230 replies to this topic

[TheFountain]

The 'data' is complete horse shit. Where are all those nut butters high in Omega 6s going? Margarine? Vegatable cooking oil? What, are you telling me people are buying this crap and letting it sit on their shelves and collect dust (and no, people are still buying up whole milk dairy products!)? Unlike you, I am not blaming one thing in favor of the other, I am blaming a specific form of both. Refined carbs and trans fatty acids. These two are a disgusting combo. Stop making it a 'carbs bad fats good' argument! There are good and bad forms of both.

The fundamental problem here is that this is a scientific site, and you are clearly not a scientist. You aren't even being logical here! You are trusting your gut, your own personal n=1 observations and imaginings, as being somehow more valid than a representative survey of the entire country. BTW, trans fatty acids are a minor contaminant in hydrogenated oils. They are certainly not a significant contributor of Calories. They are dangerous and unhealthy, but they don't make you fat.

And you clearly are a scientist? Let's see your credentials mister. Actually I am being purposefully obnoxious and unscientific about this particular subject because I feel, in this case, the so called science is really social science and the epidemiology is unfounded where the stats are concerned. How do you know I am not a scientist anyway? You work for the gobmant er somethin? And just because there is no scientific consensus does not mean there is no causality. Trans fatty acids may lead to obesity through metabolic disruption and exacerbation of many other causative factors, despite not being the direct cause. Trans fats coupled with refined carbs. Um, you get the point. And regarding being 'unscientific' you should think of that next time someone posts a link to an opinion piece about how wonderfully perfect the paleo diet is and passes that garbage off as pure science.

Edited by TheFountain, 18 December 2009 - 11:15 PM.

[ajnast4r]

You aren't even being logical here!

I am being purposefully obnoxious and unscientific

Edited by ajnast4r, 18 December 2009 - 11:37 PM.

[oehaut]

The 'data' is complete horse shit.

Can you prove this by providing other data showing that they are not right?

Where are all those nut butters high in Omega 6s going? Margarine? Vegatable cooking oil? What, are you telling me people are buying this crap and letting it sit on their shelves and collect dust (and no, people are still buying up whole milk dairy products!)?

People are still eating these food, but they eat less total fat. About 30% of calorie comes from fat of which 10% of is SFAs. So that leave you about 20% for n3-6-9 and trans fat. Which is already very too much. Nobody said they were not eating it. You cannot argue that fat consumption is not going down since the 70', unless you provide data that show this is the case.

Unlike you, I am not blaming one thing in favor of the other, I am blaming a specific form of both. Refined carbs and trans fatty acids. These two are a disgusting combo. Stop making it a 'carbs bad fats good' argument! There are good and bad forms of both.

Now that's funny. Read every of my post in this thread and i've clearly said all along that blaming carbs is not the answer and that people are just EATING TOO MUCH. But the MAIN excess of calorie clearly is from carbs.

Edited by oehaut, 19 December 2009 - 12:27 AM.

[niner]

How do you know I am not a scientist anyway?

From this:

Well now that you mention it there are strong concentrations of Nitrogen in the lungs, because it is abundant in the atmosphere. But that is beside the point. 99% of our bodies is composed of just 6 elements. One of which being Nitrogen. As people age they get calcium deposits on their bones and joints. Why not Nitrogen deposits as well? Furthermore why not Nitrogen-15 deposits? Again, have bones of vegetarians been subjected to isotope measurements?

[TheFountain]

How do you know I am not a scientist anyway?

From this:

Well now that you mention it there are strong concentrations of Nitrogen in the lungs, because it is abundant in the atmosphere. But that is beside the point. 99% of our bodies is composed of just 6 elements. One of which being Nitrogen. As people age they get calcium deposits on their bones and joints. Why not Nitrogen deposits as well? Furthermore why not Nitrogen-15 deposits? Again, have bones of vegetarians been subjected to isotope measurements?

Formulating a theory shows you I am not a scientist? Do not many scientists first formulate theories then seek to have them proven? People once found it absurd that the sun may in fact not revolve around the earth. You are just exhibiting another form of ptolemeic thinking now. So, being a scientist means mindlessly adhering to 'data' without questioning it? Or selectively question studies that do not fall in line with your thinking processes? Is this truly how you know I am not a scientist? Or is it because I made it clear that I was still in college on many ocassions?

[TheFountain]

Oh and no one answered my question. Have the bones of vegetarians been subjected to isotope measurements to determine the nitrogen-15 traces as compared with paleo bones? Sorry if this is an 'unscientific' question. I guess I am just a questioner of things. oops not scientific, or shall I say, religious, to ask such questions. Next time I read one of your revered paleo blogs I will try to remember how unscientific they are for not merely asking questions, but passing their opinions and extrapolations off as fact, which might I add, you do as well. Now can you please elaborate on why it is okay to pass paleo bloggers opinions off as pre-eminent fact but asking the questions I have asked is not scientific? I am perplexed at this glaring contradiction. Thanks.

Edited by TheFountain, 19 December 2009 - 12:20 PM.

[frederickson]

thefountain,

i am an epidemiologist, and i know that a ton of scientific data ARE indeed bullshit. i don't trust any pharmaceutical-industry funded study, because they will almost never allow a study to be published that is detrimental to their bottom line. consequently, i agree that those that put blind faith in the scientific evidence and the scientific evidence alone are extremely naive. there are strong politics behind what research can be published and even conducted.

however, the NHANES data on nutritional intake are legitimate. it is not industry-supported (read: industry corrupted), grant-funded (read: industry influenced), hypothesis driven (read: career influenced), etc. the data are what they are. people are consuming more carbs and less fat. the low-fat propaganda - and it is nothing more than propaganda - generally worked. the type of fat being consumed is not a huge issue across populations when it comes to the obesity epidemic, because people like us (the extremely health-conscious) are rare.

[TheFountain]

thefountain,

i am an epidemiologist, and i know that a ton of scientific data ARE indeed bullshit. i don't trust any pharmaceutical-industry funded study, because they will almost never allow a study to be published that is detrimental to their bottom line. consequently, i agree that those that put blind faith in the scientific evidence and the scientific evidence alone are extremely naive. there are strong politics behind what research can be published and even conducted.

however, the NHANES data on nutritional intake are legitimate. it is not industry-supported (read: industry corrupted), grant-funded (read: industry influenced), hypothesis driven (read: career influenced), etc. the data are what they are. people are consuming more carbs and less fat. the low-fat propaganda - and it is nothing more than propaganda - generally worked. the type of fat being consumed is not a huge issue across populations when it comes to the obesity epidemic, because people like us (the extremely health-conscious) are rare.

I am not saying that the 'data' is industry supported I am saying that for various reasons, including the fact that many people change what they consume from week to week to suit whatever is 'on sale' (my mother does this). You cannot trust the current word of any american citizen with regard to what they consume on aregular basis. There is no regular basis diet in america IMO just a whole lot of junk food of all sorts both high in bad fats and bad carbs.

[niner]

How do you know I am not a scientist anyway?

From this:

Well now that you mention it there are strong concentrations of Nitrogen in the lungs, because it is abundant in the atmosphere. But that is beside the point. 99% of our bodies is composed of just 6 elements. One of which being Nitrogen. As people age they get calcium deposits on their bones and joints. Why not Nitrogen deposits as well? Furthermore why not Nitrogen-15 deposits? Again, have bones of vegetarians been subjected to isotope measurements?

Formulating a theory shows you I am not a scientist? Do not many scientists first formulate theories then seek to have them proven? People once found it absurd that the sun may in fact not revolve around the earth. You are just exhibiting another form of ptolemeic thinking now. So, being a scientist means mindlessly adhering to 'data' without questioning it? Or selectively question studies that do not fall in line with your thinking processes? Is this truly how you know I am not a scientist? Or is it because I made it clear that I was still in college on many ocassions?

You didn't formulate a theory, you put forth a half-baked hypothesis that any chemistry or bio 101 student would know was ridiculous, because humans can not fix atmospheric nitrogen. That ability is rare in nature. You aren't just questioning the data, you are mindlessly dismissing it in favor of your gut feeling. That's not merely non-scientific, it is anti-scientific.

[oehaut]

i agree that those that put blind faith in the scientific evidence and the scientific evidence alone are extremely naive.

I think what is naive is a) not being able to critically analyze the scientific evidence (not seeing the funding, corruption, etc. that you are mentionning) So it's up to the person to be critic enough to know that this specific evidence is probably not really valid and

b) considering anecdote over scientific data as TheFountain is doing here.

To me, being evidence-based mean knowing mostly ALL of the evidences on a given subject, critically evaluating ALL of those evidences, and then making an opinion.

I'm really surprise to hear from a scientist that being ''only'' evidence-based is naive.

My background is sports science. You have no idea in this field how many people rely on anecdote. Just go on www.t-nation.com and look at many topic on the forum (if you have so time to waste), people are always saying stuff like ''if we wait to have a study to prove X protcol works, we'll be 10 years late on the best trainers that don't wait for studies and just try it''

I'm fine with this, but don't try to tell me that you know how and why this protocol works - and if it's really what is working. We need prospetive randomized controlled trial for this. Otherwise, it's always only speculation.

[TheFountain]

How do you know I am not a scientist anyway?

From this:

Well now that you mention it there are strong concentrations of Nitrogen in the lungs, because it is abundant in the atmosphere. But that is beside the point. 99% of our bodies is composed of just 6 elements. One of which being Nitrogen. As people age they get calcium deposits on their bones and joints. Why not Nitrogen deposits as well? Furthermore why not Nitrogen-15 deposits? Again, have bones of vegetarians been subjected to isotope measurements?

Formulating a theory shows you I am not a scientist? Do not many scientists first formulate theories then seek to have them proven? People once found it absurd that the sun may in fact not revolve around the earth. You are just exhibiting another form of ptolemeic thinking now. So, being a scientist means mindlessly adhering to 'data' without questioning it? Or selectively question studies that do not fall in line with your thinking processes? Is this truly how you know I am not a scientist? Or is it because I made it clear that I was still in college on many ocassions?

You didn't formulate a theory, you put forth a half-baked hypothesis that any chemistry or bio 101 student would know was ridiculous, because humans can not fix atmospheric nitrogen. That ability is rare in nature. You aren't just questioning the data, you are mindlessly dismissing it in favor of your gut feeling. That's not merely non-scientific, it is anti-scientific.

I never said we can 'fix nitrogen' from the air. I am talking about elemental nitrogen. And if we cannot 'fix nitrogen' then how then do our lungs contain this element? And you still have not answered my question. Have the bones of vegetarians been subjected to isotope measurements and found to be missing nitrogen-15 deposits?

Edited by TheFountain, 19 December 2009 - 10:24 PM.

[niner]

How do you know I am not a scientist anyway?

From this:

Well now that you mention it there are strong concentrations of Nitrogen in the lungs, because it is abundant in the atmosphere. But that is beside the point. 99% of our bodies is composed of just 6 elements. One of which being Nitrogen. As people age they get calcium deposits on their bones and joints. Why not Nitrogen deposits as well? Furthermore why not Nitrogen-15 deposits? Again, have bones of vegetarians been subjected to isotope measurements?

Formulating a theory shows you I am not a scientist? Do not many scientists first formulate theories then seek to have them proven? People once found it absurd that the sun may in fact not revolve around the earth. You are just exhibiting another form of ptolemeic thinking now. So, being a scientist means mindlessly adhering to 'data' without questioning it? Or selectively question studies that do not fall in line with your thinking processes? Is this truly how you know I am not a scientist? Or is it because I made it clear that I was still in college on many ocassions?

You didn't formulate a theory, you put forth a half-baked hypothesis that any chemistry or bio 101 student would know was ridiculous, because humans can not fix atmospheric nitrogen. That ability is rare in nature. You aren't just questioning the data, you are mindlessly dismissing it in favor of your gut feeling. That's not merely non-scientific, it is anti-scientific.

I never said we can 'fix nitrogen' from the air. I am talking about elemental nitrogen. And if we cannot 'fix nitrogen' then how then do our lungs contain this element? And you still have not answered my question. Have the bones of vegetarians been subjected to isotope measurements and found to be missing nitrogen-15 deposits?

You can't get nitrogen out of the air without fixing it. Otherwise it will remain as N2, a relatively inert gas. Read this: http://en.wikipedia....trogen_fixation

[TheFountain]

How do you know I am not a scientist anyway?

From this:

Well now that you mention it there are strong concentrations of Nitrogen in the lungs, because it is abundant in the atmosphere. But that is beside the point. 99% of our bodies is composed of just 6 elements. One of which being Nitrogen. As people age they get calcium deposits on their bones and joints. Why not Nitrogen deposits as well? Furthermore why not Nitrogen-15 deposits? Again, have bones of vegetarians been subjected to isotope measurements?

Formulating a theory shows you I am not a scientist? Do not many scientists first formulate theories then seek to have them proven? People once found it absurd that the sun may in fact not revolve around the earth. You are just exhibiting another form of ptolemeic thinking now. So, being a scientist means mindlessly adhering to 'data' without questioning it? Or selectively question studies that do not fall in line with your thinking processes? Is this truly how you know I am not a scientist? Or is it because I made it clear that I was still in college on many ocassions?

You didn't formulate a theory, you put forth a half-baked hypothesis that any chemistry or bio 101 student would know was ridiculous, because humans can not fix atmospheric nitrogen. That ability is rare in nature. You aren't just questioning the data, you are mindlessly dismissing it in favor of your gut feeling. That's not merely non-scientific, it is anti-scientific.

I never said we can 'fix nitrogen' from the air. I am talking about elemental nitrogen. And if we cannot 'fix nitrogen' then how then do our lungs contain this element? And you still have not answered my question. Have the bones of vegetarians been subjected to isotope measurements and found to be missing nitrogen-15 deposits?

You can't get nitrogen out of the air without fixing it. Otherwise it will remain as N2, a relatively inert gas. Read this: http://en.wikipedia....trogen_fixation

I know that. What I am asking is how does it end up in our lungs? Elemental Nitrogen?

[Skötkonung]

How do you know I am not a scientist anyway?

From this:

Well now that you mention it there are strong concentrations of Nitrogen in the lungs, because it is abundant in the atmosphere. But that is beside the point. 99% of our bodies is composed of just 6 elements. One of which being Nitrogen. As people age they get calcium deposits on their bones and joints. Why not Nitrogen deposits as well? Furthermore why not Nitrogen-15 deposits? Again, have bones of vegetarians been subjected to isotope measurements?

Formulating a theory shows you I am not a scientist? Do not many scientists first formulate theories then seek to have them proven? People once found it absurd that the sun may in fact not revolve around the earth. You are just exhibiting another form of ptolemeic thinking now. So, being a scientist means mindlessly adhering to 'data' without questioning it? Or selectively question studies that do not fall in line with your thinking processes? Is this truly how you know I am not a scientist? Or is it because I made it clear that I was still in college on many ocassions?

You didn't formulate a theory, you put forth a half-baked hypothesis that any chemistry or bio 101 student would know was ridiculous, because humans can not fix atmospheric nitrogen. That ability is rare in nature. You aren't just questioning the data, you are mindlessly dismissing it in favor of your gut feeling. That's not merely non-scientific, it is anti-scientific.

I never said we can 'fix nitrogen' from the air. I am talking about elemental nitrogen. And if we cannot 'fix nitrogen' then how then do our lungs contain this element? And you still have not answered my question. Have the bones of vegetarians been subjected to isotope measurements and found to be missing nitrogen-15 deposits?

Yes they have test vegetarian bones...the bones tested are from herbivores. Didn't stop to think about that, did you? That's right, they've tested animals across the entire animal kingdom.

By comparing the isotope ratios (not simply nitrogen, but isotopes of nitrogen to different isotopes of nitrogen) to similarly aged known herbivores, carnivores, and omnivores, they can create a rubric by which to reconstruct the diet of ancient hominids. So accurate are isotope ratios, they can even tell if you have eaten seafood as a significant portion of your adult life versus land animals.

But wait, that's not all...

By studying the isotope ratios of your teeth, they can determine what you ate as a child. Pretty neat huh?

[TheFountain]

How do you know I am not a scientist anyway?

From this:

Well now that you mention it there are strong concentrations of Nitrogen in the lungs, because it is abundant in the atmosphere. But that is beside the point. 99% of our bodies is composed of just 6 elements. One of which being Nitrogen. As people age they get calcium deposits on their bones and joints. Why not Nitrogen deposits as well? Furthermore why not Nitrogen-15 deposits? Again, have bones of vegetarians been subjected to isotope measurements?

Formulating a theory shows you I am not a scientist? Do not many scientists first formulate theories then seek to have them proven? People once found it absurd that the sun may in fact not revolve around the earth. You are just exhibiting another form of ptolemeic thinking now. So, being a scientist means mindlessly adhering to 'data' without questioning it? Or selectively question studies that do not fall in line with your thinking processes? Is this truly how you know I am not a scientist? Or is it because I made it clear that I was still in college on many ocassions?

You didn't formulate a theory, you put forth a half-baked hypothesis that any chemistry or bio 101 student would know was ridiculous, because humans can not fix atmospheric nitrogen. That ability is rare in nature. You aren't just questioning the data, you are mindlessly dismissing it in favor of your gut feeling. That's not merely non-scientific, it is anti-scientific.

I never said we can 'fix nitrogen' from the air. I am talking about elemental nitrogen. And if we cannot 'fix nitrogen' then how then do our lungs contain this element? And you still have not answered my question. Have the bones of vegetarians been subjected to isotope measurements and found to be missing nitrogen-15 deposits?

Yes they have test vegetarian bones...the bones tested are from herbivores. Didn't stop to think about that, did you? That's right, they've tested animals across the entire animal kingdom.

By comparing the isotope ratios (not simply nitrogen, but isotopes of nitrogen to different isotopes of nitrogen) to similarly aged known herbivores, carnivores, and omnivores, they can create a rubric by which to reconstruct the diet of ancient hominids. So accurate are isotope ratios, they can even tell if you have eaten seafood as a significant portion of your adult life versus land animals.

But wait, that's not all...

By studying the isotope ratios of your teeth, they can determine what you ate as a child. Pretty neat huh?

Have they tested HUMAN vegetarian bones? If so please show me where.

[Skötkonung]

How do you know I am not a scientist anyway?

From this:

Well now that you mention it there are strong concentrations of Nitrogen in the lungs, because it is abundant in the atmosphere. But that is beside the point. 99% of our bodies is composed of just 6 elements. One of which being Nitrogen. As people age they get calcium deposits on their bones and joints. Why not Nitrogen deposits as well? Furthermore why not Nitrogen-15 deposits? Again, have bones of vegetarians been subjected to isotope measurements?

Formulating a theory shows you I am not a scientist? Do not many scientists first formulate theories then seek to have them proven? People once found it absurd that the sun may in fact not revolve around the earth. You are just exhibiting another form of ptolemeic thinking now. So, being a scientist means mindlessly adhering to 'data' without questioning it? Or selectively question studies that do not fall in line with your thinking processes? Is this truly how you know I am not a scientist? Or is it because I made it clear that I was still in college on many ocassions?

You didn't formulate a theory, you put forth a half-baked hypothesis that any chemistry or bio 101 student would know was ridiculous, because humans can not fix atmospheric nitrogen. That ability is rare in nature. You aren't just questioning the data, you are mindlessly dismissing it in favor of your gut feeling. That's not merely non-scientific, it is anti-scientific.

I never said we can 'fix nitrogen' from the air. I am talking about elemental nitrogen. And if we cannot 'fix nitrogen' then how then do our lungs contain this element? And you still have not answered my question. Have the bones of vegetarians been subjected to isotope measurements and found to be missing nitrogen-15 deposits?

You can't get nitrogen out of the air without fixing it. Otherwise it will remain as N2, a relatively inert gas. Read this: http://en.wikipedia....trogen_fixation

I know that. What I am asking is how does it end up in our lungs? Elemental Nitrogen?

It is exhaled. All of it. The human body does not have the ability to fix nitrogen as nitrogen isotopes 13, 14, or 15. It does not have the ability to incorporate breathed nitrogen into collagen structures of bone. Did you really think the research community wouldn't have thought about that? The whole research world, all of those PHDs with their scientific method, missed that simple little fact yet someone living at home with his mom and no college degree figured it out? Yeah...right....

I suggest you Google "composition of exhaled air"

Or since I am feeling generous, here is a link to said information:
http://en.wikibooks....and_Respiration

Notice it is a GCSE link...that means high school level science.

Edited by Skotkonung, 20 December 2009 - 12:09 AM.

[Skötkonung]

How do you know I am not a scientist anyway?

From this:

Well now that you mention it there are strong concentrations of Nitrogen in the lungs, because it is abundant in the atmosphere. But that is beside the point. 99% of our bodies is composed of just 6 elements. One of which being Nitrogen. As people age they get calcium deposits on their bones and joints. Why not Nitrogen deposits as well? Furthermore why not Nitrogen-15 deposits? Again, have bones of vegetarians been subjected to isotope measurements?

Formulating a theory shows you I am not a scientist? Do not many scientists first formulate theories then seek to have them proven? People once found it absurd that the sun may in fact not revolve around the earth. You are just exhibiting another form of ptolemeic thinking now. So, being a scientist means mindlessly adhering to 'data' without questioning it? Or selectively question studies that do not fall in line with your thinking processes? Is this truly how you know I am not a scientist? Or is it because I made it clear that I was still in college on many ocassions?

You didn't formulate a theory, you put forth a half-baked hypothesis that any chemistry or bio 101 student would know was ridiculous, because humans can not fix atmospheric nitrogen. That ability is rare in nature. You aren't just questioning the data, you are mindlessly dismissing it in favor of your gut feeling. That's not merely non-scientific, it is anti-scientific.

I never said we can 'fix nitrogen' from the air. I am talking about elemental nitrogen. And if we cannot 'fix nitrogen' then how then do our lungs contain this element? And you still have not answered my question. Have the bones of vegetarians been subjected to isotope measurements and found to be missing nitrogen-15 deposits?

Yes they have test vegetarian bones...the bones tested are from herbivores. Didn't stop to think about that, did you? That's right, they've tested animals across the entire animal kingdom.

By comparing the isotope ratios (not simply nitrogen, but isotopes of nitrogen to different isotopes of nitrogen) to similarly aged known herbivores, carnivores, and omnivores, they can create a rubric by which to reconstruct the diet of ancient hominids. So accurate are isotope ratios, they can even tell if you have eaten seafood as a significant portion of your adult life versus land animals.

But wait, that's not all...

By studying the isotope ratios of your teeth, they can determine what you ate as a child. Pretty neat huh?

Have they tested HUMAN vegetarian bones? If so please show me where.

Yes, they actually used the isotope concentrations of Roman gladiator bones to determine they didn't consume much meat.

http://www.archaeolo.../gladiator.html

"Grossschmidt and collaborator Fabian Kanz subjected bits of the bone to isotopic analysis, a technique that measures trace chemical elements such as calcium, strontium, and zinc, to see if they could find out why. They turned up some surprising results. Compared to the average inhabitant of Ephesus, gladiators ate more plants and very little animal protein."

Edited by Skotkonung, 20 December 2009 - 12:08 AM.

[Skötkonung]

Here is another one:

"Omnivores and vegetarians from Brazil and the US were isotopically distinct, both within and between regions."
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/16552735

And another:

"isotope ratios suggested a relatively low consumption of animal-derived products compared to western populations."
http://www3.intersci...685410/abstract

And another publication on the methods used to determine diet of different populations (vegan, vegetarian, omnivore). Makes note of ancient populations such as Egyptians, etc. Focuses ultimately on hair, but makes mention of bones as well:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/56707

[ajnast4r]

And another publication on the methods used to determine diet of different populations (vegan, vegetarian, omnivore). Makes note of ancient populations such as Egyptians, etc. Focuses ultimately on hair, but makes mention of bones as well:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/56707

do you have the full paper for this?

[Skötkonung]

And another publication on the methods used to determine diet of different populations (vegan, vegetarian, omnivore). Makes note of ancient populations such as Egyptians, etc. Focuses ultimately on hair, but makes mention of bones as well:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/56707

do you have the full paper for this?

I actually only have access to this journal through my work (a university) so I will have to wait until Monday. .

Here is another article describing the dating method:
http://shell.cas.usf...tykot/Bone.html

At any rate, while it is instructive to realize that many early hominids (including humans) may have evolved with a high quantity of animal tissue consumption, that does not mean it is the best way to achieve longevity. Early humans likely ate a diet that provided them enough stamina to survive just long enough to reproduce in an otherwise extremely harsh and unforgiving world. They did not consume a diet to live to 120. Just because Neanderthals consumed a diet similar to that of an non-obligate carnivores in that it was almost devoid of plants, it doesn't mean we should be avoiding all the valuable phytochemicals in fruits and vegetables.

I feel like we are splitting hairs here by going over stable isotope analysis. The best diet for longevity will likely be an engineered one, conceived through pragmatism and scientific research. We should be discussing how to build / create the best protein source. What the best plants are in terms of phytochemical to metabolic distress ratio, etc. There is a lot of quality research that has been done, which is has not been presented and discussed on these forums yet.

[e Volution]

At any rate, while it is instructive to realize that many early hominids (including humans) may have evolved with a high quantity of animal tissue consumption, that does not mean it is the best way to achieve longevity. Early humans likely ate a diet that provided them enough stamina to survive just long enough to reproduce in an otherwise extremely harsh and unforgiving world. They did not consume a diet to live to 120. Just because Neanderthals consumed a diet similar to that of an non-obligate carnivores in that it was almost devoid of plants, it doesn't mean we should be avoiding all the valuable phytochemicals in fruits and vegetables.

I feel like we are splitting hairs here by going over stable isotope analysis...

This is spot on.

TheFountain, my science 101 subjects at uni glossed over this stuff, but reading this thread I was still far from fully informed. It took me about 15 minutes of searching and reading to see that theres pretty much nothing controversial about this stuff, other than some accuracy issues that dont really apply here... Im all for being sceptical but a branch of science like isotope analysis is so widespread, and utilised by so many scientists around the world from ecology to forensics, that it is obviously pretty rock solid. I think scepticism can have its limits, I often find the most sceptical of my friends are often the least informed in that area of knowledge.

...The best diet for longevity will likely be an engineered one, conceived through pragmatism and scientific research. We should be discussing how to build / create the best protein source. What the best plants are in terms of phytochemical to metabolic distress ratio, etc. There is a lot of quality research that has been done, which is has not been presented and discussed on these forums yet.

Why are plants and associated phytochemicals beneficial to humans? With the dozen or two superfoods from around the world that we have available to any each one of us, it makes it implausible that any significant quantities of these were available to our paleolithic, or even further back ancestors. Could someone please give me a concise explanation as to why then these chemicals are positive if its not an evolutionary argument?

[rwac]

Just because Neanderthals consumed a diet similar to that of an non-obligate carnivores in that it was almost devoid of plants, it doesn't mean we should be avoiding all the valuable phytochemicals in fruits and vegetables.

I guess the question then becomes if the phytochemicals are actually good for you overall.
Some of them might be, but there's no indication that we need any for our health.

[Sillewater]

@icantgoforthat

Look up the concept of xenohormesis. Prophet posted something about it on the forum somewhere.

And also, it could be that there are so many phytochemicals that some of them are bound to be good for us.

[kismet]

Some of them might be, but there's no indication that we need any for our health.

Yes, other than prospective epidemiology, randomised controlled trials and strong plausibility. I don't know what you mean by phytochemicals, but if it's the stuff in plant foods; then that sums it up pretty well. (these days the case is even stronger, after all plants only consist of water, macros, vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals; health benefits of most of those substances haven been refuted rather well by RCTs so that leaves phytochemicals to explain the benefits)

And also, it could be that there are so many phytochemicals that some of them are bound to be good for us.

And by extension the rest could be actively harmful. That's not an argument that we need to invoke and it's not particularly strong to begin with.

Edited by kismet, 20 December 2009 - 10:35 PM.

[Sillewater]

Well aren't a lot of plants poisonous?

[Skötkonung]

Well aren't a lot of plants poisonous?

Some are directly poisonous, but those probably didn't make it through the neolithic. The indirectly poisonous ones (such as those high in fructose, gluten, lectins, etc) might be harmful on a long enough time line. I wouldn't be worried about oxalate in your vegetables.

[Skötkonung]

Just because Neanderthals consumed a diet similar to that of an non-obligate carnivores in that it was almost devoid of plants, it doesn't mean we should be avoiding all the valuable phytochemicals in fruits and vegetables.

I guess the question then becomes if the phytochemicals are actually good for you overall.
Some of them might be, but there's no indication that we need any for our health.

Of course we don't need plants to live, as the Inuit and others have demonstrated, but we may need them (or derivatives of) to achieve longer than average lifespans. I too was skeptical about the inherent benefits of plant foods, especially when studies on the ketogenic diet started showing up demonstrating ROS were greatly reduced during ketosis. But upon further investigation, these diets often are calorie restricted and heavily protein restricted as well. It would be impossible to thrive on such a diet and I doubt the Inuit or others were consuming anything close to the macros of the KD protocols being tested. Besides, just because ROS were being reduced, that doesn't mean the body is better off without cancer fighting diindolylmethane (or many other phenolic compounds found in plants). There is also the issue of methylglyoxal levels increasing on KD with normal protein intake.

[rwac]

Besides, just because ROS were being reduced, that doesn't mean the body is better off without cancer fighting diindolylmethane (or many other phenolic compounds found in plants). There is also the issue of methylglyoxal levels increasing on KD with normal protein intake.

Sure, some carefully selected phenolic compounds are good for you.
Does that mean that all such compounds in vegetables are good too ?

For example, some vegetables suppress thyroid function ...

[TheFountain]

Here is another one:

"Omnivores and vegetarians from Brazil and the US were isotopically distinct, both within and between regions."
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/16552735

And another:

"isotope ratios suggested a relatively low consumption of animal-derived products compared to western populations."
http://www3.intersci...685410/abstract

And another publication on the methods used to determine diet of different populations (vegan, vegetarian, omnivore). Makes note of ancient populations such as Egyptians, etc. Focuses ultimately on hair, but makes mention of bones as well:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/56707

If the isotope measurements are 100% accurate this can only mean that not all of our ancestors consumed meat as the larger portion of their diets. Hence the variation that keeps popping up as a recurrent theme in nutritional science. And with the recent thread on grain starch being consumed by our ancestors, this only further implicates one sided beliefs as a wrongful approach.

Edited by TheFountain, 21 December 2009 - 05:11 PM.

[TheFountain]

On a side note the term 'fat ass' is still more relevant than 'carb ass' simply because there is no such thing as visceral carbohydrate despite whether or not it is more responsible for fat gain.