204 replies to this topic

[JLL]

A lot of the studies on meat consumption and cancer are pretty useless, because, as someone already pointed out, carbs are involved.

What about the Masai (meat, blood & milk) and the Eskimos (fish & fat)? They seem to be very healthy, though I can't remember any studies looking at cancer specifically. Still, those two are good starting points for studies what meat and fish consumption really do.

[edward]

...and BOTTOM LINE the carb vs. fat as a source of calories debate goes on LOL, I thought Taubes systematically covered the available evidence on that one, really you guys should read Good Calories Bad Calories, granted he is biased (and so am I, but only from rigorous dietary experimentation on myself) but he is almost annoyingly thorough in his chronicalling of the evidence (not a quick easy read)

Edited by edward, 04 December 2008 - 10:23 PM.

[sthira]

I have nothing against Dr. Weil, most of his advice seems at least reasonable, he is definitely well meaning and seems to be a very likable charismatic guy... however taking dietary advice from someone who himself looks very out of shape doesn't sit right with me.

If you are gonna pick a "dietary guru" pick one that at least somewhat looks the part (genetics aside with the proper diet even someone with cr@ppy genetics will look decent).

correct knowledge, and the willpower and desire to apply that knowledge to ones self are two totally different things. I can show you a lot of in-shape "diet gurus" who adhere to and recommend things that will most certainly decrease their lifespan.

dr weil's advice is generally pretty good imo

I think a lot of us (who are fortunate enough to be wondering about these issues) should think about diseases of affluence when it comes to diet. In my own behavior, I tend to eat simply most days, and limit feasting like puffy royalty. Sometimes, sure, it's fine to eat giant, perfect meals. But other times -- between intermittent fasting -- it may be equally fine to eat mono-style. Say, a day or two of nothing beyond my favorite single fruit or vegetable. It's actually interesting and instructive to eat only blackberries for a day, or exclusively leafy greens on another day...

[Mind]

I think Dr. Weil is a nice guy as well, and that he gives generally good advice. He was one of the first people I saw on TV saying fats are not that bad and suggested increasing fat intake. I just think his food pyramid is too heavily weighted toward carbs.

[ajnast4r]

A lot of the studies on meat consumption and cancer are pretty useless, because, as someone already pointed out, carbs are involved.

What about the Masai (meat, blood & milk) and the Eskimos (fish & fat)? They seem to be very healthy, though I can't remember any studies looking at cancer specifically. Still, those two are good starting points for studies what meat and fish consumption really do.

saying the meat/cancer connection is useless because carbs are involved is faulty, unscientific logic... there really is nothing other than a very minute amount of evidence that suggests this, which in and of itself does not warrant saying its 'useless', what it warrants is saying it deserves more attention & is worthy of study. as far as i know there is no evidence linking the carcinogenic/mutagenic/teratogenic properties of HCA/PAH to carbohydrate consumption, but a fair amount of evidence that point towards meat consumption.

while I'm unsure about the masai, eskimos tend to have high rates of CAD and diabetes as far as i know. malnutrition also seems to be a large contributor to mass death among the Inuits.

Edited by ajnast4r, 04 December 2008 - 11:25 PM.

[sthira]

I think Dr. Weil is a nice guy as well, and that he gives generally good advice. He was one of the first people I saw on TV saying fats are not that bad and suggested increasing fat intake. I just think his food pyramid is too heavily weighted toward carbs.

It may be heavily weighted toward carbs, but it is not heavily weighted toward refined carbs. Eat mostly plant-based whole foods is my take on it.

[frederickson]

A lot of the studies on meat consumption and cancer are pretty useless, because, as someone already pointed out, carbs are involved.

What about the Masai (meat, blood & milk) and the Eskimos (fish & fat)? They seem to be very healthy, though I can't remember any studies looking at cancer specifically. Still, those two are good starting points for studies what meat and fish consumption really do.

saying the meat/cancer connection is useless because carbs are involved is faulty, unscientific logic... there really is nothing other than a very minute amount of evidence that suggests this, which in and of itself does not warrant saying its 'useless', what it warrants is saying it deserves more attention & is worthy of study. as far as i know there is no evidence linking the carcinogenic/mutagenic/teratogenic properties of HCA/PAH to carbohydrate consumption, but a fair amount of evidence that point towards meat consumption.

while I'm unsure about the masai, eskimos tend to have high rates of CAD and diabetes as far as i know. malnutrition also seems to be a large contributor to mass death among the Inuits.

i don't think the evidence on meat is useless because of carbs, but rather, it is useless until carbs and other unhealthy dietary practices that typically accompany meat consumption are taken into account. no studies to date have done this, and to me, that devalues the findings almost completely.

behold the difficulties of nutrition research... it takes a very thorough database and really expansive adjustment to draw much inference, imo. i hope to tackle some of these issues in my postdoc next year, where i will probably be using some of the most complete databases (inchianti and the women's health and aging studies) to study nutrition and aging. seriously, those two studies collected everything and the kitchen sink!

[david ellis]

making the correlation between egyptians eating bread and their high rates of atherosclerosis is a HUGE STRETCH... i would would think that severe malnourishment and extremely high levels of chronic inflammation from work conditions were more likely the cause.

logic would dictate one would be more confident in eating grains based on modern epidemiological studies than convinced otherwise by loose correlations based on anciet societies.

I don't think it is a huge stretch, I think it is interesting powerful contradictory evidence. It proves conclusively that atherosclerosis was around long before modern food technology. That means industrial processed food can not be called the cause of atherosclerosis. That is a hard fact.

Blaming high levels of inflammation due to hard work and malnourishment will not work either, because mummies were royalty eating the best foods, which for the Egyptians was lots of leavened whole grain bread. In other words, lots of carbohydrates.

Logic reveals that modern epidemiological studies do not prove cause. They only prove relationships. And I am unimpressed by them. Two of the best known epidemological studies for CVD are about cholesterol and CRP. If you take populations that have high cholesterol or high (GT >2) CRP, only 3-4 out of a 100 will actually have a CVD event. Only 3-4 out of 100 means false positives for 96-97% of people with high cholesterol. And it gets worse from there. 50% of the people with CVD have low to normal cholesterol. Half the people who need treatment don't get it. It seems to me that epidemiological studies are over valued.

So you can see why I don't even bother reading epidemiological studies. They are interesting and are food for thought, but they are not facts about actual causes.

[frederickson]

making the correlation between egyptians eating bread and their high rates of atherosclerosis is a HUGE STRETCH... i would would think that severe malnourishment and extremely high levels of chronic inflammation from work conditions were more likely the cause.

logic would dictate one would be more confident in eating grains based on modern epidemiological studies than convinced otherwise by loose correlations based on anciet societies.

I don't think it is a huge stretch, I think it is interesting powerful contradictory evidence. It proves conclusively that atherosclerosis was around long before modern food technology. That means industrial processed food can not be called the cause of atherosclerosis. That is a hard fact.

Blaming high levels of inflammation due to hard work and malnourishment will not work either, because mummies were royalty eating the best foods, which for the Egyptians was lots of leavened whole grain bread. In other words, lots of carbohydrates.

Logic reveals that modern epidemiological studies do not prove cause. They only prove relationships. And I am unimpressed by them. Two of the best known epidemological studies for CVD are about cholesterol and CRP. If you take populations that have high cholesterol or high (GT >2) CRP, only 3-4 out of a 100 will actually have a CVD event. Only 3-4 out of 100 means false positives for 96-97% of people with high cholesterol. And it gets worse from there. 50% of the people with CVD have low to normal cholesterol. Half the people who need treatment don't get it. It seems to me that epidemiological studies are over valued.

So you can see why I don't even bother reading epidemiological studies. They are interesting and are food for thought, but they are not facts about actual causes.

your thoughts on the egyptians are interesting... i never realized they had suffered from cvd. that does put a dent, to some extent, in the theory that cvd is entirely a product of processed foods (though they are obviously a large contributor).

as for drawing conclusions from research in general, no study ever really proves cause. not even the research gold standard, the randomized clinical trial. because in the absence of the counterfactual situation, even a perfectly designed crossover (to eliminate genetic variability between subjects) clinical trial with a sufficient washout period will still have limitations on the basis of the generalizability of its subjects, etc.

but i understand your point. i don't think the problem lies with observational studies themselves, as a well-designed cohort or case-control study can tell you quite a bit. imo, the problem often lies in over-interpretation of the results or neglecting important covariates in the analysis (as in the meat and grain studies). epidemiological studies are usually necessary at some point and sometimes sufficient to effectively "prove" causality, as was the case in establishing that smoking can cause cancer. there were certainly no rct's involved there.

Edited by frederickson, 05 December 2008 - 05:52 AM.

[edward]

The theory I heard being proposed about the Egyptians was that unlike their nomadic hunter gatherer counterparts (meat nuts berry and field green eaters) the Egyptians made bread (arguably a processed food) and had large sources of readily available carbohydrates due to their civilization, representing the first evidence of a "disease of civilization"

[JLL]

saying the meat/cancer connection is useless because carbs are involved is faulty, unscientific logic... there really is nothing other than a very minute amount of evidence that suggests this, which in and of itself does not warrant saying its 'useless', what it warrants is saying it deserves more attention & is worthy of study. as far as i know there is no evidence linking the carcinogenic/mutagenic/teratogenic properties of HCA/PAH to carbohydrate consumption, but a fair amount of evidence that point towards meat consumption.

while I'm unsure about the masai, eskimos tend to have high rates of CAD and diabetes as far as i know. malnutrition also seems to be a large contributor to mass death among the Inuits.

What I mean is what fredrickson said; that until carbs are controlled for, we don't really know whether the problem is meat in itself or meat combined with carbohydrates. I do think that in the presence of carbs, meat consumption may be linked to cancer. What I doubt, however, is that this link exists if you get rid of the carbs.

Also, the studies pointing to meat causing cancer do not make a difference between processed meat products (such as sausage) and unprocessed meat (like a beef steak). The processing may well be the key here.

[ajnast4r]

What I doubt, however, is that this link exists if you get rid of the carbs.

do you have any evidence that suggests this? that PAH/HCA lose their carcinogenic properties when not in the presence of cho?

Also, the studies pointing to meat causing cancer do not make a difference between processed meat products (such as sausage) and unprocessed meat (like a beef steak). The processing may well be the key here.

the cancer causing properties of unprocessed and processed meats are due to different compounds

Logic reveals that modern epidemiological studies do not prove cause. They only prove relationships. And I am unimpressed by them.

i dont understand how youre not impressed by modern epidemiological studies but find the relationship between egyptian bread consumption and cad to be 'interesting powerful contradictory evidence', when in reality this is nothing more than a HUNCH. if anything its MUCH weaker evidence than the studies i suggested...

Edited by ajnast4r, 05 December 2008 - 07:30 PM.

[DukeNukem]

If you want to see a low-carber argue against vegetables/fruit check out the Hyperlipid blog.

I'm a low-carber (high-fat, moderate protein -- mostly meat), and I eat more high-quality carbs than most high-carbers. If you stick to high-water-volume carbs, you can eat huge quantities, yet the net carbs is still low. As an example, Dr. Eades, a low carb MD and author of Protein Power, is taking a picture log this week of ALL of his meals. If you take a look at the pics, you'll see that the quantity of carbs looks deceivingly high. The difference is that he doesn't eat any starchy or grain carbs. Have a look at his blog:
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/
(Go to the entry on Dec 5, 08, titled: "Photo food diary Thursday Dec 4, 2008")

Also go to the Heart Scan blog post of yesterday, and read about a guy who switched to low carb, high fat, and his stunning improvement in health, with triglycerides now at 47 (amazing), and HDL at 106 (more amazing).
http://heartscanblog...ree-animal.html

Here's the guy's actual blog:
http://www.freetheanimal.com/root/

Here's another low-carber, high-fatter:
http://www.marksdail...-washboard-abs/

And another:
http://www.arthurdevany.com/
(Check out his video -- he's 70 yrs old, and it perfect health.)

And another:
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/

In short, people still eating grains (whole or otherwise) are ignorant to (or ignoring) the damage they're doing to their health:
http://heartscanblog...y-syndrome.html

Edited by DukeNukem, 05 December 2008 - 09:16 PM.

[ajnast4r]

people still eating grains (whole or otherwise) are ignorant to the damage they're doing to their health:

---evidence does not support this statement---

[DukeNukem]

people still eating grains (whole or otherwise) are ignorant to the damage they're doing to their health:

---evidence does not support this statement---

Actually, it does. I might dig up several studies I've seen when I get the time, plus you can read the supremely well referenced, Good Calorie, Bad Calorie.

[Shepard]

I'm a low-carber (high-fat, moderate protein -- mostly meat), and I eat more high-quality carbs than most high-carbers. If you stick to high-water-volume carbs, you can eat huge quantities, yet the net carbs is still low.

The Hyperlipid guy doesn't argue against fruit/vegetables as much from a carb standpoint (as he does consume small amounts of other types of carbs), he just puts forth the argument that they really aren't as good for you as most people think.

As an example, Dr. Eades, a low carb MD and author of Protein Power, is taking a picture log this week of ALL of his meals. If you take a look at the pics, you'll see that the quantity of carbs looks deceivingly high. The difference is that he doesn't eat any starchy or grain carbs.

I've followed all these blogs for a long time, and I think all of them have good points about certain things (except Sisson and the FreeTheAnimal guy tend to be on the lower side of scientific thought), though I don't necessarily agree 100% with any of them. And while I pick fun at Eades once in a while, this week has left me with the impression that we would get along fabulously. We have the same taste and love of booze.

Edited by shepard, 05 December 2008 - 09:23 PM.

[DukeNukem]

I'm a low-carber (high-fat, moderate protein -- mostly meat), and I eat more high-quality carbs than most high-carbers. If you stick to high-water-volume carbs, you can eat huge quantities, yet the net carbs is still low.

The Hyperlipid guy doesn't argue against fruit/vegetables as much from a carb standpoint (as he does consume small amounts of other types of carbs), he just puts forth the argument that they really aren't as good for you as most people think.

As an example, Dr. Eades, a low carb MD and author of Protein Power, is taking a picture log this week of ALL of his meals. If you take a look at the pics, you'll see that the quantity of carbs looks deceivingly high. The difference is that he doesn't eat any starchy or grain carbs.

I've followed all these blogs for a long time, and I think all of them have good points about certain things (except Sisson and the FreeTheAnimal guy tend to be on the lower side of scientific thought), though I don't necessarily agree 100% with any of them. And while I pick fun at Eades once in a while, this week has left me with the impression that we would get along fabulously. We have the same taste and love of booze.

Like you, I certainly don't agree 100% with any of them either. But, from a pure nutrition standpoint, they are mostly on the money. My program is much more comprehensive by including many more supplements than most of these guys take, plus I use short-duration, high-intensity muscle building techniques (Sissin and de Vany do this, which is why they look the best), plus I supplement with hormones. Most people only cover one or two bases, while I try to cover them all. That's why I've also started intermittent fasting, especially now that I'm convinced that it doesn't affect muscle building negatively -- in fact, it might aide it.

[ajnast4r]

Actually, it does. I might dig up several studies I've seen when I get the time, plus you can read the supremely well referenced, Good Calorie, Bad Calorie.

I'm going to see if i can get a hold of it at the campus library this weekend... you're about the 5th person this week alone Ive heard recommend that book.

[Shepard]

I'm going to see if i can get a hold of it at the campus library this weekend... you're about the 5th person this week alone Ive heard recommend that book.

I actually recommend reading it, too. I expected it to blind me from the hate it left in my soul, but I have an overall positive opinion of it. I still don't agree with his (and others) opinions of carbs in relation to obesity/weight and health across all populations (sedentary vs. athletes). I think the strength of the book is its critique of modern science in general, and an examination of how potentially bad science can become dogma. This focus on older research both helps and hurts various arguments (helps critique of science, hurts critique of carbs relation to fat gain and overall metabolism), but it's worth reading.

Edited by shepard, 05 December 2008 - 10:22 PM.

[Lotus]

Forgive my ignorance. I have two questions.

"humans definitely are adapted to eating raw meat and fish"
Did we not discover fire some 800 000 years ago? Isn't that enough for our bodies to adapt to a diet of cooked food? I know dogs and other carnivores are adapted to eating raw meat and fish, they start drooling at the mere sight of raw entrails and blood. Not exactly the behaviour of most humans i know.

Secondly, wouldn't it have been easier for our forefathers back in those days to gather roots and nuts and berries than to hunt? I'm sure they did hunt occasionally, but it seems only logical that veggies, nuts and berries made out a large part of our diet.

That's how i try to eat btw. Mostly veggies, a little bit of fish, nuts, eggs and berries. And whole grain if/when i eat grains.

[DukeNukem]

That's how i try to eat btw. Mostly veggies, a little bit of fish, nuts, eggs and berries. And whole grain if/when i eat grains.

How do you think those whole grains are helping you, versus non-whole grains?

[kismet]

Forgive my ignorance. I have two questions.

"humans definitely are adapted to eating raw meat and fish"
Did we not discover fire some 800 000 years ago? Isn't that enough for our bodies to adapt to a diet of cooked food? I know dogs and other carnivores are adapted to eating raw meat and fish, they start drooling at the mere sight of raw entrails and blood. Not exactly the behaviour of most humans i know.

Did cooked food completely replace raw food? How do we know which way H. Erectus liked his steak, rare or well-done? Judging by taste and convenience of rare steak (or any meat for that matter) I believe semi-raw food played an important role.
I start drooling at the mere sight of a bloody steak too! Hmm...

What is adaptation anyway?  You only adapt as much as possible, considering our ancestors lived extremely short lives and cooked food is not poison per se, I don't think there was a need to somehow adapt to cooked meat (i.e. detoxify carcinogenic substances or AGEs formed - who cares? You rarely if ever develop cancer or diabetes if you die <20yo). I'd venture to say if they adapted to meat, then it was to extract as much nutrients and energy from it as possible.

Secondly, wouldn't it have been easier for our forefathers back in those days to gather roots and nuts and berries than to hunt? I'm sure they did hunt occasionally, but it seems only logical that veggies, nuts and berries made out a large part of our diet.

That's how i try to eat btw. Mostly veggies, a little bit of fish, nuts, eggs and berries. And whole grain if/when i eat grains.

Way too sparse, low energy food. One theory also says that high protein (or was it high energy?) food was necessary for the evolution of a bigger brain. Considering it is proven that our ancestors lived in groups, hunting is much more likely - groups make hunts easier, but you can't "gather" food in groups more effectively.

I believe it is not mere prejudice: the men used to hunt while the women gathered roots, berries, fruits, nuts, veggies (cause it's safer for weaker, child-bearing hominides to do so - sexual dimorphism!)

The Hyperlipid guy doesn't argue against fruit/vegetables as much from a carb standpoint (as he does consume small amounts of other types of carbs), he just puts forth the argument that they really aren't as good for you as most people think.

Regardless of the fact, aren't fruits and vegetables the only foods most consistently backed up by the most science? I don't know if all of this can be attributed to bias. No matter how much people/scientists wanted to believe in "low fat", it was impossible to prove. There must be something healthy about veggies.

Edited by kismet, 05 December 2008 - 10:56 PM.

[david ellis]

i dont understand how youre not impressed by modern epidemiological studies but find the relationship between egyptian bread consumption and cad to be 'interesting powerful contradictory evidence', when in reality this is nothing more than a HUNCH. if anything its MUCH weaker evidence than the studies i suggested...

The interesting powerful contradictory evidence is the fact that CAD happens even when eating whole wheat. So it does not protect you from CAD.

Edited by david ellis, 05 December 2008 - 11:19 PM.

[DukeNukem]

There must be something healthy about veggies.

No question. Our ancestors likely got plenty of veggies. Estimates are typically in the 15%-25% range of total cals from plant foods. The differences are:

o These were whole foods, not processed.
o With no added sugars, etc.
o No grains (most of us have ancestors who were only exposed to grains within the last 2500 years).
o Most of the consumed plant foods were mostly water, in terms of weight. In other words, most natural plant foods are low-carb by nature.

Nowadays, most people get ~60% of their cals from plant foods (mostly grains), and most of that is processed in some way. And, most of these over-consumed carbs are nutritionally bankrupt versus what our ancestors ate. Even whole grains -- a false Holy Grail. Whole Grains still rapidly convert to sugar in the body, and they provide hardly any nutritional value. They just make people feel better about eating unhealthy food. I used to fall for this, too.

[Shepard]

Regardless of the fact, aren't fruits and vegetables the only foods most consistently backed up by the most science?

Sure, which is kind of what I talked about a couple of posts above. I still eat plenty of vegetables and a decent amount of fruit. But, I think it's important to keep an open mind, read arguments on both sides of any discussion, and examine the evolution of an idea and not just its endpoint.

[ajnast4r]

The interesting powerful contradictory evidence is the fact that CAD happens even when eating whole wheat. So it does not protect you from CAD.

i didnt say whole wheat protected from CAD... i said whole grain. while this is completely a guess, i would be willing to guess the larger portion of whole grain consumed in these studies were oats.

the fact that people eating whole grain still have CAD doesnt mean that whole grain is not a protective measure against CAD.... i didnt say it eliminated CAD, i said it was protective against it... and it is.

Whole Grains still rapidly convert to sugar in the body, and they provide hardly any nutritional value. They just make people feel better about eating unhealthy food. I used to fall for this, too.

that's a bit of a stretch don't you think? complex starch structures do not convert to glucose rapidly... unless you consider the course of a few hours rapid? ...and calling whole grains like quinoa and oats ad 'unhealthy food' with 'hardly any nutritional value' is just outright false. i mean you are admittedly anti-grain and still consume oats on a daily basis... that has to say something.

saying WHEAT is of little nutritive value and should be excluded from the diet i would agree with... having celiac disease, i have a particular disdain for wheat


http://www.whfoods.c...f...ice&dbid=54
http://www.whfoods.c...n...le&dbid=143
http://www.whfoods.c...n...le&dbid=109

Edited by ajnast4r, 05 December 2008 - 11:33 PM.

[sthira]

Regardless of the fact, aren't fruits and vegetables the only foods most consistently backed up by the most science?

Sure, which is kind of what I talked about a couple of posts above. I still eat plenty of vegetables and a decent amount of fruit. But, I think it's important to keep an open mind, read arguments on both sides of any discussion, and examine the evolution of an idea and not just its endpoint.

This is good advice. Keep an open mind and be willing to change based on the advances. I've been a raw vegan for years, and it has served me extremely well. But I'm hearing what you guys are saying about carbs and fat and meat and "good calories, bad calories" and I'm open to changing my eating habits if it turns out that eating a lot of meat is indeed healthy. I just want to do the right thing, like all of you do. But it seems to me the burden of proof is on the meat to prove itself as a healthy food, not fruits and vegetables. I tend to agree that grains are less healthy than fruits and veggies, but fine in moderation.

[JLL]

I used to be a big advocate of eating fruit (which partially stemmed from my evolutionary view that since the spreading of fruits depend on them being eaten, they must have evolved to be healthy to the animals eating them), but reading about actual studies on fructose, I've become more cautious.

For the same reason, I used to view vegetables with scepticism (since vegetables do NOT want to be eaten and instead produce toxins to protect them), but reading about stress response has made me change my mind somewhat.

[Lotus]

Kismet:

Did cooked food completely replace raw food? How do we know which way H. Erectus liked his steak, rare or well-done? Judging by taste and convenience of rare steak (or any meat for that matter) I believe semi-raw food played an important role.

I would think that the food that often is contaminated by parasites and bacteria was the type of food that was usually cooked or heated. That's probably meat. I do not think taste had precedence over health concerns. Also the types of roots that are hard to digest in it's raw state, they were probably cooked and mashed for the feeding of the elderly and children, much like we do today. The easily digested foods were probably not cooked.

Way too sparse, low energy food... Considering it is proven that our ancestors lived in groups, hunting is much more likely - groups make hunts easier, but you can't "gather" food in groups more effectively.

Well, I do not question that we did eat animal protein. It just seems logical to me that those came mainly from such nutrient and energy rich things like maggots, bugs, animal eggs, lizards, snakes, much like many tribes do to this day. There's not much hunting per se involved, beacuse hunting costs a lot of energy too and is also risky. I don't have any references at the moment but from what i've read, it seems that hunting large animals was a rare thing, done perhaps once or twice a year. If we were really adapted mostly for hunting big animals, i would think we would have developed better claws and fangs, and speed. Wolves and the big cats are adapted completely to that type of hunting, there is no comparison who is the better hunter. It seems to make sense to me that red meat was an addition to the diet rarely, but was not staple food. I don't see how gathering in groups would be a problem, isn't that what the primates do?

One theory also says that high protein (or was it high energy?) food was necessary for the evolution of a bigger brain.

I think this theory says that high energy/carb diets made big brains possible, since the brain's main fuel is glucose. Someone correct me if i'm wrong.

DukeNukem: About whole grains, i was hoping they had lower glycemic index and raised blood sugar less rapidly than processed, but maybe that is incorrect.

Edited by Lotus, 06 December 2008 - 04:09 PM.

[Shepard]

I think this theory says that high energy/carb diets made big brains possible, since the brain's main fuel is glucose. Someone correct me if i'm wrong.

There are probably hypotheses for each macronutrient and none. I've read both protein and fat (w-3s), but I'm sure there are people that say other things. It's a pretty widely accepted idea that grains were important to the spread of humans due to the more reliable energy source, which allowed people to spread out and conquer.