33 replies to this topic

[TheFountain]

Here is the gist of what I believe to be the problem with most scientific arguments on this forum.

First of all they seem to be an attempt to prove oneself right, not prove oneself wrong. Yes, one of the primary tenets of science is that if you have a theory, or what you believe to be a fact based assessment, your first inclination ought to be to prove it wrong, not to play fill-in-the-gap science, which is nothing more than a bias+science to support that bias.

This is not aimed at paleolithic dieters specifically, it is aimed at pretty much everyone here. Whether paleo, vegan, vegetarian, atkins, zone or whatever susan summers is pushing these days.

What this leads to, by and large, is an almost outright dismissal of the role epigenetic expression plays in modern dietary choices. Why? Because all 'facts' mentioned are mentioned on the assumed basis of "this is how we evolved" or "this is how we are best suited to live or "this is best for the environment, so it must be best for us". Right? Wrong!

So it is my belief that if we all took our diet of choice or whatever diet we are convinced of and threw all information about it out the window for a moment in favor of proving it wrong, then what would remain in the end, regardless of ones biased disposition, must be the truth. Yes?

Your thoughts?

Edited by caliban, 07 June 2013 - 12:52 AM.
title

[Shepard]

Because all 'facts' mentioned are mentioned on the assumed basis of "this is how we evolved" or "this is how we are best suited to live or "this is best for the environment, so it must be best for us".

Yes, anyone that used the above arguments should be taken to task. They are nonsensical and don't even require a proper understanding of evolutionary theory to see the flaws in the argument.

I don't think you're going to get a "best diet" from the literature, even when more advanced individualized genomic data is available. The truth is that nutrition is not a hard science in the classic sense. By it's nature, a lot of it has been done poorly and it will continue to be unsatisfactory due to confounding factors. Because of this, we all have different lenses from which we view the proper path in the interim. Epidemiology, bottom-up physiology (and the different interpretations therein), evolutionary or other animal models, etc.

[Hebbeh]

Part of the problem is there is no "perfect" diet or one size fits all. Your comment in regards to epigenetics is spot on as genetics play a huge role in response to diet including both macro and micro nutrients and phytochemicals. And often, with diet, it's not what is "best" so much as what is the "lesser of evils" so to speak with determining the mix of nutrients for the immensely varied genetic phenotypes among us and attempting to both reap the positive and limit the negative attributes of the enormous choices available. And DNA testing in concert with dietary studies is providing more and more information in regards to how different SNP combinations effect an individuals dietary response. Examples would be ApoE and MTHFR, among the other mind boggling mix of polymorphisms possible. Dietary examples are as simple as green tea and ECGC...once supposedly the original "good for you" phytochemical that we now know effects different genetic variants differently. For macro nutrient examples, simply refer to the ApoE type mentioned previously. And it only gets more complicated and confusing from there as studies add new "wrinkles".

Also, not everybody has the same dietary goals (hence, where a lot of the "arguments" are based). Some are more concerned with immediate health and/or health span while others are only concerned with longevity (and yes, I know this is considered a "longevity" forum but it's more than that and no, health span and longevity are not necessarily the same thing). While still others are only concerned with athletic performance and even then, different athletes have vastly different priorities and goals. And there are still other priorities such as disease prevention and/or treatment. And the list goes on.

In the end, for the various reasons, each individual will have to make choices with regards to what are the benefits and detriments of each food choice considered. And as discussed, the "best" or, more commonly, the "worst" choices will be different for each of us. I believe the best advice may be the time tested "all things in moderation" but even that advice needs to be taken in context and perspective. Beyond that, not eating in excess (lower calorie diet) providing healthy weight management, probably has the biggest impact on health irrespective of all other choices. I believe the quote " let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food" was attributed to Hippocrates but also keep in mind "the poison is in the dose" as attributed to Paracelsus.

Edited by Hebbeh, 01 June 2013 - 10:24 PM.

[alecnevsky]

We'd have no trouble proving any diet wrong if we really knew a goddamn thing about cholesterol. Evolutionary argument couple with "well that other shit you ate for 20 years made you fat and sick" argument is the best we had till just recently.

[niner]

Epigenetics, or just plain genetics? Do we have any evidence that we are significantly altering our epigenome through our post-natal dietary or environmental experiences? I'm aware of some epigenetic effects that happen in utero, and which may alter our energy metabolism if, for example, the mother was starved vs. well fed during pregnancy. I'm just not sure that the epigenetic effects go much farther than a generic increase in energy storage.

[xEva]

Really? And I thought that epigenetics are involved even when adapting to a different climate. I remember when I moved to Key West, I was told that 'everyone gets sick the first year'. In other words, according to the locals, it takes about a year to adapt to the tropical climate coming from NY or so. Then I recall reading about divers adapting to cold water. It took them just over a month to adapt.

I believe that any type of an adaptation, be it dietary or environmental, requires expression of particular set of genes. Isn't this called epigenetics too?

IMO the best diet is the one best suited for a given lifestyle (and climate of course, since it is an integral part of a lifestyle).

[Hebbeh]

Epigenetics is a study beyond my expertise and perhaps I have used the term too generally but my limited knowledge from limited reviews of the subject indicate that there are various and developing definitions of the what the term encompasses. It seems that the term is used in a broad sense to refer to any mechanism that changes or modifies gene expression.

From http://en.wikipedia....iki/Epigenetics

In biology, and specifically genetics, epigenetics is the study of changes in gene expression or cellularphenotype, caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence – hence the name epi- (Greek: επί- over, above, outer) -genetics, some of which are heritable.

With this broad definition in mind, I believe studies have shown that both macro and micro nutrients as well as phytochemicals can alter gene expression. I believe this is the basis behind almost all of the effects of phytochemicals....by altering gene expression through turning genes on or off.

It refers to functionally relevant modifications to the genome that do not involve a change in the nucleotide sequence. Examples of such modifications are DNA methylation and histone modification, both of which serve to regulate gene expression without altering the underlying DNA sequence. Gene expression can be controlled through the action of repressor proteins that attach to silencer regions of the DNA. These changes may remain through cell divisions for the remainder of the cell's life and may also last for multiple generations. However, there is no change in the underlying DNA sequence of the organism;^[1] instead, non-genetic factors cause the organism's genes to behave (or "express themselves") differently.^[2] There are objections to the use of the term epigenetic to describe chemical modification of histone, since it remains unclear whether or not histone modifications are heritable.^[3]

Epigenetic changes have been observed to occur in response to environmental exposure—for example, mice given some dietary supplements have epigenetic changes affecting expression of the agouti gene, which affects their fur color, weight, and propensity to develop cancer.^[79][80]
In the case of humans with different environmental exposues, Fraga et al.^[81] studied young monozygotic (identical) twins and older monozygotic twins. They found that although such twins were epigenetically indistinguishable during their early years, older twins had remarkable differences in the overall content and genomic distribution of 5-methylcytosine DNA and histone acetylation. The twin pairs who had spent less of their lifetime together and/or had greater differences in their medical histories where those who showed the largest differences in their levels of 5methylcytosine DNA and acetylation of histones H3 and H4.

I believe macro nutrients too have been observed to alter gene expression and the basis for different effects of high fat vs high carb vs high protein diets. And different fatty acids (such as omega 3's or omega 6's) will cause epigenetic changes through gene expression via turning genes off and on. I believe this is one of the fastest growing fields of nutritional science although still in it's infancy.
Also, in reviewing the above literature, it seems the general consensus is that these changes in gene expression may or may not be passed through cell divisions, may or may not be permanent and may or may not be passed on to off spring.

[TheFountain]

Epigenetics, or just plain genetics? Do we have any evidence that we are significantly altering our epigenome through our post-natal dietary or environmental experiences? I'm aware of some epigenetic effects that happen in utero, and which may alter our energy metabolism if, for example, the mother was starved vs. well fed during pregnancy. I'm just not sure that the epigenetic effects go much farther than a generic increase in energy storage.

When I mentioned epigenetic expression I was referring to species wide polymorphism resulting from thousands of years of agricultural diet, not pre or post natal epigenetic expression. As we have seen these polymorphisms are varied, some are allergic to dairy, some soy, some wheat, some even fish. Some deal with one or more of all the above just fine. The introduction of certain protein molecules into the human diet several thousand years ago undoubtedly resulted in this variance. What do you think?

[niner]

Epigenetics, or just plain genetics? Do we have any evidence that we are significantly altering our epigenome through our post-natal dietary or environmental experiences? I'm aware of some epigenetic effects that happen in utero, and which may alter our energy metabolism if, for example, the mother was starved vs. well fed during pregnancy. I'm just not sure that the epigenetic effects go much farther than a generic increase in energy storage.

When I mentioned epigenetic expression I was referring to species wide polymorphism resulting from thousands of years of agricultural diet, not pre or post natal epigenetic expression. As we have seen these polymorphisms are varied, some are allergic to dairy, some soy, some wheat, some even fish. Some deal with one or more of all the above just fine. The introduction of certain protein molecules into the human diet several thousand years ago undoubtedly resulted in this variance. What do you think?

After reading Hebbeh's excellent post, I'd say that epigenetics is a significant influence over a person's lifetime and over the span of a generation or two. In the first post, you mentioned epigenetics as though it were the sole determinant of our response to diet, but I think genetics is a major driver that shouldn't be dismissed. What you're talking about here- the species wide polymorphisms resulting from thousands of years of agricultural diet, is genetics, not epigenetics. Some people in the distant past had genetic abilities to tolerate wheat or milk, and the presence of those foods as important, and occasionally the only source of key nutrients provided the evolutionary selection pressure that made the people who were tolerant of them more likely to pass on their genes. They were the "fittest" that survived. In most cases these evolutionary pressures are not strong enough to cause the intolerant gene to die out in only a few generations. They tend to be weak pressures that take a great many generations to fully weed out the offending genes, if indeed they ever do.

[TheFountain]

Epigenetics, or just plain genetics? Do we have any evidence that we are significantly altering our epigenome through our post-natal dietary or environmental experiences? I'm aware of some epigenetic effects that happen in utero, and which may alter our energy metabolism if, for example, the mother was starved vs. well fed during pregnancy. I'm just not sure that the epigenetic effects go much farther than a generic increase in energy storage.

When I mentioned epigenetic expression I was referring to species wide polymorphism resulting from thousands of years of agricultural diet, not pre or post natal epigenetic expression. As we have seen these polymorphisms are varied, some are allergic to dairy, some soy, some wheat, some even fish. Some deal with one or more of all the above just fine. The introduction of certain protein molecules into the human diet several thousand years ago undoubtedly resulted in this variance. What do you think?

After reading Hebbeh's excellent post, I'd say that epigenetics is a significant influence over a person's lifetime and over the span of a generation or two. In the first post, you mentioned epigenetics as though it were the sole determinant of our response to diet, but I think genetics is a major driver that shouldn't be dismissed. What you're talking about here- the species wide polymorphisms resulting from thousands of years of agricultural diet, is genetics, not epigenetics. Some people in the distant past had genetic abilities to tolerate wheat or milk, and the presence of those foods as important, and occasionally the only source of key nutrients provided the evolutionary selection pressure that made the people who were tolerant of them more likely to pass on their genes. They were the "fittest" that survived. In most cases these evolutionary pressures are not strong enough to cause the intolerant gene to die out in only a few generations. They tend to be weak pressures that take a great many generations to fully weed out the offending genes, if indeed they ever do.

Isn't gluten intolerance (allergy to Gliadin protein molecule) a result of genetic variability? Many people do not have this sensitivity, many do. What I meant is that maybe once everyone was sensitive to it, and the epigenetic expression is the build up of a tolerance to these proteins? I wonder what would cause some to be tolerant and some to never adapt.

[xEva]

When I mentioned epigenetic expression I was referring to species wide polymorphism resulting from thousands of years of agricultural diet, not pre or post natal epigenetic expression. As we have seen these polymorphisms are varied, some are allergic to dairy, some soy, some wheat, some even fish. Some deal with one or more of all the above just fine. The introduction of certain protein molecules into the human diet several thousand years ago undoubtedly resulted in this variance. What do you think?

If I may, I think that the quest for the best diet for a human, based on our recent history and usually presented with unspoken analogy to an animal in the wild, is flawed. Humans colonized the whole planet, from Saharan deserts to Antarctica, and now we're aiming at space. I see human body akin to a Ferrari of the animal world (or Lamburghini? sorry I don't know what's considered the coolest car lol). So IMO when selecting a diet, the first thing is to decide for yourself why you live; from this will follow a lifestyle which in turn will determine the diet. (and then you'd need to give yourself time to adapt to the changes, if any; it will not happen overnight. ..and experiencing difficulties in the beginning is perfectly normal)

I think part of the problem with diet some people have is that now it is way too varied. It is not limited by what's available locally in a given season, like it used to be. Nowadays, if you read menus in a restaurant guide in some vacation spot, you'll see dishes where, say, Australian lamb is combined with Alaskan crab (I actually saw it in Santa Barbara). What gene expression such unprecedented, unaffected by seasons variety requires?

[TheFountain]

When I mentioned epigenetic expression I was referring to species wide polymorphism resulting from thousands of years of agricultural diet, not pre or post natal epigenetic expression. As we have seen these polymorphisms are varied, some are allergic to dairy, some soy, some wheat, some even fish. Some deal with one or more of all the above just fine. The introduction of certain protein molecules into the human diet several thousand years ago undoubtedly resulted in this variance. What do you think?

If I may, I think that the quest for the best diet for a human, based on our recent history and usually presented with unspoken analogy to an animal in the wild, is flawed. Humans colonized the whole planet, from Saharan deserts to Antarctica, and now we're aiming at space. I see human body akin to a Ferrari of the animal world (or Lamburghini? sorry I don't know what's considered the coolest car lol). So IMO when selecting a diet, the first thing is to decide for yourself why you live; from this will follow a lifestyle which in turn will determine the diet. (and then you'd need to give yourself time to adapt to the changes, if any; it will not happen overnight. ..and experiencing difficulties in the beginning is perfectly normal)

I think part of the problem with diet some people have is that now it is way too varied. It is not limited by what's available locally in a given season, like it used to be. Nowadays, if you read menus in a restaurant guide in some vacation spot, you'll see dishes where, say, Australian lamb is combined with Alaskan crab (I actually saw it in Santa Barbara). What gene expression such unprecedented, unaffected by seasons variety requires?

And that may be precisely why so many people are fat and sick.

Personally, I feel as if we are adapted to both pre and post agricultural foods. In both cases because of epigenetic expression.

The larger argument here is nutritional value. Adaptation or no adaptation, nutrition is the most important aspect of the equation. And whether or not we are adapted to the proteins in legumes or grains for example, is less important than the nutritional content of these foods vs pre-agricultural foods like fruits vegetables and so on and so forth. Same applies to Dairy, which is definitely a post-agriculture food. In the case of both dairy and grains/legumes, there is genetic variability. Some people are able to have adaptation, some are not. But it makes it no less epigenetic than when our ancestors first started eating meat.

Edited by TheFountain, 02 June 2013 - 11:10 PM.

[Shepard]

And whether or not we are adapted to the proteins in legumes or grains for example

You are using the same terminology that gets a lot of people in trouble. This is not relevant to dietary recommendations.

But it makes it no less epigenetic than when our ancestors first started eating meat.

Are you suggesting that epigenetic phenomena act directly to further genetic evolution?

Edited by Shepard, 03 June 2013 - 12:32 AM.

[TheFountain]

And whether or not we are adapted to the proteins in legumes or grains for example

You are using the same terminology that gets a lot of people in trouble. This is not relevant to dietary recommendations.

But it makes it no less epigenetic than when our ancestors first started eating meat.

Are you suggesting that epigenetic phenomena act directly to further genetic evolution?

Well, our simian ancestors did not eat meat once upon a time, right? And the going theory is that once meat was included, adaptation soon followed and then evolution, yes?

My assumption is that with the advent of cooking (a form of processing) nutrition increased as far as meat goes.

Edited by TheFountain, 03 June 2013 - 02:24 AM.

[niner]

After reading Hebbeh's excellent post, I'd say that epigenetics is a significant influence over a person's lifetime and over the span of a generation or two. In the first post, you mentioned epigenetics as though it were the sole determinant of our response to diet, but I think genetics is a major driver that shouldn't be dismissed. What you're talking about here- the species wide polymorphisms resulting from thousands of years of agricultural diet, is genetics, not epigenetics. Some people in the distant past had genetic abilities to tolerate wheat or milk, and the presence of those foods as important, and occasionally the only source of key nutrients provided the evolutionary selection pressure that made the people who were tolerant of them more likely to pass on their genes. They were the "fittest" that survived. In most cases these evolutionary pressures are not strong enough to cause the intolerant gene to die out in only a few generations. They tend to be weak pressures that take a great many generations to fully weed out the offending genes, if indeed they ever do.

Isn't gluten intolerance (allergy to Gliadin protein molecule) a result of genetic variability? Many people do not have this sensitivity, many do. What I meant is that maybe once everyone was sensitive to it, and the epigenetic expression is the build up of a tolerance to these proteins? I wonder what would cause some to be tolerant and some to never adapt.

It's actually not an allergy, but is an autoimmune process. But yes, it's a result of genetic variability. Some people have the wrong genes. They will never adapt to gliadin- they just have to avoid it, or they will get sick. My brother in law has celiac disease, and it nearly killed him before it was finally diagnosed properly. As bad as it was, it developed slowly over time and didn't prevent him from fathering two children, one of which has already manifested the disease. The only way to fix this problem, short of gene therapy, is for his kids to elect not to reproduce. Of course, in a world where no one eats grains, it's not a problem. This is about plain old Mendelian genetics, not epigenetics.

[Shepard]

Well, our simian ancestors did not eat meat once upon a time, right? And the going theory is that once meat was included, adaptation soon followed and then evolution, yes?

Let's say that the selection pressure was significant enough to favor those who responded well to meat at the expense of the rest. Why would this have to be an epigenetic mechanism?

What I'm getting at is that it seems like you're indicating that given enough time, epigenetics become genetics for lack of a better phrase. That is what I'm taking issue with, as that would be a misunderstanding of the process.

[misterE]

As we have seen these polymorphisms are varied, some are allergic to dairy, some soy, some wheat, some even fish. Some deal with one or more of all the above just fine. The introduction of certain protein molecules into the human diet several thousand years ago undoubtedly resulted in this variance. What do you think?

Certain enzymes and genes can be manipulated over many generations (thousands of years) due to diet. For instance, humans have been eating primarily grains for the past 15,000 years ago since the dawn of the agricultural-revolution which enabled humans to produce amylase (the enzyme that metabolizes starch). Our bodies adapted to a completely new fuel source, and the transition wasn’t a health threat. Caucasians have developed an enzyme called lactase, which digests lactose found in milk. The majority of Africans and Asians are lactose-intolerant (lactase deficient) because they haven’t had much exposure to dairy-foods like the Europeans had over thousands of years.

The “metabolic-syndrome” pandemic that is occurring right now is a result of a high-fat/high-fructose intake that humans have not recently been consuming historically, thus we are unable to cope with its metabolic effects. Perhaps if humans ate a high-fat/high-sugar diet over thousands of years we would adapt someday, if we live that long.



Part of our survival as a species, is how well we keep the planet clean and how sustainable our planet becomes as we experience an exponential increase in population growth. Obviously the types of foods we feed those people (and the amount of resources those foods take to produce) is going to play a huge role in the longevity of our planet. What good would it do to have all 7 billion people on earth super healthy and fit… if our planet is being destroyed by the food choices we make?

Edited by misterE, 04 June 2013 - 01:05 AM.

[TheFountain]

After reading Hebbeh's excellent post, I'd say that epigenetics is a significant influence over a person's lifetime and over the span of a generation or two. In the first post, you mentioned epigenetics as though it were the sole determinant of our response to diet, but I think genetics is a major driver that shouldn't be dismissed. What you're talking about here- the species wide polymorphisms resulting from thousands of years of agricultural diet, is genetics, not epigenetics. Some people in the distant past had genetic abilities to tolerate wheat or milk, and the presence of those foods as important, and occasionally the only source of key nutrients provided the evolutionary selection pressure that made the people who were tolerant of them more likely to pass on their genes. They were the "fittest" that survived. In most cases these evolutionary pressures are not strong enough to cause the intolerant gene to die out in only a few generations. They tend to be weak pressures that take a great many generations to fully weed out the offending genes, if indeed they ever do.

Isn't gluten intolerance (allergy to Gliadin protein molecule) a result of genetic variability? Many people do not have this sensitivity, many do. What I meant is that maybe once everyone was sensitive to it, and the epigenetic expression is the build up of a tolerance to these proteins? I wonder what would cause some to be tolerant and some to never adapt.

It's actually not an allergy, but is an autoimmune process. But yes, it's a result of genetic variability. Some people have the wrong genes. They will never adapt to gliadin- they just have to avoid it, or they will get sick. My brother in law has celiac disease, and it nearly killed him before it was finally diagnosed properly. As bad as it was, it developed slowly over time and didn't prevent him from fathering two children, one of which has already manifested the disease. The only way to fix this problem, short of gene therapy, is for his kids to elect not to reproduce. Of course, in a world where no one eats grains, it's not a problem. This is about plain old Mendelian genetics, not epigenetics.

Yea, the weird thing about these protein adaptation difficulties is that they do not prevent successful reproduction. Which to me says that there is no 'meant to be' diet, only diets we adapt to gradually over time. But that is why I think nutrient composition is a far more important argument with both cooked edibles and non-cooked edibles, than mere adaptation. Even though the adaptation argument is extremely important for those with sensitivities.

Well, our simian ancestors did not eat meat once upon a time, right? And the going theory is that once meat was included, adaptation soon followed and then evolution, yes?

Let's say that the selection pressure was significant enough to favor those who responded well to meat at the expense of the rest. Why would this have to be an epigenetic mechanism?

What I'm getting at is that it seems like you're indicating that given enough time, epigenetics become genetics for lack of a better phrase. That is what I'm taking issue with, as that would be a misunderstanding of the process.

Well, what aspect of this am I missing that would conclude with an epigenetic expression? What variables are necessary therein?

Edited by TheFountain, 04 June 2013 - 03:19 AM.

[TheFountain]

misterE







Are you suggesting that agriculture is somehow the result of epigenetic expression? That is an interesting premise if so. Care to expound?

[Chupo]

Certain enzymes and genes can be manipulated over many generations (thousands of years) due to diet. For instance, humans have been eating primarily grains for the past 15,000 years ago since the dawn of the agricultural-revolution which enabled humans to produce amylase (the enzyme that metabolizes starch). Our bodies adapted to a completely new fuel source, and the transition wasn’t a health threat. Caucasians have developed an enzyme called lactase, which digests lactose found in milk. The majority of Africans and Asians are lactose-intolerant (lactase deficient) because they haven’t had much exposure to dairy-foods like the Europeans had over thousands of years.

The “metabolic-syndrome” pandemic that is occurring right now is a result of a high-fat/high-fructose intake that humans have not recently been consuming historically, thus we are unable to cope with its metabolic effects. Perhaps if humans ate a high-fat/high-sugar diet over thousands of years we would adapt someday, if we live that long.



Part of our survival as a species, is how well we keep the planet clean and how sustainable our planet becomes as we experience an exponential increase in population growth. Obviously the types of foods we feed those people (and the amount of resources those foods take to produce) is going to play a huge role in the longevity of our planet. What good would it do to have all 7 billion people on earth super healthy and fit… if our planet is being destroyed by the food choices we make?

I think we are in the middle of adapting as a species, which is why you have people like me who don't tolerate carbs very well. I'm of Scandinavian descent but am lactose intolerant as well as being a poor converter of carotenes to vitamin A, confirmed by DNA testing. I don't seem to have these adaptations to the new food sources. I don't know what my AMY1 copy number is but I wouldn't be surprised if it's low. Diabetes runs in my family which is more common for people who are from areas with little or only more recent exposure to agriculture and also have low AMY1 copy numbers. I have an ApoE2 allele, which is supposed to be the most recent yet low fat diets aren't recommended for E2 carriers. Anyway, I just wish you'd accept that not everyone does as well as you do on your diet.

The number 1 thing we can do to save the planet is stop reproducing so much. It won't matter what we eat if we don't stop reproducing at this rate. All it might do is buy some time. The garden pool concept looks promising, if only everyone with a back yard would/could do it. It's a high yield micro-farming technique. This 900 sq ft pool feeds a family of four. http://gardenpool.org/

Edited by Chupo, 04 June 2013 - 03:40 AM.

[Shepard]

TheFountain, I don't understand the wording of your question.

[TheFountain]

TheFountain, I don't understand the wording of your question.

For an epigenetic expression to take place, what are the step by step components necessary?

[misterE]

Are you suggesting that agriculture is somehow the result of epigenetic expression?

Other way around; our genetic expression is the result of agriculture. Our ability to harness grains as a dietary-staple has changed our genetic-expression mainly.

Care to expound?

Sure. What humans ate prior to the agricultural-revolution is anybody’s guess. But what is confirmed and documented throughout history is that grains were the dietary-staples of humanity (until recently). Humans have been eating grains for so long (thousands upon thousands of years) that our bodies began to adapt to having grains and starch in the diet [1], we adapted so well, that now our body produced amylase genes and relied on insulin to be healthy. At least that is what I believe.



The main issue I see humanity facing in the future, and what is more likely to cause an extinction of the human species, is a world full of diabetic people, a tainted and unhealthy food supply, and destruction of the environment. Now I believe that we can avoid or slow this process, by eating more whole-grains, beans and potatoes. Doing this will dilute out the harmful components of the diet (bad-fats, simple-sugars) increase your fiber intake, and naturally lower the calorie-density of the diet. It will also free up much of the water, land and fuel needed to grow and transport large amounts of grain to feedlots and reduce toxic gases in the air.















[1]Nat Genet. 2007 Oct;39(10):1256-60.

Diet and the evolution of human amylase gene copy number variation.

Perry GH, Dominy NJ, Claw KG.

Abstract

Starch consumption is a prominent characteristic of agricultural societies and hunter-gatherers in arid environments. In contrast, rainforest and circum-arctic hunter-gatherers and some pastoralists consume much less starch. This behavioral variation raises the possibility that different selective pressures have acted on amylase, the enzyme responsible for starch hydrolysis. We found that copy number of the salivary amylase gene (AMY1) is correlated positively with salivary amylase protein level and that individuals from populations with high-starch diets have, on average, more AMY1 copies than those with traditionally low-starch diets. Comparisons with other loci in a subset of these populations suggest that the extent of AMY1 copy number differentiation is highly unusual. This example of positive selection on a copy number-variable gene is, to our knowledge, one of the first discovered in the human genome. Higher AMY1 copy numbers and protein levels probably improve the digestion of starchy foods and may buffer against the fitness-reducing effects of intestinal disease.

Edited by misterE, 06 June 2013 - 12:18 AM.

[misterE]

For an epigenetic expression to take place, what are the step by step components necessary?

Long term exposure.

[Shepard]

Long term exposure.

Are you speaking from a dietary perspective? Otherwise, this isn't necessarily true. Acute temperature variations with embryos can cause epigenetic changes, for example.

For an epigenetic expression to take place, what are the step by step components necessary?

If you're asking about the molecular mechanisms, this is fairly well elucidated elsewhere and isn't really relevant to the conversation. Selection does happen due to epigenetics and the effects may be inherited in certain instances, but they do not become part of the offspring's DNA.

[Chupo]

Sure. What humans ate prior to the agricultural-revolution is anybody’s guess. But what is confirmed and documented throughout history is that grains were the dietary-staples of humanity (until recently). Humans have been eating grains for so long (thousands upon thousands of years) that our bodies began to adapt to having grains and starch in the diet [1], we adapted so well, that now our body produced amylase genes and relied on insulin to be healthy. At least that is what I believe.



The main issue I see humanity facing in the future, and what is more likely to cause an extinction of the human species, is a world full of diabetic people, a tainted and unhealthy food supply, and destruction of the environment. Now I believe that we can avoid or slow this process, by eating more whole-grains, beans and potatoes. Doing this will dilute out the harmful components of the diet (bad-fats, simple-sugars) increase your fiber intake, and naturally lower the calorie-density of the diet. It will also free up much of the water, land and fuel needed to grow and transport large amounts of grain to feedlots and reduce toxic gases in the air.

That would be genocide for many groups of people. People who have high AMY1 copy numbers exist because those who had low numbers in the populations that began eating starch didn't do well and died out! Look at the difference in the blood glucose after ingestion of 50g of starch between those with high (HA) and low (LA) AMY1 copy number.





That is only 50 grams of starch.

High endogenous salivary amylase activity is associated with improved glycemic homeostasis following starch ingestion in adults.

Mandel AL, Breslin PA.

Source

Monell Chemical Senses Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Abstract


In the current study, we determined whether increased digestion of starch by high salivary amylase concentrations predicted postprandial blood glucose following starch ingestion. Healthy, nonobese individuals were prescreened for salivary amylase activity and classified as high (HA) or low amylase (LA) if their activity levels per minute fell 1 SD higher or lower than the group mean, respectively. Fasting HA (n = 7) and LA (n = 7) individuals participated in 2 sessions during which they ingested either a starch (experimental) or glucose solution (control) on separate days. Blood samples were collected before, during, and after the participants drank each solution. The samples were analyzed for plasma glucose and insulin concentrations as well as diploid AMY1 gene copy number. HA individuals had significantly more AMY1 gene copies within their genomes than did the LA individuals. We found that following starch ingestion, HA individuals had significantly lower postprandial blood glucose concentrations at 45, 60, and 75 min, as well as significantly lower AUC and peak blood glucose concentrations than the LA individuals. Plasma insulin concentrations in the HA group were significantly higher than baseline early in the testing session, whereas insulin concentrations in the LA group did not increase at this time. Following ingestion of the glucose solution, however, blood glucose and insulin concentrations did not differ between the groups. These observations are interpreted to suggest that HA individuals may be better adapted to ingest starches, whereas LA individuals may be at greater risk for insulin resistance and diabetes if chronically ingesting starch-rich diets.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22492122

Edited by Chupo, 06 June 2013 - 11:26 AM.

[TheFountain]

Mister E

I am interested in much of what you have said, but I have one question about the nutritional validity of a grain based diet.

Are you aware that on most nutritional charts they list the nutrient contents of grains and legumes in their dry form, not their cooked form? Cooking does rid them of phytic acid mostly, but it also seems to rid them of their nutrient richness.

As a matter of fact, one would assume that if they were as rich in nutrients in their cooked form as in their dry form, epigenetic expression might not even be necessary, since it is largely the lack of nutrition (and protein molecule) which seems to necessitate the latter.

Thoughts?

Edited by TheFountain, 07 June 2013 - 12:31 AM.

[misterE]

Thoughts?

We eat, to obtain energy, not nutrients. You would literally starve to death if you only ate broccoli all day, but you wouldn’t be lacking in phytonutrients, vitamins or minerals, you would be lacking calories; the most important component of the diet.

Choosing the right type of calories is key. The benefits of grains comes from their macronutrient ratio and their ability to stimulate insulin-secretion, which is vital to good health and longevity. Grains are also low in environmental toxins like dioxins and heavy-metals.

Most people today don’t have to worry about nutrient deficiency… but rather excess. A grain-based diet provides the perfect ratio and amounts of macro and micro nutrients. Keep grains and other starches the basis of the diet and treat yourself to a richer meal on special occasions. The problem with Americans is that we have Easter for breakfast, Thanksgiving for lunch, Christmas for supper and a birthday party for desert, every single day! All this rich foods overloads the body with fat and calories, which eventually causes insulin-resistance once the adipocytes fill up with fat.

Fueling the body with fruit or nuts wouldn’t work long-term either because the fructose and fat found in the fruit and nuts doesn’t trigger insulin-secretion which prevents leptin-signaling. Grains stimulate insulin-secretion which allows leptin thru the blood-brain-barrier, thus turning off appetite and regulating energy-expenditure.

Certain grains like oats, barley and wheat contain beta-glucan, which is a type of fiber that is highly anticarcinogenic by acting as an immune-system modulator. Beta-glucan also lowers cholesterol and improves insulin-sensitivity. The fiber in grains also helps lower cholesterol, toxins, and hormones by way of the bowel and provides a healthy environment for friendly gut-bacteria.

Edited by misterE, 07 June 2013 - 06:13 AM.

[TheFountain]

Thoughts?

We eat, to obtain energy, not nutrients. You would literally starve to death if you only ate broccoli all day, but you wouldn’t be lacking in phytonutrients, vitamins or minerals, you would be lacking calories; the most important component of the diet.

Choosing the right type of calories is key. The benefits of grains comes from their macronutrient ratio and their ability to stimulate insulin-secretion, which is vital to good health and longevity. Grains are also low in environmental toxins like dioxins and heavy-metals.

Most people today don’t have to worry about nutrient deficiency… but rather excess. A grain-based diet provides the perfect ratio and amounts of macro and micro nutrients. Keep grains and other starches the basis of the diet and treat yourself to a richer meal on special occasions. The problem with Americans is that we have Easter for breakfast, Thanksgiving for lunch, Christmas for supper and a birthday party for desert, every single day! All this rich foods overloads the body with fat and calories, which eventually causes insulin-resistance once the adipocytes fill up with fat.

Fueling the body with fruit or nuts wouldn’t work long-term either because the fructose and fat found in the fruit and nuts doesn’t trigger insulin-secretion which prevents leptin-signaling. Grains stimulate insulin-secretion which allows leptin thru the blood-brain-barrier, thus turning off appetite and regulating energy-expenditure.

Certain grains like oats, barley and wheat contain beta-glucan, which is a type of fiber that is highly anticarcinogenic by acting as an immune-system modulator. Beta-glucan also lowers cholesterol and improves insulin-sensitivity. The fiber in grains also helps lower cholesterol, toxins, and hormones by way of the bowel and provides a healthy environment for friendly gut-bacteria.

There are those that say not only are cooked grains nutritionally deficient, but that the phyto-toxins they contain add to that by depleting what nutrients and minerals they do have left after heating.

I am of the view that getting some energy from grains sometimes is not a bad thing, all things being equal. But relying on them is something that I have struggled with in terms of feeling physically and mentally alert.

Maintaining my frame is another issue I have on a grain centric diet because I do martial arts that are somewhat demanding on my body. If I eat grains more than moderately I can begin to feel groggy in a matter of days.

Any ideas as to why?

[misterE]

Any ideas as to why?

Perhaps you are insulin-resistant and the energy from the grains is unable to enter your cells

My research has led me to believe that insulin-resistance and type-2 diabetes is literally due to a lack of eating insulin-stimulating foods, which deprives your cells from the much needed insulin. You need carbohydrates to stimulate insulin, and you need insulin to inhibit lipolysis; excessive lipolysis is the underlying cause of lipotoxicity and type-2 diabetes.

Fasting or starvation also causes a temporary insulin-resistance due to lack of insulin-secretion and an increase in lipolysis (which increases free-fatty-acids in the blood). If you look into the cells of someone with type-2 diabetes, what you find is that they have an accumulation of fatty-acids and triglycerides inside their cells, which inhibits insulin-signaling within the cell.

Spiking insulin-secretion by eating more beans, potatoes, bread, and grains temporarily inhibits lipolysis, which stops the influx of FFA’s into the cells… thus improving insulin-sensitivity. Also remember that improving insulin-sensitivity tends to promote weight-gain, since one of the many roles of insulin is to store fat, protein and carbs.

Knowing how to manipulate insulin by altering the macronutrient ratio of the diet is what I call: befriending insulin. This is how you use insulin to your advantage to do amazing things for you, without dealing too much with some of the negative aspects of insulin.

So to honestly answer your question and with all due respect: perhaps you are insulin-resistant from not eating enough grains and spiking your insulin.

My advice to you (and I’m sure this is going to sound ludicrous to all the low-carbers reading this) would be to decrease total fat and fructose intake (to prevent fat-gain) and then spike the shit out of your insulin; I’m talking potatoes galore, beans, white-rice, home-made whole-grain breads, perhaps some organic skim-milk (which is highly insulinogenic) in moderation, if you are feeling risky. These foods produce a huge insulin demand from the body. That huge insulin demand is going to shut off lipolysis and prevent lipotoxicity, which spares you from metabolic-syndrome. Those foods are also very low in fat and fructose (which converts into fat), thus gaining a lot of body-fat from these foods is virtually impossible, but since insulin does inhibit lipolysis, it will stall fat oxidation (which also cuts back on lipid-peroxides) and subsequent weight-loss.

Edited by misterE, 11 June 2013 - 12:54 AM.