204 replies to this topic

[Mind]

Grains were good for the human societal organism but not good for the individual human.

That is the way I look at it.

[Shepard]

Grains were good for the human societal organism but not good for the individual human.

That is the way I look at it.

This goes back to the antibiotic argument. Humans are lucky that we have the luxury of arguing that antibiotics are harmful, same with grains. If they had not come along at the time they did, there is no telling what would have happened.

[DukeNukem]

Lotus wrote:

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.

They might have a slightly lower GI score (due to fiber), but the bottom line is that they still deliver a lot of unnecessary sugar to the body. And most grains contain the least healthy of all proteins, gluten -- which I always recommend avoiding.

As for what pre-agricultural humans ate, I recommend the book, The Paleo Diet, by Loren Cordain (on Amazon.com). Bottom-line: we hunted and ate larger prey much more than you think -- likely once or twice a week, providing enough food each time for the entire tribe for 1-2 days, followed by a day of rest (fasting), and then another day or two of hunting (and fasting until the hunt succeeded). Everyone who fasts notices how much more alert they become after a full day of fasting. This makes perfect sense, because after a period of no eating we need to be hyper alert to successfully hunt again, or to pick the good mushrooms versus the poison mushrooms.

Note that in practically all cases around the world where tribes or nations still eat a hig-fat (including high saturated fat) diet, they always have outstandingly low cancer and heart disease rates, especially versus people in areas that eat lower fat, higher carb diets. The French Paradox, for example, is not best explained by red wine consumption, but simply by the fact that the French people eat high fat (and high saturated fat) diets, and they do not consume a lot of omega-6 oils (they still cook with lard, for example -- a fat that has a fatty acid profile not too unlike olive oil). The fact is that saturated fats, by their very nature, are extremely stable within the body, unlike fats that become oxidized (which is when they turn into evil fats). The French Paradox is only a paradox because it doesn't fit into our sadly incorrect low-fat-is-healthy way of thinking

Omega-6 oils and grains are the biggest enemies within the "Western Diet."
http://wholehealthso...-practical.html

Grains were good for the human societal organism but not good for the individual human.

That is the way I look at it.

I'd argue that grain agriculture (beginning some 11,000 years ago) has been the singular most damaging event to the entire planet. The world would be a far, far, far more healthy, balanced planet had humans remained hunter/gatherers. Food for thought.

[kismet]

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.

That's interesting I was quite sure that taste was most important for the use of fire, just going by intuition. I'm sure our ancestors were not particularly "health aware", much rather they'd have tried to avoid plain food poisoning by cooking. Though, I'm not sure which one is most important. I assumed it was taste. Still it was probably a mix of raw, semi-raw and cooked foods.  I just don't think there were many adaptations to cooked food (see my post ^).

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'm quite confident some hunting was done and I don't think "hunting" herbivores and omnivores, particularly small ones, is very dangerous. I thought the theories about eating "maggots, bugs, etc.." were just speculation (talking about H. erectus). Anyway meat is very similar between species, isn't it? 

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.

We developed bigger brains and weapons, this may have taken some evolutionary preasure off the development of those traits, I guess..

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?

This totally depends. Many primates that gather fruit and other sparse and low caloric food are rogues just because of this sole fact (orang-utan). Herbivores can live in groups (gorilla), omnivores even better (chimpanzee), because there's low rivarly and even some synergetism for their food aquisition.

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.

I've read both protein and fat (w-3s), but I'm sure there are people that say other things.

Ah yes, protein and w-3s, I was thinking about fish when I wrote that. I suppose there are many theories.

Edited by kismet, 07 December 2008 - 12:08 AM.

[Shepard]

I'd argue that grain agriculture (beginning some 11,000 years ago) has been the singular most damaging event to the entire planet. The world would be a far, far, far more healthy, balanced planet had humans remained hunter/gatherers. Food for thought.

For Luddites and those against humans raping our mother Earth, I could understand this viewpoint. For anyone that enjoys their modern lifestyle, I can't possibly find the reasoning behind being upset that a stable food source became part of human life. I rather like all the innovation that humans have been able to come up with in the free time not spent trying to find dinner.

[Mind]

Agreed Shepard.

Duke is probably correct that life as a whole might have been more in balance, or pure, or (insert your favorite environmental slogan) with hunting and gathering, however, agriculture gave us progress and that is why we are here today (2008) on the cusp of immortality. We are also on the cusp of clean energy breakthroughs. We haven't destroyed the planet yet and we have a good chance to continue progressing with a lesser impact in the near future.

[athrahasis]

i would say the difference is substantial. the fiber and the majority of the micro nutrients/phytochemicals are removed, and depending on the processing methods the structure of the starch itself is changed. thats like saying theres not much difference between a Honda and a Ferrari because they're both cars.

Hi ajnast4r,

Is this a reference to whole grains or to carb heavy produce (vegetables) generally? If it's grain, are there really substantial micro nutrients and phytochemicals in them? Fiber would be a pretty substantial loss, I'm sure, but what about supplementing with isolated water soluble (or otherwise) fiber sources sans calories? I used to eat a lot of wheat germ for fiber, and I stopped when I realized how much iron is in there.

An aside: As a lacto-ovo vegetarian that has just started a basic CRON program, it's been very hard for me to shed grains. As there is a smaller caloric budget (70% of my old habits at this point) I generally get much more satisfied with grains + lipids, but the ON portion is then horribly skewed. So recently I've taken up eating a lot of near 0 cal filler to feel satisfied. I hope it's just er.. grow[l]ing pains .

[DukeNukem]

Duke is probably correct that life as a whole might have been more in balance...

My entire point, probably not well stated by me, hence Shepard's miss-the-target response, is that life on Earth, taken as a whole, would have been far better off had humans not progressed past the hunter/gatherer stage. There's not really any room to disagree with this claim -- it should blindingly obvious. Man has wiped out 100's of species, over 70% of higher-level ocean life, dramatically changed the ecosphere for the worse, and greatly reduced life diversity. Humans are the only "winner" by this "progress." Pretty much at the expense of every other living plant and creature, save corn, soy and rats (which exist in much higher concentrations with cities).

That said, I'm happy we did progress so recklessly into the agricultural age, because I stand to benefit (immortality, hopefully!) from our planet's costly scar of destruction.

Edited by DukeNukem, 07 December 2008 - 03:13 AM.

[Lotus]

Humans are the only "winner" by this "progress."

This is a very interesting discussion. I do agree with most of what you're saying, this planet has paid a high price for our technological advances. I'm hoping though, that we as a species will mature enough to be able to make it up to her. Humans have unique abilities and skills, and an intelligence that is probably unmatched by other species. This doesn't make us "better", just unique. It is often said that the forests are the lungs of our planet, providing oxygen, cleaning the air. What is our function? What can we provide? Perhaps if one was to see our planet as a whole organism, we would function as the brain. Maybe one day, we will be able to spread the life of this planet to other parts of the galaxy. Like in the Gaia-projects. Maybe that is our purpose. Maybe that would make the sacrifices worth it. Hopefully we will become mature enough to be able to use our unique abilities to spread and protect life. That would be a worthy function.

I'm sorry, we were discussing diets, i digress.

Edited by Lotus, 07 December 2008 - 09:38 AM.

[Heliotrope]

Humans are the only "winner" by this "progress."

This is a very interesting discussion. I do agree with most of what you're saying, this planet has paid a high price for our technological advances. I'm hoping though, that we as a species will mature enough to be able to make it up to her. Humans have unique abilities and skills, and an intelligence that is probably unmatched by other species. This doesn't make us "better", just unique. It is often said that the forests are the lungs of our planet, providing oxygen, cleaning the air. What is our function? What can we provide? Perhaps if one was to see our planet as a whole organism, we would function as the brain. Maybe one day, we will be able to spread the life of this planet to other parts of the galaxy. Like in the Gaia-projects. Maybe that is our purpose. Maybe that would make the sacrifices worth it. Hopefully we will become mature enough to be able to use our unique abilities to spread and protect life. That would be a worthy function.

I'm sorry, we were discussing diets, i digress.

like the brain analogy. we're the brain of the planet, of the solar sys, of galaxy, of universe becoming conscious and active . there's gotta be a way to do nootropics regimens for this "brain"/humanity. we'll become transhumans, ever-evolving.

dr. Weil's plan here is generally food, reminded me of the aAnti-inflamation Anti-aging food to eat as often as i can


for carb/fat/protein needed, just a matter of proportion. i think the 40:30:30 is good tho optimum values would vary for differnt bodies/physiology

but I don't measure them or count the calories. I usually just eat what I feel like eating, usually with carbs making the majority, proteins and fat make up ~ equal % of daily-calories-consumed

[Mouser]

Would it be incorrect to conclude that in the case of limited consumption of whole grain bread/pasta vs white bread/pasta, that because of higher gluten content in whole grains it might be less damaging to eat white bread/pasta? Obviously the effect on insulin and rapid conversion to sugar is worse with white bread/pasta. But is that outweighed by the gluten issue?

[Mind]

Duke is probably correct that life as a whole might have been more in balance...

My entire point, probably not well stated by me, hence Shepard's miss-the-target response, is that life on Earth, taken as a whole, would have been far better off had humans not progressed past the hunter/gatherer stage. There's not really any room to disagree with this claim -- it should blindingly obvious. Man has wiped out 100's of species, over 70% of higher-level ocean life, dramatically changed the ecosphere for the worse, and greatly reduced life diversity. Humans are the only "winner" by this "progress." Pretty much at the expense of every other living plant and creature, save corn, soy and rats (which exist in much higher concentrations with cities).

That said, I'm happy we did progress so recklessly into the agricultural age, because I stand to benefit (immortality, hopefully!) from our planet's costly scar of destruction.

Duke, you forget that the earth was once more "pure" even long before humans or vertebrates. Those damn oxygen producing bacteria turned the atmosphere into a poisonous mess that killed off most of the life that came before them. It was mass extinction and planetary change unheralded by anything since. Then those damn plants took over the once pure clean land areas. What was once pure rock, free of defect, suddenly became covered with these new environmental parasites. They turned pure, pristine, virgin rock into....gasp...soil!

Ok, I am having fun with this. The point is that defining some sort of perfect natural state is subjective. Evolution happened and keeps on happening. I think we can have progress without destroying the planet.

[wydell]

I think the demonizing of whole grain and fruit here may be off based based on the evidence I have seen so far. And I am not sure that there is good epidemiological evidence that people are citing.

Perhaps the longest lived culture were the traditional Okinawans.

Here is what one source reports as the traditional Okinawan diet:

From http://www.drlife.co...p;questionid=63 (underlining and bold emphasis added)

"Health has been studying older Okinawans in hopes they could unlock the secretes of their amazing good health—they have the longest disability-free life expectancy in the world and the highest percentage of centenarians anywhere. This study, called the Okinawa Centenarian Study, has focused on the genetics, diets, exercise habits and psychospiritual beliefs and practices of over 600 centenarians to uncover clues to their incredible health and longevity. They are all lean, energetic, youthful-looking people with very low rates of heart disease and cancer. Obesity is almost unheard of. They are truly amazing people—role models for all of us.

It is now believed that a key factor in their good health and longevity is their diet. They eat at least seven servings of vegetables daily, and the same number of grains—mostly whole grains, not processed.In addition, they eat two to four servings of fruit plus tofu and other forms of soy, green tea, seaweed, and fish rich in omega-3 fatty acids. Sweet potatoes, bean sprouts, onions, and green peppers make up a large part of their diet. In all, 72 percent of their diet by weight consists of vegetables, grains, and fruit. Soy and seaweed provide another 14 percent. Meat, poultry, and eggs account for only 3 percent. Fish about 11 percent. They emphasize dark green vegetables rich in calcium. In summary, their diet is primarily plant-based consisting of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains combined with fish and small amounts of meat and poultry. They do not smoke, drink alcohol only moderately or not at all, and get lots of exercise."

The way some of you folks describe grains and fruits, you would think the traditional Okinawans would be dead at 20. But in fact, it seems that these grains and fruit eaters seem to me to live longer than all of the cultures you are citing for the support of the no grain\ fruit or almost no grain \ fruit way of eating. It does not seem that Okinawans loaded up on fat either. Another proposition that is being made here.

P.S. I am a low grain eater, but I eat three or four apples a day. And I eat hot air popcorn and oatmeal. And every now then I will even eat a white bread rasin english muffin or two with butter.

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.

Edited by wydell, 07 December 2008 - 04:18 PM.

[frederickson]

i tend to agree with duke here, and am always somewhat amused by the mentality that there is some magical world of difference between "whole grains" and "refined grains". they exert the same physiological effects, albeit a slightly different rate. refined grains certainly have less fiber, but do you really need grains for fiber? i would recommend green leafy vegetables, flax seeds, psyllium, etc. as far more efficient sources of fiber.

i know it was way back in the discussion, and i forget the actual makes and models used , but i think the analogy of whole grains being a lamborghini and refined grains being a toyota is WAY overstated. aside from some fiber (depending on the grain, not even that much), what else is really missing from the whole grains? small amounts of b-vitamins, manganese, some unique antioxidants (avenanthramides, etc.)? but overall, whole grains just don't seem that nutrient-dense to me.

[DukeNukem]

"Health has been studying older Okinawans in hopes they could unlock the secretes of their amazing good health—they have the longest disability-free life expectancy in the world and the highest percentage of centenarians anywhere. This study, called the Okinawa Centenarian Study, has focused on the genetics, diets, exercise habits and psychospiritual beliefs and practices of over 600 centenarians to uncover clues to their incredible health and longevity. They are all lean, energetic, youthful-looking people with very low rates of heart disease and cancer. Obesity is almost unheard of. They are truly amazing people—role models for all of us.

It is now believed that a key factor in their good health and longevity is their diet. They eat at least seven servings of vegetables daily, and the same number of grains—mostly whole grains, not processed.In addition, they eat two to four servings of fruit plus tofu and other forms of soy, green tea, seaweed, and fish rich in omega-3 fatty acids. Sweet potatoes, bean sprouts, onions, and green peppers make up a large part of their diet. In all, 72 percent of their diet by weight consists of vegetables, grains, and fruit. Soy and seaweed provide another 14 percent. Meat, poultry, and eggs account for only 3 percent. Fish about 11 percent. They emphasize dark green vegetables rich in calcium. In summary, their diet is primarily plant-based consisting of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains combined with fish and small amounts of meat and poultry. They do not smoke, drink alcohol only moderately or not at all, and get lots of exercise."

The Asian diet in general trips up a lot of people, especially those who say, "Well, look at ALL of that rice they eat!!!" But the truth is that they eat little rice compared to what we're served when we go to a Chinese restaurant in America. Asians who are not exposed to "modern" Westernized diets consume maybe 35% of the carbs we do in America, and a large percentage of that drop is because they do not consume sugars in any form other than a natural form.

And while they appear to eat a lot of plant carbs, plants are mostly water, and so the actual carb mass is quite low. In particular, their exposure to fructose is extremely low, and there's growing evidence that fructose is dozens of times more damaging and pro-aging than glucose. (Basically, in nature, fructose is THE sugar that makes things sweet -- pure glucose is hardly sweet at all. Rice, pasta and potatoes break down into almost pure glucose.)

Another important point is that they don't over-consume omega-6 fats, and their o-3 to o-6 ratio is near perfection (no more than a 1-to-2 ratio, with 2 being the o-6 fats), as far as health goes.

Traditional Asian diets are in the low-carb to moderate-carb range on average, and the carbs they do eat are natural. Asians who have started eating a Western diet are becoming fat-asses no less so than most Americans.

[Mind]

Traditional Okinawan diet is slightly CR as well. 80% rule. They stop eating before they are full. I think this would partially nullify some of the bad influence from carbs.

[DukeNukem]

Duke is probably correct that life as a whole might have been more in balance...

My entire point, probably not well stated by me, hence Shepard's miss-the-target response, is that life on Earth, taken as a whole, would have been far better off had humans not progressed past the hunter/gatherer stage. There's not really any room to disagree with this claim -- it should blindingly obvious. Man has wiped out 100's of species, over 70% of higher-level ocean life, dramatically changed the ecosphere for the worse, and greatly reduced life diversity. Humans are the only "winner" by this "progress." Pretty much at the expense of every other living plant and creature, save corn, soy and rats (which exist in much higher concentrations with cities).

That said, I'm happy we did progress so recklessly into the agricultural age, because I stand to benefit (immortality, hopefully!) from our planet's costly scar of destruction.

Duke, you forget that the earth was once more "pure" even long before humans or vertebrates. Those damn oxygen producing bacteria turned the atmosphere into a poisonous mess that killed off most of the life that came before them. It was mass extinction and planetary change unheralded by anything since. Then those damn plants took over the once pure clean land areas. What was once pure rock, free of defect, suddenly became covered with these new environmental parasites. They turned pure, pristine, virgin rock into....gasp...soil!

Ok, I am having fun with this. The point is that defining some sort of perfect natural state is subjective. Evolution happened and keeps on happening. I think we can have progress without destroying the planet.

Mind, I'm aware of the bacteria-making-O2 hypothesis, and I think it's correct. But where did you learn that this event wiped out so much life on Earth?

[DukeNukem]

Traditional Okinawan diet is slightly CR as well. 80% rule. They stop eating before they are full. I think this would partially nullify some of the bad influence from carbs.

Yes, that's the other big point I wanted to make but I forgot. Because of the large volume of mostly-water-mass carbs they eat, they get a lot of bulk without a lot of calories. PLUS, the Okinawan's have a rule about eating -- I forgot the what they call this but the do have a name for their eating style -- in which they always stop eating before they feel full. In general, most Asians do not eat in this natural CR'ed way, but the traditional Asian diet, on the whole, is still extremely healthy in part for the reasons I mentioned.

[suspire]

So how about the traditional Asian Indian diets, especially the vegetarian ones? From the Asian Indians I know (and I admit, this is nothing more than anecdotal evidence), they are extremely long lived. And healthy. But many of their diets are strictly vegetarian--no fish, even--and heavy on the grains and lentils, including white rice for most dinners. They don't seem plagued with the host of Western health related diseases, either. A lot of their diets run counter to a lot of the advice/positions on these boards, especially by the paleo-diet folks, so I am curious as to theories as to why it is successful and has been successful for, err, probably at least a couple thousand years.

[wydell]

Duke:

I think I agree with everything that you say below, especially with the point that the typical western diet is unhealthy.

But the point that I am trying to make is that the traditional Okinawans eat seven servings of whole grains and two - four servings of fruit. That leads to me believe that a fair amount of whole grains and fruit are probably not detrimental to health and may even have a positive health effect.

Now it could be that the longevity in the Okinawan model is due to fish, moderate CR, seaweed, high vegetable content, and \ or pscyho - social tendencies, but the bottomline is that fruit and whole grains do not seem to have a detrimental effect on health in the Okinawan model.

So if Dr. Weil or anyone else recommeds seven servings of whole grains and two to four servings of fruit, I don't know that we can say that their thinking is out of line based on those recommendations alone.

The Asian diet in general trips up a lot of people, especially those who say, "Well, look at ALL of that rice they eat!!!" But the truth is that they eat little rice compared to what we're served when we go to a Chinese restaurant in America. Asians who are not exposed to "modern" Westernized diets consume maybe 35% of the carbs we do in America, and a large percentage of that drop is because they do not consume sugars in any form other than a natural form.

And while they appear to eat a lot of plant carbs, plants are mostly water, and so the actual carb mass is quite low. In particular, their exposure to fructose is extremely low, and there's growing evidence that fructose is dozens of times more damaging and pro-aging than glucose. (Basically, in nature, fructose is THE sugar that makes things sweet -- pure glucose is hardly sweet at all. Rice, pasta and potatoes break down into almost pure glucose.)

Another important point is that they don't over-consume omega-6 fats, and their o-3 to o-6 ratio is near perfection (no more than a 1-to-2 ratio, with 2 being the o-6 fats), as far as health goes.

Traditional Asian diets are in the low-carb to moderate-carb range on average, and the carbs they do eat are natural. Asians who have started eating a Western diet are becoming fat-asses no less so than most Americans.

[DukeNukem]

But the point that I am trying to make is that the traditional Okinawans eat seven servings of whole grains and two - four servings of fruit. That leads to me believe that a fair amount of whole grains and fruit are probably not detrimental to health and may even have a positive health effect.

Wydell, I suggest you have a look at the book, The Okinawa Diet Plan, which is based on a 25-year study of these people. The traditional Okinawan diet contains practically no grains beyond rice. And traditionally the rice is brown rice, because processing brown rice into white rice is very hard without machinery. I have a hard cover of the book in front of me (came out in 2004), and on page 125 there's a listing of the foods typically consumed by the Okinawans, and you see it's very low grain, except for rice, which they eat at an average of 111 grams daily (other grains amount to less than 5 grams daily). Their total daily vegetable intake is 1348 grams daily, so you can see that rice represents less than 10%. They also average less that one gram of fruits daily. No added sugars or oils daily. 15 grams of fish. The fish is significant because you do not need much fish (or fish oil) when you're not getting much vegetable oil.

All of this said, I don't believe that the Okinawan diet is by any means the perfect longevity diet. They have a great diet, but it's bound by what's locally available, and could be improved with more meats containing saturated fats, and less intake of sweet potatoes, a carb-heavy staple of their diet.

Edited by DukeNukem, 07 December 2008 - 08:24 PM.

[Brainbox]

I agree with Duke that grains could be seen as the most significant form of fast-food that ever existed. To correlate this with the so called destructive influences (I would prefer to call it development) of humanity could be correct as well. Correlate, but to prove a cause - effect relation would be a bit more difficult I'm afraid. It are the intelligence, technological capabilities and development potential of humanity that should be seen as the cause of the state we are in now. In a hypothetical scenario, were the development of crop growing would not have happened in a scale as large, I'm sure other forms of agriculture would have developed earlier and more profound. We could possibly have an eons old goverment subsided McDonnald empire instead.

But to return to the nutritional aspects, I also try to limit my gluten containing grain intake in a pragmatic way. I also tried a more paleo oriented diet, but it doesn't suite me. Plus, I'm still figuring out if a high protein diet is the way to go for longevity. To many contradictions IMO. I think, based on the contradictions that can be found in various epidemiological studies, that either different nutritional factors are more important or that diet is most of all matter of individuality.

Edited by Brainbox, 07 December 2008 - 09:14 PM.

[Not_Supplied]

Hi. I've seen a few people mention that our ancestors led very short lives. I was just wondering - are you taking account of infant mortality? I think I heard that about 1 in 3 babies died, which would obviously affect the mean lifespan if you're looking at that.

[DukeNukem]

Worth reading, by someone who's done the high-fat, low-carb diet since 1962...
http://www.telegraph...g-more-fat.html

A snippet:

“Most people are eating in a way that is unnatural to us as a species,” says Barry, who holds a doctorate in nutritional science and has just written a book called Trick and Treat: How Healthy Eating Is Making Us Ill. “We’re a carnivorous species – our gut is identical to that of a big cat. Yet we’re encouraged to eat foods that have been padded out with modified starch and vegetable oils, and complex carbohydrates such as bread, pasta and rice, which have all been labelled healthy – but not the fatty meat that our body actually recognises.”

He says this is why we don’t know when to stop eating: “Try to eat too much fat – cheese, say – and your body will quickly tell you when it has had enough. But when you eat processed, 'low fat’ food, your body never gets the message it has had enough, so doesn’t tell the mind it is full.”

[Lotus]

"We're a carnivorous species – our gut is identical to that of a big cat."

:o
How is that possible? Are we not an omnivorous species, similar to pigs and many primates? If this is really true, I cannot believe this very vital fact about humans have been missed for so long. It seems weird to me that nature would make us such ineffective carnivores. Anyhow, I need to read up on these studies.

[wydell]

Duke:

Thanks. I should note that I follow a low grain program. But I am not convinced yet that grains are bad per se. The same goes with a couple pieces of fruit.

Note that the authors of the book you reference are recommending 7-13 servings of whole grains and 2-4 servings of fruit.

See http://www.okinawapr...od_pyramid.html

(Read the home page. The diet program is in fact from the authors of the book. See http://www.okinawapr...com/index.html)

Now maybe the authors extracted their own data incorrectly or they are manipulating the diet for Americans. I really don't know. It would be interesting to ask them about this issue.

I understand your point that the Okinawan diet is not the perfect diet and that a modified Okinawan diet may yield better longevity results.

But the point that I am trying to make is that the traditional Okinawans eat seven servings of whole grains and two - four servings of fruit. That leads to me believe that a fair amount of whole grains and fruit are probably not detrimental to health and may even have a positive health effect.

Wydell, I suggest you have a look at the book, The Okinawa Diet Plan, which is based on a 25-year study of these people. The traditional Okinawan diet contains practically no grains beyond rice. And traditionally the rice is brown rice, because processing brown rice into white rice is very hard without machinery. I have a hard cover of the book in front of me (came out in 2004), and on page 125 there's a listing of the foods typically consumed by the Okinawans, and you see it's very low grain, except for rice, which they eat at an average of 111 grams daily (other grains amount to less than 5 grams daily). Their total daily vegetable intake is 1348 grams daily, so you can see that rice represents less than 10%. They also average less that one gram of fruits daily. No added sugars or oils daily. 15 grams of fish. The fish is significant because you do not need much fish (or fish oil) when you're not getting much vegetable oil.

All of this said, I don't believe that the Okinawan diet is by any means the perfect longevity diet. They have a great diet, but it's bound by what's locally available, and could be improved with more meats containing saturated fats, and less intake of sweet potatoes, a carb-heavy staple of their diet.

[DukeNukem]

"We're a carnivorous species – our gut is identical to that of a big cat."

:o
How is that possible? Are we not an omnivorous species, similar to pigs and many primates? If this is really true, I cannot believe this very vital fact about humans have been missed for so long. It seems weird to me that nature would make us such ineffective carnivores. Anyhow, I need to read up on these studies.

I think we're closer to that of a dog, with a diet that's closer to 90% fats and proteins, versus 10% carbs. The fact is that humans do not need any carbs at all. Period. None. Most animals will die without carbs. Not humans.

[wydell]

And below is what the authors of the Okinawa Diet say about carbs. They don't seem to be promoting low carbs

http://www.okinawapr...ails.html#carbs

[sthira]

I don't think we are carnivores. Animals like the big cats that live on other animals usually eat raw meat, straight from the carcass, and do it with relish and delight. Carnivores consume most of the animal, not merely the flesh -- they eat muscle and organs and they lick up the warm, fresh blood and other bodily fluids with gusto. They delight in the guts and their partially digested contents. They even crush, split, and eat the smaller bones and their marrow and gristle. By contrast, we naturally do not enjoy chewing on bones, bristle, entrails, chunks of raw fat and flesh, and the hair and vermin that accompany them. We don't love blood.

The sights and smells of the slaughterhouse, even the butchshop are disgusting to many of us. Slaughterhouses are often so objectionable to most people that no one is allowed to visit. Even the employees find slaughterhouse conditions difficult. This doesn't sound like the natural behavior of a born carnivore.

We kill our animals by proxy, finding the actual carcass or corpse rather nasty. If many people had to kill animals in order to eat, they might limit their meat intake, and stick to fruits and vegetables. We disguise animal flesh by eating only small cuts of the muscle and some organ meats. But even then, we prefer to cook and camouflage with condiments. We even disguise the reality of meat by changing the names of the foods from what they really are into something more acceptable. We salivate at the thought of a "juicy" steak, but not at eating blood or lymph. The natural smell of an animal usually puts us off -- we don't smell cows and think -- Yum! We don't look at a dog or a horse or a cat -- and naturally salivate when we smell their natural odors in the same way we may salivate when smelling, say, a banana.

If you consider our anatomy: tongues, claws, opposible thumbs, colon formation, intestinal length, our microbial tolerance, our poor vision, our jaw movement, our dental formation, our teeth, our saliva and urine pH, our stomach acid pH, our liver size, our intestinal flora, digestive enzymes, the fact that we secrete no uricase.... even our consideration of cleanliness: we are very particular about the cleanliness of our food. Carnivores are not picky, and they'll eat up dirt and bugs and shit and organic debris along with their food. We wash all that gunk off.

Someone above mentioned chimps are "omnivores" and from my experience this is incorrect. I worked for several years as a lab tech in a chimp lab studying symbolic language acquisition in great apes, and I fed bonobos and trogs every day. We used a lexigram-based language to communicate what food they wanted to eat, and they could eat nearly anything they wanted. What they wanted, nine times out of ten, was sweet fruit. They almost never wanted meat.

[sthira]

I'm not so stoked about eating grains because when you look out into nature at what thrives on grains (granivores) they're critters that generally eat a diet consisting mainly of grasses. Many species of birds, for example, live on the seeds of grasses and weeds. Of the thousands of grass seeds that have existed in nature, humans have only started eating rice, oats, rye, barley, wheat, etc, within the past 10,000 years or so.

If you suddenly lost your home, income, and a reliable food source and you were forced to make it outside your door on what's available, you probably wouldn't resort to eating grass seed. Seeds are hard to digest, and they're unappetizing. Grain-eating birds have a crop, a pouch in their gullets, where the grains they swallow germinate so they're digestable. Grains are indigestible raw, but even cooked, their complex carbs require a lot of digestive effort to break down. We would gag on many seeds in their whole form, like wheat berries, if we tried to eat a spoonful or two (assuming we could even gather a spoonful or two, and remember they would have their husks intact). Can you imagine eating a tablespoon of raw flour? It would be so dry... Seeds, in their natural state, do not attract us, they don't arouse our interest the way, say, an apple on a tree makes us want to pick it and eat it naturally... I don't look at wheat fields and salivate and think -- YUM! But I do see an orange on a tree, I pick it, and I eat it with delight! It seems so basic...