230 replies to this topic

[DukeNukem]

Forget fat-ass, my new term for overweight people is carb-ass. Because you get fat by eating carbs.

Basically, fat--especially animal fat--has a bad rap. And it's because we allow our intuition to get the best of us: We get fat, with fat, therefore, fat must be the culprit. But, the reality is much less intuitive: We get fat with fat, because we eat too many carbs.

So, I propose carb-ass in place of fat-ass, so that we lay blame on the right type of food.

[oehaut]

Forget fat-ass, my new term for overweight people is carb-ass. Because you get fat by eating carbs.

Basically, fat--especially animal fat--has a bad rap. And it's because we allow our intuition to get the best of us: We get fat, with fat, therefore, fat must be the culprit. But, the reality is much less intuitive: We get fat with fat, because we eat too many carbs.

So, I propose carb-ass in place of fat-ass, so that we lay blame on the right type of food.

I don't know if pointing the finger at the carbs like we did with the fat will really makes a diference. I used for a short time, just after reading good calorie bad calorie that it might be the answer but alas, I seriously think we just overeat of everything (I know this is so basic and it would be awesome if it would be just as easy as blaming carbs for everything).

I might be wrong but I think it's really a matter of individual response. I'm pretty sure you're aware of the studies that found that insulin resistant people are loosing more weight on low-carb whereas insulin sensitive people are loosing more weight on low-fat.

It comes down to be pretty much case by case.

Well, just my thoughts

[Mind]

You are correct oehaut, in that people have different genetics, lifestyles, tastes, what-not and that this will affect what type of diet is best for them, but Duke is correct that in the U.S. carb consumption is out of control. There is also a very well-entrenched idea that fat, any fat, all fat, is bad bad bad and should be avoided at all costs. This dietary advice was developed over the course of 30 or 40 years and has led to an appalling selection of food in the typical grocery store. 1 example, it is extremely difficult to find yogurt with fat. All the non-fat "healthy" varieties are over-loaded with sugar and other crap. Americans are overweight and obese and based on substantial evidence it is primarily from too many carbs, however too many calories in total (as you mention) is not far behind on the list.

[e Volution]

You are correct oehaut, in that people have different genetics, lifestyles, tastes, what-not and that this will affect what type of diet is best for them...

Through my research into the Paleolithic/Primal or really just an Evolutionary approach to nutrition, I am starting to learn towards the idea that we all respond differently due to genetics is incorrect. Yes I believe lifestyles and tastes will differ, however I feel that up until ~10,000 years ago (and much more like 4-5,000 years ago for most groups) we were all eating pretty much the exact same thing... That was a low carb, high animal based protein/fat diet, with anything else you could find in nature such as insects, fruits, nuts and vegetables, etc... I think the only difference we see today through peoples response to diets is when a lifetime of overeating, or a bad diet has caused the body to change from its natural state of metabolism. I think for the vast majority of people however this is not an issue. And my anecdotal evidence of my parents and others who have made the switch very successfully to a Paleo type diet confirm this.

I think you could take any baby from any area and move them to any other area on the planet, where the traditional diet is wildly different from their parents, and it would still thrive. I think a good question is how much epigenetic effects from a parents diet imprint on their child, and how strong these effects are, such as the baby will immediately adapt to the diet he is eating or if there will be some longer lasting effects on his genes. It makes no sense from an evolutionary point of view that some people have different reactions to basic macronutrient breakdowns. Up until 70,000 years ago we were all in Africa doing and eating the same thing.

... Americans are overweight and obese and based on substantial evidence it is primarily from too many carbs, however too many calories in total (as you mention) is not far behind on the list.

I am still waiting on my copy of good calories bad calories to arrive, however from watching Taubes lecture online, and other material I have come across, I think that too many calories is only an issue with too many carbs! In the absence of carbs, the body has natural mechanisms to handle excess fats & proteins. I still have much more research to do on this, but my feeling is that if you were to correct for many modern discordances with our evolved diet, such as excess PUFA 6 intake, fructose, etc, it would be very hard to become overweight with natural fats and proteins.

Edited by icantgoforthat, 10 December 2009 - 11:46 PM.

[niner]

I think you could take any baby from any area and move them to any other area on the planet, where the traditional diet is wildly different from their parents, and it would still thrive. I think a good question is how much epigenetic effects from a parents diet imprint on their child, and how strong these effects are, such as the baby will immediately adapt to the diet he is eating or if there will be some longer lasting effects on his genes. It makes no sense from an evolutionary point of view that some people have different reactions to basic macronutrient breakdowns. Up until 70,000 years ago we were all in Africa doing and eating the same thing.

Do you think it would work well to take a dark-skinned baby from near the equator, one who is lacking the genes to metabolize lactose properly, and place him in northern Europe with a diet high in cow's milk? I would think not, although I do think that in many cases you are correct.

In the absence of carbs, the body has natural mechanisms to handle excess fats & proteins. I still have much more research to do on this, but my feeling is that if you were to correct for many modern discordances with our evolved diet, such as excess PUFA 6 intake, fructose, etc, it would be very hard to become overweight with natural fats and proteins.

I think it might be more accurate to say that it would be very hard to overeat. If you did manage to consume more Calories than you use on a fat & protein diet, what mechanisms would prevent you from gaining weight? Would you just excrete the fat without metabolizing it?

[oehaut]

the idea that we all respond differently due to genetics is incorrect.

Genetics certainly plays a role in how an individual respond. How do you know how every paleo people respond to the diet? I mean it's not because we "maybe" have evolved on the same food that people were not responding differently to it. The fact that we were "maybe" all eating the same thing 100,000 years ago don't mean that genetic wasn't already at play there (it certainly was).

The diet of paleo is still pretty much speculation. Plant-derived food traces are not easy to identified with the actual technology that we have (isotopes). And it's not because we evolved on something that it is optimal. Don't forget that as a living creature we have a 20,000,000+ history long, and the fact that we ate meat for maybe 100,000 might not have even been long enough to make any difference.

... Americans are overweight and obese and based on substantial evidence it is primarily from too many carbs, however too many calories in total (as you mention) is not far behind on the list.

the body has natural mechanisms to handle excess fats & proteins.... it would be very hard to become overweight with natural fats and proteins.

Do you have any evidence of these mechanims? (I guess you're talking about more thermogenesis, the cost of neoglucogenesis, and wasting of uncoupling protein) but so far they are only speculation and no metabolic ward studies has been able to find any metabolic advantage of low-carb diet. It really seems like a calorie is a calorie - and as long as it is so, if you eat more than you use, you'll store it - and that means that you can get overweight with fats & protein even in the absence of carbs. (People talk a lot about insulin but it's rare that someone talk about Acylation Stimulating Protein (ASP) and of Fat-Specific protein 27 (FPSP27) who definitvely promote fat storage)

Don't get me wrong tho. I'm reading about every palo blog out there and right now my diet is mostly vegetables + meat + some fruits + oats (gluten-free) and quinoa and rice. But as I keep reading (and especially on this forum) i'm not yet sure it's the best diet for optimal health.

And that's what is exciting! Food is not as powerful as drugs so it's not a big thing if you spend 1 year on a diet that was not so great. It's always time to change.

That being said, I totaly agree with you that fructose and PUFA-6 and refined carbs are a big concern and gluten-containing grains are too. And it's obvious that by saying people to avoid fat we seem to have encourage them to eat much more carbs and now things are even worst. But is it as easy as saying that carbs is the evil now? I don't know... i'm looking for the answer and that's why i'm here exchanging idea with awesome ppl

Edited by oehaut, 11 December 2009 - 01:41 AM.

[tunt01]

i thought most american were fat because they ate insane amounts of animal meat + carbs, not just cuz of carbs themselves. i've yet to see a 'fat ass' vegetarian who lives on rice, lentils or carbs + veggies, etc.

[rwac]

i've yet to see a 'fat ass' vegetarian who lives on rice, lentils or carbs + veggies, etc.

Sure, it's hard to get obese on a vegetarian diet, but it's certainly possible to get fat. Like say my uncle.
He's vegetarian, and he's been putting on a few pounds over the last few years.

Edited by rwac, 11 December 2009 - 02:15 AM.

[Skötkonung]

i thought most american were fat because they ate insane amounts of animal meat + carbs, not just cuz of carbs themselves. i've yet to see a 'fat ass' vegetarian who lives on rice, lentils or carbs + veggies, etc.

Well NHANES data indicates that Americans are consuming more carbohydrate and less fat than two decades ago. However, the increase in carbohydrate is probably mostly from sweetened beverages and "low-fat" branded foods (which substitute carbohydrate for fat, i.e. low-fat ranch dressing). I wouldn't say this points the finger squarely at carbohydrate as the culprit, but more or less indicates the current lack of balance between the macronutrient groups and perhaps a strong basis for eating whole foods.

By the way, there are plenty of overweight vegetarians, just less than SAD followers. The discrepancy is probably due to vegetarians being more health conscious (weight conscious), and as you indicated, the vegetarian diet also lacks the high calorie by volume animal products.

[e Volution]

...Don't forget that as a living creature we have a 20,000,000+ history long, and the fact that we ate meat for maybe 100,000 might not have even been long enough to make any difference.

Humans have been using fire for over 200,000 years (most likely 1.5 to 2 million years!) and stone tools are 2.5-2.6 million years old! I doubt our ancestors were using these two to cut up their veggies and then bbq a salad!

the body has natural mechanisms to handle excess fats & proteins.... it would be very hard to become overweight with natural fats and proteins.

Do you have any evidence of these mechanims? (I guess you're talking about more thermogenesis, the cost of neoglucogenesis, and wasting of uncoupling protein) but so far they are only speculation and no metabolic ward studies has been able to find any metabolic advantage of low-carb diet. It really seems like a calorie is a calorie - and as long as it is so, if you eat more than you use, you'll store it - and that means that you can get overweight with fats & protein even in the absence of carbs. (People talk a lot about insulin but it's rare that someone talk about Acylation Stimulating Protein (ASP) and of Fat-Specific protein 27 (FPSP27) who definitvely promote fat storage)

Don't get me wrong tho. I'm reading about every palo blog out there and right now my diet is mostly vegetables + meat + some fruits + oats (gluten-free) and quinoa and rice. But as I keep reading (and especially on this forum) i'm not yet sure it's the best diet for optimal health.

And that's what is exciting! Food is not as powerful as drugs so it's not a big thing if you spend 1 year on a diet that was not so great. It's always time to change.

I don't, but I'll get back to you after good calories bad calories

I also don't think drugs (by drugs I mean supplements etc) are more powerful than food. I think food is the most fundamental aspect of optimum health. What I am starting to see through my readings of these forums however, is that there may be a subtle distinction betweens optimum health and optimum health for longevity. Whilst I believe the Paleo diet to be best for optimum health and body composition, I am starting to open to the idea that perhaps in pure longevity terms, replacing a small portion of animal proteins and fats in your diet with a clean carbohydrate source could be better for longevity. I mean it's the food that is killing us right, just look at CR. The less you eat the longer you live! So I am open to the possibility that less of the 'high octane fuel' of animal proteins and fats may be beneficial. At the same time my feeling is that carbohydrate rich meals played no part in our evolved metabolic history, and so far the evolutionary approach has shown that almost every discordance has a negative effect. I have a lot more reading to do but I understand a big benefit from CR is low insulin. More carbs = more insulin right?

But then how can I say an optimum diet be different to an optimum diet for longevity? Its a bit of a contradiction and its not just a semantics issue!

Oh and im also new here and very much enjoying these incredibly in-depth discussions! It sounds arrogant, but with what I know now, and more importantly this resource, I would put my knowledge above 9/10 GP's. Maybe even 99/100!

[oehaut]

Humans have been using fire for over 200,000 years (most likely 1.5 to 2 million years!) and stone tools are 2.5-2.6 million years old! I doubt our ancestors were using these two to cut up their veggies and then bbq a salad!

You did not get my point here. What I was saying is that we maybe ate meat for 1% of our history as a living creature. Not sure it's right to say we elvolved that much on meat. It's still an open question.

I don't, but I'll get back to you after good calories bad calories

I've read Good Calorie Bad Calorie one time from cover to back page and probably another time from reading part of chapter here and there. You're not gonna get your answer on any special metabolic advantage of low-carb in this book. The main thesis of Taube is that carbs drive insulin and insulin impairs fat oxidation. But, as far as I am concern, this is a gross oversimplification of biochemistry. You should start with this one http://www.bodyrecom...at-loss-qa.html

I also don't think drugs (by drugs I mean supplements etc) are more powerful than food.

What I mean is that food has not accute effect like drugs, and so you can be on a crappy diet for one year it's not likely to kill you. Overdose on a drug tho and it might not go so well.

I think food is the most fundamental aspect of optimum health. What I am starting to see through my readings of these forums however, is that there may be a subtle distinction betweens optimum health and optimum health for longevity. Whilst I believe the Paleo diet to be best for optimum health and body composition, I am starting to open to the idea that perhaps in pure longevity terms, replacing a small portion of animal proteins and fats in your diet with a clean carbohydrate source could be better for longevity. I mean it's the food that is killing us right, just look at CR. The less you eat the longer you live! So I am open to the possibility that less of the 'high octane fuel' of animal proteins and fats may be beneficial. At the same time my feeling is that carbohydrate rich meals played no part in our evolved metabolic history, and so far the evolutionary approach has shown that almost every discordance has a negative effect. I have a lot more reading to do but I understand a big benefit from CR is low insulin. More carbs = more insulin right?

Lower insulin level is one of the effect of CR, but doesnt seems to be the only one. I haven't studied much yet CR so i'm not very knowledgeable here. But there seems to be other beneficial aspect as well. Obviously you do not want you insulin level to by skyward all day.

Oh and im also new here and very much enjoying these incredibly in-depth discussions! It sounds arrogant, but with what I know now, and more importantly this resource, I would put my knowledge above 9/10 GP's. Maybe even 99/100!

Just don't forget that knowlegde is infinite, especialy since we still know so little about nutrition and human chemistry The more we will know, the more we will be able to make sound choice.

[TheFountain]

i've yet to see a 'fat ass' vegetarian who lives on rice, lentils or carbs + veggies, etc.

Sure, it's hard to get obese on a vegetarian diet, but it's certainly possible to get fat. Like say my uncle.
He's vegetarian, and he's been putting on a few pounds over the last few years.

The guy must really fill up on pizza (bleached flour) bread (bleached flour) and stuff containing high fructose corn syrup. Being a vegetarian does not just mean the absence of meat. I take its true meaning to heart. I.E a 'plant based' diet in which the majority of your macronutrients are coming from plant based sources. Your uncle must be a junk foodetarian.

[TheFountain]

Humans have been using fire for over 200,000 years (most likely 1.5 to 2 million years!) and stone tools are 2.5-2.6 million years old! I doubt our ancestors were using these two to cut up their veggies and then bbq a salad!

Then why not assume they were using the fire to cook, amongst other things, grains? Bullshit isotope measurements? And please don't give me the allergen argument. Lots of people have lots of allergies to lots of things, not just grains. Give it a rest.

Edited by TheFountain, 13 December 2009 - 02:22 PM.

[oehaut]

Humans have been using fire for over 200,000 years (most likely 1.5 to 2 million years!) and stone tools are 2.5-2.6 million years old! I doubt our ancestors were using these two to cut up their veggies and then bbq a salad!

Then why not assume they were using the fire to cook, amongst other things, grains? Bullshit isotope measurements? And please don't give me the allergen argument. Lots of people have lots of allergies to lots of things, not just grains. Give it a rest.

Isn't it gluten that is the allergen and not "grains" ? I doubt we can eat a fair amount of grain without processing it. If you simply avoid gluten it's still leave a good amount of grains to be eaten. And that's just a though but to have enough grains to be eaten you've got to grow them which I doubt nomad human being would be doing. It's seem to be a consensus that agriculture has started when we have gotten sedentary.

Edited by oehaut, 13 December 2009 - 04:34 PM.

[VidX]

My only grains (but I love them) - Buckwheat - no gluten.. sadly I couldn't find a way to eat them raw lol..

[niner]

Bullshit isotope measurements?

What is bullshit about isotope measurements? Do you know what they are and what they show?

[inkyoto]

My only grains (but I love them) - Buckwheat - no gluten.. sadly I couldn't find a way to eat them raw lol..

raw buckwheat grain sprouts very well is very yummy. crunchy, very palatable and with a distinctive taste.

[TheFountain]

Humans have been using fire for over 200,000 years (most likely 1.5 to 2 million years!) and stone tools are 2.5-2.6 million years old! I doubt our ancestors were using these two to cut up their veggies and then bbq a salad!

Then why not assume they were using the fire to cook, amongst other things, grains? Bullshit isotope measurements? And please don't give me the allergen argument. Lots of people have lots of allergies to lots of things, not just grains. Give it a rest.

Isn't it gluten that is the allergen and not "grains" ? I doubt we can eat a fair amount of grain without processing it. If you simply avoid gluten it's still leave a good amount of grains to be eaten. And that's just a though but to have enough grains to be eaten you've got to grow them which I doubt nomad human being would be doing. It's seem to be a consensus that agriculture has started when we have gotten sedentary.

You don't think grains and legumes grew wild back then and that they may have stumbled into them just as they stumbled into berries, nuts and plants?

Edited by TheFountain, 14 December 2009 - 06:14 AM.

[TheFountain]

Bullshit isotope measurements?

What is bullshit about isotope measurements? Do you know what they are and what they show?

Listen, I understand the use of laser spectroscopy and other forms of measurement. Just because I do not have faith in the use of such measurements to make all encompassing determinations, does not mean I do not fucking know what they are. Stop being so arrogant and thinking you know, but I do not.

Isotopes, when used to measure the flow of nutrients through the human body, is determinable. Isotopes, when used to look for traces of foods or the signs such and such were consumed on bone fragments is very very sketchy IMO and should not be trusted.

Edited by maxwatt, 09 December 2010 - 12:48 PM.
removed use of the word "fucking"

[ajnast4r]

fucking

[Skötkonung]

Bullshit isotope measurements?

What is bullshit about isotope measurements? Do you know what they are and what they show?

Listen, I fucking understand the use of laser spectroscopy and other forms of measurement. Just because I do not have faith in the use of such measurements to make all encompassing determinations, does not mean I do not fucking know what they are. Stop being so arrogant and thinking you know, but I do not.

Isotopes, when used to measure the flow of nutrients through the human body, is determinable. Isotopes, when used to look for traces of foods or the signs such and such were consumed on bone fragments is very very sketchy IMO and should not be trusted.

Excellent, then you understand that they can roughly approximate the composition of the diet in terms of macro-nutrients. It makes arguing over whether legumes were consumed during the Paleolithic some what of a moot point, as animal products comprised the majority of caloric intake in the individuals that were studied. However, if you want to get technical about it, according to Wikipedia:

"The history of legumes is tied in closely with that of human civilization, appearing early in Asia, the Americas (the common Phaseolus bean in several varieties), and Europe (broad beans) by 6,000 BC, where they became a staple, essential for supplementing protein where there was not enough meat." [source]

The earliest Neolithic or Archaic subsistence systems were based on the farming of domesticated grains complemented by hunting and the gathering of wild plants. Domestication of these grains seems to have occurred independently in the Near East (wheat and barley), Southeast Asia (rice), and Central America (maize), according to both the availability of wild progenitors (or assumed progenitors) and earliest archaeological evidence. Secondary crops such as legumes and gourds seem to have been domesticated either concurrently with the grains, as in the Tehuacan Valley in Mexico, or shortly thereafter, as in the Near East. Regardless, these secondary crops seem to have provided vital complementary nutrients, especially in the form of proteins (legumes), to the Neolithic/Archaic diet. Legumes also fix nitrogen in the soil, so crop rotation between grains and legumes can considerably enhance soil productivity. If, like Paleo-diet followers, you are trying to avoid consuming post-Paleolithic foods, then legumes would not be on the menu.

Study: Chickpea domestication in the Neolithic Levant through the nutritional perspective
"An alternative approach to the process of selection and domestication of grain crops in early history based on nutritional value is proposed. Selection by a long trial and error process among a number of wild large seeded legumes gave rise to a nutritionally superior domesticated chickpea among the selected "founder crops" of the Neolithic Near Eastern agriculture. We found considerably higher free tryptophan levels in cultivated stocks (44 desi and 29 kabuli types from 25 countries; 1.10 mg/g seed dry weight), compared with the wild progenitor Cicer reticulatum (15 accessions; 0.33 mg/g seed dry weight). Dietary tryptophan determines brain serotonin synthesis, which in turn affects certain brain functions and human behaviour. We suggest that these nutritive facts may explain the decision of prehistoric farmers to choose this rare species and struggle to keep such an agronomically complicated crop under domestication."

Study: Vicia peregrina: an edible early Neolithic legume
"We identified hundreds of Vicia peregrina (rambling vetch) seeds from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A site of Netiv Hagdud, an uncommon archaeobotanical find. The hilum, radicle and the depression under the lens (chalaza) are seen in several of the charred seeds lacking a testa. The rambling vetch and lentil are the prevailing legume seeds found at the site. Rambling vetch seeds contain small amounts of toxic compounds. The residents of Netiv Hagdud could have used tools found at the site for peeling, soaking and probably cooking the seeds, procedures that remove or reduce these toxic components. Mixing the vetch with cereals can also reduce the toxicity by dilution. We suggest that the rambling vetch seed could have been collected in its wild habitat or brought from cultivated wild barley fields. It seems that these unusual finds, which have not been observed in later local sites, are evidence that the start of plant domestication was a trial and error cultivation process. Thus the Netiv Hagdud rambling vetch remains represent the cultivation of a Near Eastern crop plant that was finally abandoned and did not become domesticated."

Study: The legumes: the earliest domesticated plants in the Near East?

Text: Legumes in human nutrition

Study: Domestication of Pulses in the Old World, Legumes were companions of wheat and barley when agriculture began in the Near East
"This article reviews the available information on the place of origin and time of domestication of the cultivated pea (Pisum sativum), lentil (Lens culinaris), broad bean (Vicia faba), bitter vetch (V. ervilia), and chickpea (Cicer arietinum). On the basis of (i) an examination and evaluation of archeological remains and (ii) an identification of the wild progenitors and delimitation of their geographic distribution, it was concluded that pea and lentil should be regarded as founder crops of Old World Neolithic agriculture. Most probably they were domesticated, in the Near East, simultaneously with wheats and barley (certainly not later than the sixth millennium B.C.). Bitter vetch shows a similar mode of origin. The evidence on the broad bean and the chickpea is much more fragmentary and the wild progenitors of these legumes are yet not satisfactorily identified. But also these two pulses emerge as important food elements in Bronze Age cultures of the Near East and Europe."

TheFountain, I think a valid argument can be made surrounding the exclusion of legumes from the diet as being unnecessary or perhaps not conducive to longevity. However, you are approaching the topic incorrectly. The foods consumed during the Paleolithic are generally well understood to have varied from region to region, as well as seasonally, so making blanket statements about the macro-nutrient composition of the best "evolutionary" diet is difficult. Isotope studies done on the select individuals from the European region do indicate a high protein and fat diet. Furthermore, all diets from that time period did exclude modern derivatives developed in the Neolithic. That said, even if a rough approximation can be made, how do we know this is the best diet for longevity? Why exclude legumes on the basis of being strictly from the Neolithic, when almost all plant and animal species have been bred / altered significantly through domestication processes?

I would agree, based on preliminary anecdotal evidence and some limited clinical evidence, that the Paleolithic diet does seem to optimize bio-markers for survival and reproduction. It should also be noted that we have not seen many (any?) long lived populations on such a diet. While the Paleolithic diet might be another avenue to longevity, it just hasn't been proven yet. Where as many traditional long lived populations are known to have consumed legumes i.e Sardinian and Okinawan populations. Following such a restricted regimen is an experiment, or gamble, just like how many individuals on these forums take supplements with scant evidence in their favor. While you may have decided to take a more conservative approach to nutrition, consuming foods closer to those long lived populations, we should not devalue the contribution of others by following alternative routes of nutrition such as the Paleolithic diet. Human metabolism is highly adaptable, and we may find that longevity (or more accurately, a squaring of the mortality curve) can be achieved through a variety of different conduits.

Personally, I don't see legumes as a nutritionally necessary component of human diet, they do not confer the same benefits as leafy greens such as kale, spinach, or chard. Perhaps they can be used for protein if one is excluding meat / dairy? At any rate, legumes don't agree with my stomach either. So I exclude them. I don't see that as hurting my longevity.

Edited by Skotkonung, 14 December 2009 - 06:33 PM.

[ajnast4r]

Because you get fat by eating carbs.

you get fat through caloric excess, regardless of macronutrient ratios. if you have any evidence that carbohydrate intake is a larger factor in obesity than caloric intake, please do present it.

Edited by ajnast4r, 14 December 2009 - 07:27 PM.

[TheFountain]

Excellent, then you understand that they can roughly approximate the composition of the diet in terms of macro-nutrients.

The diet of modern humans, yes. The diet of people who lived a hundred thousand years ago based on bone fragment analysis? No. I think what they do is take chemical analyses and ultimately assume things from them. You want to know what I find the most sketchy about so called isotope evidence? They use nitrogen as a determinant to say most of the diet was meat based when Nitrogen is one of several elements that comprise the human body. How the FUCK can they differentiate between endogenous nitrogen and that which built up from a life of meat consumption? Bullshit I say! I bet you if they analyzed the skeleten of a vegetarian they would find the same amount of nitrogen and the same ratio of types of nitrogen. Thus, again I say, we have no fucking clue if our paleo ancestors ate grains and legumes or not. Besides, they were hungry and not as picky eaters as people make them out to be. I hardly think that joe monkey man was wandering through the glade and came across some chick peas which he then cooked, tasted and spat out in favor of the berries right around the corner. If there were berries, he ate berries, if there were nuts, legumes and insects he ate those. Simple as that really.

And skot, I appreciate the fact that legumes do not 'agree' with your delicate lil belly. But guess what? Certain kinds of nuts do not agree with my delicate lil belly, nor many other people. So it is ridiculous to base dietary genetic determinants on one or two findings that *suggest* that paleo people were cool-as-ice knuckle dragging, tree swingin nut grabbers. I really do not think people realize the level of ideology and romanticism they put into this. Then they just fill in the scientific gaps to coincide with it, excluding all other possibilities. Dangerous way of approaching it.

Edited by TheFountain, 15 December 2009 - 03:35 AM.

[niner]

Excellent, then you understand that they can roughly approximate the composition of the diet in terms of macro-nutrients.

The diet of modern humans, yes. The diet of people who lived a hundred thousand years ago based on bone fragment analysis? No. I think what they do is take chemical analyses and ultimately assume things from them. You want to know what I find the most sketchy about so called isotope evidence? They use nitrogen as a determinant to say most of the diet was meat based when Nitrogen is one of several elements that comprise the human body. How the FUCK can they differentiate between endogenous nitrogen and that which built up from a life of meat consumption? Bullshit I say! I bet you if they analyzed the skeleten of a vegetarian they would find the same amount of nitrogen and the same ratio of types of nitrogen.

Isotope ratios can be measured with extreme precision. To the extent that a particular nutrient source has a unique isotopic signature, and if that isotopic signature is deposited in bone, then we can read it. Your argument against the validity of isotopes in determining characteristics of diet boils down to "I don't believe it". That isn't going to convince anyone here that it's invalid. Even if you drop F-bombs. Even uppercase.

[Skötkonung]

Excellent, then you understand that they can roughly approximate the composition of the diet in terms of macro-nutrients.

The diet of modern humans, yes. The diet of people who lived a hundred thousand years ago based on bone fragment analysis? No. I think what they do is take chemical analyses and ultimately assume things from them. You want to know what I find the most sketchy about so called isotope evidence? They use nitrogen as a determinant to say most of the diet was meat based when Nitrogen is one of several elements that comprise the human body. How the FUCK can they differentiate between endogenous nitrogen and that which built up from a life of meat consumption? Bullshit I say! I bet you if they analyzed the skeleten of a vegetarian they would find the same amount of nitrogen and the same ratio of types of nitrogen.

Isotope ratios can be measured with extreme precision. To the extent that a particular nutrient source has a unique isotopic signature, and if that isotopic signature is deposited in bone, then we can read it. Your argument against the validity of isotopes in determining characteristics of diet boils down to "I don't believe it". That isn't going to convince anyone here that it's invalid. Even if you drop F-bombs. Even uppercase.

Well said. I also want to elaborate by quoting the methods section from one such study describing the isotope measuring technique:

Carbon (¹³C/¹²C = δ¹³C) and nitrogen (¹⁵N/¹⁴N = δ¹⁵N) isotope values of mammal bone collagen are related to the isotope ratios of foods consumed (23, 24). In humans, the carbon and nitrogen isotope values indicate the sources of dietary protein over many years of life (25–27). Carbon isotope values indicate if the main source of dietary protein was from marine or terrestrial resources and can distinguish between the consumption of C₄ and C₃ photosynthetic pathway plants (or, in the case of omnivores or carnivores, animals that consumed C₃ or C₄ plants) (28, 29). Numerous studies indicate that bone collagen δ¹³C and δ¹⁵N values are enriched by ≈1.0‰ and ≈3–5‰, respectively, from herbivores to carnivores in the same food web (23, 24, 28, 30, 31).

Sulfur is found in only one amino acid in mammalian bone collagen, methionine (32). Because methionine is an essential amino acid for humans, it must be obtained through the consumption of methionine-containing proteins from either plants or animals. Sulfur isotope ratios (³⁴S/³²S = δ³⁴S) in plants and animals are ultimately derived from soil sulfur, which can come from the underlying bedrock or be deposited as rainfall (33). Sulfur isotope values of terrestrial animals are usually 5–10‰, while marine organisms have a relatively constant value of ≈20‰ (34). There is a slight (≤1‰) fractionation between dietary methionine and human bone collagen sulfur isotope ratios (20). Therefore, sulfur isotope analysis, analogous to strontium isotopes (35), can be used as a geographical indicator, especially for identifying individuals from coastal areas (where the δ³⁴S value is dominated by marine sulfur from sea spray) in inland locations (19, 36). The relevant aspect of sulfur isotopes is that, in freshwater environments, organisms often have sulfur isotope values that are distinct from the local terrestrial values, usually caused by the bacterial fractionation of sulfur in freshwater ecosystems (37, 38). Therefore, it can be used as an indicator of freshwater food consumption, if it can be established that the freshwater system has distinct sulfur isotope values from the local terrestrial ecosystem. Because sulfur is present only in one amino acid, the amount of sulfur in bone collagen is low, ≈0.2%; therefore, relatively large samples of collagen (≈10 mg) are required for a single δ³⁴S measurement using continuous-flow isotope methods (39, 40).

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2706269/

Edited by Skotkonung, 15 December 2009 - 03:50 AM.

[Skötkonung]

And skot, I appreciate the fact that legumes do not 'agree' with your delicate lil belly. But guess what? Certain kinds of nuts do not agree with my delicate lil belly, nor many other people. So it is ridiculous to base dietary genetic determinants on one or two findings that *suggest* that paleo people were cool-as-ice knuckle dragging, tree swingin nut grabbers. I really do not think people realize the level of ideology and romanticism they put into this. Then they just fill in the scientific gaps to coincide with it, excluding all other possibilities. Dangerous way of approaching it.

I was actually somewhat defending your position, but given the attitude you have showed here, I kind of wish I hadn't. There are plenty of problems with the Paleolithic diet, all of which should be discussed. However, being mean spirited about it is no way to have a discussion.

[TheFountain]

Excellent, then you understand that they can roughly approximate the composition of the diet in terms of macro-nutrients.

The diet of modern humans, yes. The diet of people who lived a hundred thousand years ago based on bone fragment analysis? No. I think what they do is take chemical analyses and ultimately assume things from them. You want to know what I find the most sketchy about so called isotope evidence? They use nitrogen as a determinant to say most of the diet was meat based when Nitrogen is one of several elements that comprise the human body. How the FUCK can they differentiate between endogenous nitrogen and that which built up from a life of meat consumption? Bullshit I say! I bet you if they analyzed the skeleten of a vegetarian they would find the same amount of nitrogen and the same ratio of types of nitrogen.

Isotope ratios can be measured with extreme precision. To the extent that a particular nutrient source has a unique isotopic signature, and if that isotopic signature is deposited in bone, then we can read it. Your argument against the validity of isotopes in determining characteristics of diet boils down to "I don't believe it". That isn't going to convince anyone here that it's invalid. Even if you drop F-bombs. Even uppercase.

I think I said a little more than I don't believe it. I think i provided a well thought-out argument to the contrary of trusting isotope measurements. Especially when we consider the elements of the human body and the role they play in keeping the human form stable. Nitrogen IS a human bodily element. Therefor it is folly to conclude that these nitrogen deposits cannot be from endogenous elemental presence. Again, I think isotope studies are good for various aspects of measuring what is going on inside of living organisms. Bad for measuring dietary patterns of long dead peoples.

[niner]

Excellent, then you understand that they can roughly approximate the composition of the diet in terms of macro-nutrients.

The diet of modern humans, yes. The diet of people who lived a hundred thousand years ago based on bone fragment analysis? No. I think what they do is take chemical analyses and ultimately assume things from them. You want to know what I find the most sketchy about so called isotope evidence? They use nitrogen as a determinant to say most of the diet was meat based when Nitrogen is one of several elements that comprise the human body. How the FUCK can they differentiate between endogenous nitrogen and that which built up from a life of meat consumption? Bullshit I say! I bet you if they analyzed the skeleten of a vegetarian they would find the same amount of nitrogen and the same ratio of types of nitrogen.

Isotope ratios can be measured with extreme precision. To the extent that a particular nutrient source has a unique isotopic signature, and if that isotopic signature is deposited in bone, then we can read it. Your argument against the validity of isotopes in determining characteristics of diet boils down to "I don't believe it". That isn't going to convince anyone here that it's invalid. Even if you drop F-bombs. Even uppercase.

I think I said a little more than I don't believe it. I think i provided a well thought-out argument to the contrary of trusting isotope measurements. Especially when we consider the elements of the human body and the role they play in keeping the human form stable. Nitrogen IS a human bodily element. Therefor it is folly to conclude that these nitrogen deposits cannot be from endogenous elemental presence. Again, I think isotope studies are good for various aspects of measuring what is going on inside of living organisms. Bad for measuring dietary patterns of long dead peoples.

Yes, there's nitrogen in the human body, but the point is that all that nitrogen comes from the food you eat, thus it will all have the isotopic signature of the food.

[TheFountain]

And skot, I appreciate the fact that legumes do not 'agree' with your delicate lil belly. But guess what? Certain kinds of nuts do not agree with my delicate lil belly, nor many other people. So it is ridiculous to base dietary genetic determinants on one or two findings that *suggest* that paleo people were cool-as-ice knuckle dragging, tree swingin nut grabbers. I really do not think people realize the level of ideology and romanticism they put into this. Then they just fill in the scientific gaps to coincide with it, excluding all other possibilities. Dangerous way of approaching it.

I was actually somewhat defending your position, but given the attitude you have showed here, I kind of wish I hadn't. There are plenty of problems with the Paleolithic diet, all of which should be discussed. However, being mean spirited about it is no way to have a discussion.

How was I mean spirited? You and I have been back and forth alot. You know I wasn't being a jerk to you personally. And I am not a black and white thinker as I keep reminding people. I do think isotopes measurements have their place in many aspects of human nutrition, but I highly doubt them as a determinant of the full spectrum of ancient peoples diets. If I sound somewhat frustrated it is because people keep passive aggressively insulting my intelligence with shit like 'do you know what it is?' etc. I don't think I come across as that unknowledgable, even if much of what I state is opinion based on everything I have read. Can you admit that alot of what you, duke, niner and everyone else says is also opinion based on your own personal extrapolations?

[Ben]

Bullshit isotope measurements?

... Stop being so arrogant...