) and I like rutabaga better than sweet potato. To the extent that I know, all my blood relatives appear to prefer a similar diet.

But the arguments left me confused--where's the data from African, Middle Eastern and Asian bones? Since those places are both warmer and were more heavily populated even in the paleolithic, we can't assume isotopes will tell the same story. After all, maybe the meat-eaters were the ones who left and the carb eaters were the ones who stayed--with the "half & half" folks well represented in many areas as well?

4
499f188c87c6980742b9ba98caa6f563

(683)

on December 20, 2011
at 02:27 AM

I appreciate the explanation Eades provided about using isotopes to distinguish between terrestrial and marine sources of animal food. I'd never heard that before.

1
36ba71ea8bc4f736f4113433fde572bd

(347)

on December 20, 2011
at 02:47 PM

Eades Carnivory Analysis Spreadsheet (Google Docs)

A point that bears repeating is that this provides data around the source of protein, not the percent of protein -- or any other macronutrient -- in the diet. That said, I put together a spreadsheet to play around with it all.

I took the bar charts from the first slide from Eades' post and using an image editor, figured out their heights, and so figured their delta-15N. Then, I combined plant protein, bison protein, and arctic fox protein in a hypothetical fashion to look at the range of protein sources. We end up with a table like this:

      Percent of dietary protein
Scenario  Plant  Bison  Arctic Fox
   1        0%    87%      13%
   2        5%    76%      19%
   3       10%    65%      25%
   4       15%    54%      31%
   5       20%    43%      37%
   6       25%    32%      43%
   7       30%    21%      49%
   8       35%    10%      55%

So in scenario 1, if one consumes no plant protein, 87% of their protein from bison, and 13% of their protein from arctic fox, then one would end up with a delta-15N of 10.4. All 8 of those scenarios result in a delta-15N for the consumer of 10.4.

Then if you plug in some assumptions for macronutrient composition by food source, you can come up with estimates for a range of macronutrient consumption. With my assumptions, I end up with pretty wonky data. I end up with this table for the above 8 scenarios:

      Percent of calories
Scenario  Carb  Protein  Fat
   1        1%    79%    20%
   2        5%    76%    19%
   3       10%    72%    18%
   4       14%    69%    17%
   5       19%    65%    16%
   6       23%    62%    15%
   7       28%    58%    14%
   8       32%    55%    13%

In all cases, the protein looks awful high to me.

So, I'm sure I'm wrong about my assumptions, or something. But that's why I've published my spreadsheet on Google Docs. Please feel free to take it and mangle it how you wish and put your results out there if you'd like.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Akqazlc7cJytdF9FN3IzRzE2ZG1OZ2J2aGo5X0JMTFE

Ed

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 20, 2011
at 03:26 PM

I'm not sure I'd assume all animals were as low as 10% fat. Evelyn might though. The isotope stuff is jsut a quirk of how you set up your 'random' scenarios.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 20, 2011
at 03:59 PM

I think you need to look at seasonality of fat and the actual animals there were consuming, which were not American bison and carnivores like arctic fox have never been preferred game. Either way, you can't use the data in the way you are using it. Too many assumptions without data behind them.

36ba71ea8bc4f736f4113433fde572bd

(347)

on December 21, 2011
at 01:43 AM

Melissa, how else would one reach super-predator levels of d15N without eating predators? Either we ate predators categorically like the fox, or the whole basis of Eades' post is flawed. I haven't seen anyone argue that... Also, I don't understand how we can't use the data the way I present it in the spreadsheet, looks like math to me...

36ba71ea8bc4f736f4113433fde572bd

(347)

on December 21, 2011
at 01:37 AM

AndyM, the reason I published the spreadsheet was so others could try the model with different assumptions. You should be able to plug in a lower protein/higher fat ratio and see what it does to the outputs. I don't understand what you mean about isotopes and random scenarios. They aren't random, they simply illustrate the possible range of consumption that would calculate to the super-predator levels of delta-15N found.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 21, 2011
at 01:48 AM

The point is you seem to be completely misunderstanding the point of the charts Eades presented, and then you've implemented your understanding in a way as to present a diverting but meaningless coincidence in coming to 10.4.

36ba71ea8bc4f736f4113433fde572bd

(347)

on January 07, 2012
at 12:45 PM

AndyM: sigh. Your answer is unhelpful, but, whatever. I'm just disappointed nobody seems to appreciate that the data Eades presents can be played with mathematically. Your implied judgments of me leave me a bit deflated. You don't understand what I'm doing, and instead of saying that, you say *I* don't understand what Eades is saying. I don't appreciate that.

1
4a7929c2aa05bf11349d9e55cb542d47

on December 20, 2011
at 04:11 AM

The focus on what people ate and when is not terribly helpful until we have a lot more data points. Knowing what a tribe ate is an anecdote. Humans evolved over hundreds of thousands of years across diverse geographies and climates. The food supply would be frequently changing, and local adaptations that thrived could be less optimal, yet still persist in the genome, even as food scarcity drove diets in a different direction. That means we may be adapted to eat more foods than just what was available to Grok. Maybe not, but my point is that based on what we do know, we can't conclude that eating a certain diet is backed up by ancestral record.

1
77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on December 19, 2011
at 11:32 PM

My first thought is the old "but what is optimal in the post reproductive years?" And I'd like an explanation of the non-robustness of HGs that met up with early agriculture financed explorers. Why couldn't their robust immune systems fight off novel diseases? I'm not falling face first in carbs but I am compelled by PHD to include some for better immune sys response.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:44 AM

There's still an advantage in survival of those past reproductive age for a social species. And the same logic applies, they were best adapted to what was available.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 19, 2011
at 11:45 PM

http://books.google.com/books?id=XhAqcIq_pGcC&lpg=PA116&ots=fjEWJ3bmdd&dq=indian%20smallpox%20immune%20HLA&pg=PA116#v=onepage&q&f=false

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 20, 2011
at 03:16 PM

That's great Ed, but what does it have to do with a discussion on the difference between pre and post productive nutrition and the impact on evolution?

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on December 19, 2011
at 11:44 PM

Yes, in the end what they ate only allows us to generate hypotheses, not to know what is good. There is evidence early hominids ate cycad plants, which I will refrain from eating since they can be quite toxic. The explanation for poor immune system robustness of HGs is because of genetic diversity. I would check out 1491 and Guns, Germs, and Steel for more info. http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/06/06/10769.aspx

36ba71ea8bc4f736f4113433fde572bd

(347)

on December 20, 2011
at 02:51 PM

Andy, exploitation precedes adaptation. We are not best adapted to donuts because they are most available right now. I don't know how long a population must eat a static diet in order to become "best adapted" to that diet, do you? I don't know how long my ancestors ate any particular diet (let alone the actual composition of that diet), do you? That my ancestors were adapted to a diet that didn't include donuts, I won't argue against that. But was it 70% protein 30% fat? 40% carb 40% fat? I don't know. And to some extent, I don't care. I care what works for me, today.

1
Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 19, 2011
at 11:06 PM

I don't think there is sufficient evidence to compel people who have committed themselves body and soul to a contrary vision. All the arguments I hear for significantly increasing carbs seem to be rooted in the same philosophy as the conventional wisdom that brought us here over the last few decades. I can only really think that people who are heading that way never really understood paleo as an idea, and don't know why they insist on describing their lifestyle as paleo. Not that it matters either way, but it does get quite confusing.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 20, 2011
at 01:36 AM

Go play with your straw men elsewhere Travis.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:12 AM

"I think a lot of effort goes into trying to justify opinions by rationalising them as fitting into the established paleo framework." I think that is exactly what Dr. Eades blog post is doing.

Medium avatar

(39831)

on December 20, 2011
at 01:55 AM

Surely the human body can spin that straw into gold since it doesn't have to turn fat into fat. Eat some low-carb straw and you'll be laying golden eggs in no time.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:31 AM

What is helpful is not trying to miss-use the evidence of the past to support whatever dogma you currently believe.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on December 19, 2011
at 11:08 PM

So if it is not low-carb its not paleo? :S

Cf32992bfa1907147c7cdc451bba9c63

(2890)

on December 20, 2011
at 03:28 AM

Err. Carbohydrates are not pathological in the context of poor insulin sensitivity. Do you mean that excessive carbohydrates are pathological? Why yes, but that's in the definition of excessive. Other than subjective feeling there's no health benefit to deep vs standard ketosis.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:33 AM

What is helpful is not trying to miss-use the evidence of the past to support whatever dogma that is. If you think I hold a bias in any direction on these issues then you are mistaken.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 19, 2011
at 11:31 PM

I don't think the label matters, and I think a lot of effort goes into trying to justify opinions by rationalising them as fitting into the established paleo framework. And low-carb is subjective, but there's at least one poster here who claims his 700g+ carbs a day is paleo. Do it if it works for you, but I do have to wonder why they need to try and justify it by speculating that they are descended from a rare subset of humanity which thrived without eating fat.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:20 AM

Well that says a lot about you, but I don't see how it's helpful.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 20, 2011
at 02:26 PM

"there's at least one poster here who claims his 700g+ carbs a day is paleo" HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 20, 2011
at 04:30 PM

My point about your investment was that you took a comment that implied 700g+ of carbs wasn't paleo and assumed that meant there was something wrong with 700g+ of carbs. It may well have simply been a lack of comprehension or laziness on your part, but I gave you more credit than that. No worries though, we can write it off as a simple mistake.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:41 AM

I don't know what you think it says about me. I am agnostic on the whole issue. I do however dislike obvious bias in the use of evidence.

Medium avatar

(39831)

on December 20, 2011
at 01:33 AM

I'm trying to imagine the traumatic brain injury necessary to completely dismiss all wisdom that might be considered "conventional." Good luck, you'll need it.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on December 20, 2011
at 02:40 AM

I think part of it is the complete and utter lack of actual scientific evidence that in the context of good insulin sensitivity, carbohydrates are pathological. The burden of proof is on the ones who say that the Kitavans are just-so-very-unhealthy.

7dc950fc76a046048e683d2a27dced37

on December 20, 2011
at 12:31 AM

'I don't think there is sufficient evidence to compel people who have committed themselves body and soul to a contrary vision." Yeah, that seems to go both ways tho.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 20, 2011
at 02:32 PM

Hey Andy make that two. Nothing wrong with 700g carbs.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 20, 2011
at 03:46 PM

You said ''who thinks his 700g+ carbs a day is paleo'' therefore suggesting it isn't. Now you said that not me. You seem to have the memory of a goldfish...

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 20, 2011
at 04:34 PM

No, you said it was not paleo. I ask you why? Can 700g not be good for someone or did no one in the paleolithic ever eat 700g? Which one is it Andy?

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:36 AM

Yes, no-one has any evidence, we cannot apply any reasoning, the science is all flawed, it is simply a matter of faith and individual experience. Still not sure how that particularly enables us to help other people.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:59 AM

Yep, I dislike it even more in the misuse of evidence.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 20, 2011
at 04:25 PM

I don't have anything invested in paleo. Most here wouldn't consider the way I often eat in the ''spirit of paleo''. I eat based on science not dogma. All I did is call you out on a statement clearly made as a dig at Cliff.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 20, 2011
at 03:55 PM

As I said, you place a value judgement on whether a thing is 'paleo' or not, to the extent that you cannot see a difference between saying 'this is good' and 'this is paleo'. It's why most of your arguments are little more than faith-based, which is ironic given that you don't in fact subscribe to the orthodoxy.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 20, 2011
at 04:31 PM

What is paleo? Nothing we eat is ''paleo'' bar honey. Paleo to me just means eating the way my body functions well at and as good as I can get it. Science informs us better on what to eat and how to eat it better than what one paleolithic human ate. Will someone dig up Durainrider in 10,000 years and assume they should all eat 30 bananas a day?

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 20, 2011
at 03:41 PM

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, you're the one that has so much invested in the Paleo label.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 20, 2011
at 05:10 PM

And in the broadest sense I would not suggest that 700g+ of carbs is not paleo. But just as you don't want people in the future to base their diet on a lone Durainrider, nor do I think people today should base their diet on Cliff. And if I were on a website answering specific questions from people brought up on the SAD lifestyle about how to eat more paleo-ly, I would not use Cliff's experience as a starting point. I think to do so would be hugely misrepresentative of the body of argument that exists for and against various changes in lifestyle we have a common interest in.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 20, 2011
at 04:14 PM

You claim 700g+ of carbs is not paleo. I never mentioned good or bad. Why is it not ''paleo''?

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 20, 2011
at 04:46 PM

You see how pointless this is? You just got through saying nothing we eat is paleo, then you're asking me why something we eat isn't paleo. And then you go straight on and use being paleo and being good for someone as synonymous because, as we've both now pointed out, that's how you define it. And you're clearly not open to alternative definitions, even if it affects none of your actual opinions and would help you better understand what other people are saying.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 20, 2011
at 04:27 PM

JRAC, it's paleo by your definition, and since you believe that the label Paleo belongs to the individual there's nothing I can say which will encourage to adopt a more productive and helful attitude in the space of 600 characters. I'm not a low-carb cultist. I wasted a lot of time trying to explain to Travis that he was actually recommending fewer carbs than the 'Paleo literature' and that there wasn't some mighty schism in the movement. Still, I don't think 700g+ of carbs is going to be the best model for most people coming here for advice. Do you really have no idea why?

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 20, 2011
at 05:00 PM

Nothing we eat was around in the paleolithic is a historical point. I don't use paleo and good as synonymous; I say eating paleo means this to me. Being paleo doesn't particually mean much. No wonder those like KGH don't consider themselves paleo. I consider myself paleo in the broadest sense.

0
A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:09 AM

It seems like the evidence he presents best supports the (fairly uncontroversial IMO) idea that humans are meat eaters rather than vegetarians (thus, the title). Even though I agree that human evolution was characterized by a lot of hunting and fishing, I don't think this necessarily pushed carbohydrate containing foods out of our diet by proxy. He does little to address evidence supporting starch consumption (e.g. human salivary amylase level compared to various primates) and simply presents ideas about how fruit is seasonal and postulates about the impact of its unavailability to Europeans.

Interesting read nonetheless.

-1
E167c0387a5f0b87bb1f2c3e6aec73a8

(1240)

on December 20, 2011
at 12:58 AM

good day-s

55% animal fat + 38% animal protein + 7% crap (insects, stuff from trees @ ground)

bad day-s

48% body fat + 2% Skeletal muscle + 50% crap (insects, stuff from trees @ ground)

pulled out of my ass.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!