• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Lies, Damned Lies, and Ketosis

ketosis ketone ketogenic diet

  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#31 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 12 March 2017 - 04:42 PM

Put the question in the context of evolutionary biology: can X, Y or Z diet effortlessly sustain a breeding group of humans in thriving health?  This means how do pregnant women, nursing women and developing children fare on the diet... if the diet fails to perform as well as the generalist diets we evolved on, then you have your answer about how healthy the diet really is for the average human.  

 

Keep in mind that biological fitness is about successful reproduction (it's both quantitative and relative like that), and in biology, survival is also defined in terms of reproduction.

 

Extreme (or near specialst) diets nearly universally fail here.  Keto is perhaps worse than veganism in this regard because vegans at least sometimes attempt to supplement the nutrients they are missing while trying to be an herbivore in an omnivorous body.  But where do keto dieters supplement their carbohydrates (particularly starches, fiber) and phytosteroids while they are trying to be a carnivore in an omnivorous body?  And we are most definitely omnivores - generalists.  Jack-of-all-trades, master of none due to evolutionary trade-offs.  We just don't have the equipment that the specialists have (herbivores, carnivores) to live as effortlessly on specialist diets.  We traded some efficiency in dealing with plant foods and meat in order to thrive on a combination of both.

 

Vegans fail to recognize the role meat played in our evolution, and ketogenics fail to recognize the role cooked starches played in our evolution.  For fuck's sake, WHY?

 

Anecdotes about an adult starting X, Y or Z diet and living awesomely for years are irrelevant, especially if they had the benefit of growing up on a generalist diet until their brain reached full maturation (at around early to mid 20s) - it only matters at the generational level.


Edited by Duchykins, 12 March 2017 - 05:15 PM.


#32 aconita

  • Guest
  • 1,389 posts
  • 290
  • Location:Italy
  • NO

Posted 12 March 2017 - 08:57 PM

Until about 9 thousand years ago cereals constituted a negligible role in human nutrition, in very large parts of the planet it kept that way for much longer and for some it is still that way nowadays.

 

Since cereals are the main source of carbs that means humans were on keto till very recently.

 

The only other sources of carbs available more or less all year long need cultivation as cereals do, fruit is available only for very short time frames and in mild climates (and anyway never constituted staple foodstuff in any part of the world).

 

You confound low carbs (or keto, if you wish to call it so) with the typical American diet less cereals where basically only meat and eggs are left.

 

You can be keto and eat plenty of starces and phytosteroids (and much more, for that matter).

 

I don't like the term "keto", it is largely misused and usually refers to low carbs (which is a more appropriate term).

 

Low carbs leads to ketones production but a ketogenic diet refers to 0 carbs (or very close to it) and isn't recommendable, it is in facts prescribed in hospital settings to treat children epilepsy, for example.


  • Agree x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for NUTRITION to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#33 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 12 March 2017 - 09:33 PM

Until about 9 thousand years ago cereals constituted a negligible role in human nutrition, in very large parts of the planet it kept that way for much longer and for some it is still that way nowadays.

 

Since cereals are the main source of carbs that means humans were on keto till very recently.

 

The only other sources of carbs available more or less all year long need cultivation as cereals do, fruit is available only for very short time frames and in mild climates (and anyway never constituted staple foodstuff in any part of the world).

 

You confound low carbs (or keto, if you wish to call it so) with the typical American diet less cereals where basically only meat and eggs are left.

 

You can be keto and eat plenty of starces and phytosteroids (and much more, for that matter).

 

I don't like the term "keto", it is largely misused and usually refers to low carbs (which is a more appropriate term).

 

Low carbs leads to ketones production but a ketogenic diet refers to 0 carbs (or very close to it) and isn't recommendable, it is in facts prescribed in hospital settings to treat children epilepsy, for example.

 

Absolutely not.   I've had to had this discussion will equally ill-informed vegans more times than I care to remember.  Time and time again I have had to post dozens of biology papers where biologists discuss the very obvious lack of specialization in diet in ancient humans and ancestral species of humans.  Anything approaching keto (or veganism) would be considered specialization.

 

Homo erectus reigned as hunter-gatherers for about 1.8 million years and the widespread advent of cooking came very late in their reign, along with Homo ergaster.  Homo heidelbergenesis came next (about 700,000 - 600,000 years ago) and had cooking in full swing - eventually giving rise to H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens.  

 

Sapiens is not quite the carnivore that Neanderthalensis was (we know this because of the isotopic evidence, which is the only direct evidence of the level of persistent carnivory a species had that we can derive from fossilized remains), even though we were genetically similar enough to interbreed with - they were top predators who were beginning to hyperspecialize in sight, having larger eyes and occipital lobes - and we believe this inflexibility of Neandertals might have contributed to their extinction.

 

Neandertals, being isolated to upper Europe in the cold, are the ones who focused more on meat.  Sapiens, before coming up out of Africa (and after), remained generalists.

 

The major shift that cooked starches triggered occurred before the evolution of H. sapiens sapiens - it actually helped precipitate the speciation of modern humans.  And sapiens is only 200,000 years old.  Remember agriculture is only about 12,000 years old, occurring well after the evolution of modern humans.  

 

The cooked starches were originally mostly in the form of tubers, USOs, things you can find in the ground year-round ... way before we started farming, way before we even existed.   This is when the selection of amylase copies began occurring, such that we humans have much more amylase in the saliva than any other primate.

 

 

 

However, you are correct that agriculture radically altered our diet, our environment; essentially, most groups of modern humans have now become like something omnivorous granivores.   This is very new to our genome.  But we are in the process of adapting and will do so in time.  Evolution demands it.

 

The exceptions to this are the still-living hunter-gatherer societies that live in very isolated regions, untouched by industry and still living off the land without much agriculture, if any at all.  These are the humans that are living most like our pre-agriculture ancestors did and didn't have as many changes to adapt to.  There is nothing ketogenic or low carb about their diets.  


Edited by Duchykins, 12 March 2017 - 09:44 PM.


#34 aconita

  • Guest
  • 1,389 posts
  • 290
  • Location:Italy
  • NO

Posted 12 March 2017 - 09:47 PM

There is nothing ketogenic about their diets.

 

There is nothing close to the amounts of carbs most people eats nowadays for sure.

 

I already told you: if ketogenic means 0 carbs (as it should) I may agree with you, but if with ketogenic we mean low carbs it is a whole different matter.

 



#35 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 12 March 2017 - 09:58 PM

 

There is nothing ketogenic about their diets.

 

There is nothing close to the amounts of carbs most people eats nowadays for sure.

 

I already told you: if ketogenic means 0 carbs (as it should) I may agree with you, but if with ketogenic we mean low carbs it is a whole different matter.

 

 

They are not low carb either, with the exception of perhaps one tribe that I am aware of that subsists almost entirely on the animal kingdom alone.  Even that is not really keto since they eat everything, not just the skeletal muscle.  Eg the  liver contains a nice little chunk of carbohydrates in addition to all the other goodies it has, and we know how prized the liver from a fresh kill was back in the days before industrialization.

 

I'm sorry, you don't get to rewrite the evolutionary narrative to suit your ideology.  Vegans don't get to do it, creationists don't get to do it, and low carb nuts don't get to do it either.

 

I agree with you about the excess of carbs today.  But we are also doing something else that is new to our genome - we have, as a general industrialized culture and for no good reason, stopped eating the very nutrient-dense and nutrient-diverse organ meats and have increased our portions of less-nutritious skeletal muscle as if to make up for the loss of organ meats.  What the fuck.


Edited by Duchykins, 12 March 2017 - 09:59 PM.


#36 aconita

  • Guest
  • 1,389 posts
  • 290
  • Location:Italy
  • NO

Posted 12 March 2017 - 10:45 PM

I'm sorry, you don't get to rewrite the evolutionary narrative to suit your ideology

 

 

And which one would be my ideology, if I may ask? :) 


  • Good Point x 1

#37 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 13 March 2017 - 12:42 AM

 

I'm sorry, you don't get to rewrite the evolutionary narrative to suit your ideology

 

 

And which one would be my ideology, if I may ask? :)

 

 

Whatever caused you to say something incredibly stupid like this:  "Since cereals are the main source of carbs that means humans were on keto till very recently."



#38 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 13 March 2017 - 01:03 AM

Many of us vegans (since you're generalizing, too) are vegans first for humanitarian and environmental reasons. Many of us know it's not an optimal diet for all humans at all stages during life. Many of us also know the environmental reasons for choosing to go vegan may also rest on shaky, debatable grounds.

One thing is an absolutely certainty for all (excluding psychopaths), however: if you've ever been inside a modern meat or dairy processing plant, you were horrified by the casual, easy, mechanized brutality of this unnecessary machine that denies the rights and feelings of our fellow creatures. If you've never been inside (which is completely understandable given they don't want you inside) at least watch one of the many painful documentaries that are out there.

Fine if you choose to eat meat; but keep it respectful, keep portion sizes small, and give thanks to the beautiful creature that gave its life to fulfill your optimal diet goals.
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Agree x 1

#39 aconita

  • Guest
  • 1,389 posts
  • 290
  • Location:Italy
  • NO

Posted 13 March 2017 - 03:15 AM

Whatever caused you to say something incredibly stupid like this:  "Since cereals are the main source of carbs that means humans were on keto till very recently."

 

Really?

 

Well, would you mind to explain what exactly you find stupid about it?

 

Sthira,

humanitarian and environmental reasons are a bit more complex than just killing the poor animal...if you can't watch in the eyes a lettuce while harvesting it doesn't mean you are not ending a life.

 

Those kind of concerns go well beyond blood pouring around when slaughtering but I do agree we should better to be aware about what a sin really is.



#40 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 13 March 2017 - 03:28 AM

Whatever caused you to say something incredibly stupid like this: "Since cereals are the main source of carbs that means humans were on keto till very recently."

Really?

Well, would you mind to explain what exactly you find stupid about it?

Sthira,
humanitarian and environmental reasons are a bit more complex than just killing the poor animal...if you can't watch in the eyes a lettuce while harvesting it doesn't mean you are not ending a life.

Those kind of concerns go well beyond blood pouring around when slaughtering but I do agree we should better to be aware about what a sin really is.

More generalizing: few vegans argue that practicing a vegan diet and lifestyle means we're perfect, non-killing organisms. Nearly all life is messy -- especially we consumer mammals. So of course you're right, killing a head of lettuce is killing a plant. Yet I'm sure you're able to make a qualitative distinction between killing a plant and killing an organism with a central nervous system that feels pain and is sentient.

Also note the frutarian perspective (which I don't practice) that argues no killing happens when you eat fruit. In fact, the fruit tree potentially benefits by your consumption, assuming you scatter its fruit seeds to the rich earth.
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#41 aconita

  • Guest
  • 1,389 posts
  • 290
  • Location:Italy
  • NO

Posted 13 March 2017 - 04:10 AM

We don't really know what plants feels...and the assumptions that feeling makes an organism a superior form of life, intended as better form or one which deserves more respect, is debatable.

 

The vegetal reign is one of the few, if not the only, not killing for a living (with only very rare exceptions), therefore dismissing it as inferior isn't a show of great awareness.

 

By the way, regarding making a qualitative distinction between killing a plant and killing an organism with a central nervous system that feels pain and is sentient I can assure you that I'll be by far more comfortable in organizing an encounter between God and some humans in order for them to discuss about forgiving than pulling a lettuce. :)

 

Just nailing down the concept that wasting is a crime would be a huge step forward in awareness...and we do actually waste more than we use.

 

I am not so sure being fruitarian would make for an appropriate human nutrition plan health wise...anyway I would expect fruitarians to swallow the seeds (no chewing on those please) and to have shitting in the woods as an habit, nope the compost toilet isn't going to work...and yes, diet should include avocados too, of course.   :)

 

 



#42 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 13 March 2017 - 04:18 AM

 

Whatever caused you to say something incredibly stupid like this:  "Since cereals are the main source of carbs that means humans were on keto till very recently."

 

Really?

 

Well, would you mind to explain what exactly you find stupid about it?

 

 

 

Well geez, if you scroll up you'll find the post where I specifically addressed that line.  



#43 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 13 March 2017 - 04:22 AM

Many of us vegans (since you're generalizing, too) are vegans first for humanitarian and environmental reasons. Many of us know it's not an optimal diet for all humans at all stages during life. Many of us also know the environmental reasons for choosing to go vegan may also rest on shaky, debatable grounds.

One thing is an absolutely certainty for all (excluding psychopaths), however: if you've ever been inside a modern meat or dairy processing plant, you were horrified by the casual, easy, mechanized brutality of this unnecessary machine that denies the rights and feelings of our fellow creatures. If you've never been inside (which is completely understandable given they don't want you inside) at least watch one of the many painful documentaries that are out there.

Fine if you choose to eat meat; but keep it respectful, keep portion sizes small, and give thanks to the beautiful creature that gave its life to fulfill your optimal diet goals.

 

 

Let me just say that I'm sorry for generalizing in haste - I usually deal with vegans who argue that humans are herbivores especially on YouTube, with all kinds of absurd ideas that are in direct contradiction with the biological evidence and arguments that are structurally similar to creationists', and that's it.  I have a special interest in evolutionary biology and shit like that attracts me like playing sudoku or something.

 

I'm aware that not all vegans are stupid like that but you guys seem to be a reasonable minority, or perhaps a quiet majority.  But it's easy for me to forget sometimes.


Edited by Duchykins, 13 March 2017 - 04:24 AM.

  • Good Point x 1

#44 aconita

  • Guest
  • 1,389 posts
  • 290
  • Location:Italy
  • NO

Posted 13 March 2017 - 04:26 AM

I can't find you mentioning any food as reliable source of carbs besides liver... (4,5% at best, which means about 1kg/day just to borderline keto).



#45 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 13 March 2017 - 04:42 AM

 

Until about 9 thousand years ago cereals constituted a negligible role in human nutrition, in very large parts of the planet it kept that way for much longer and for some it is still that way nowadays.

 

Since cereals are the main source of carbs that means humans were on keto till very recently.

 

 

Absolutely not.   I've had to had this discussion will equally ill-informed vegans more times than I care to remember.  Time and time again I have had to post dozens of biology papers where biologists discuss the very obvious lack of specialization in diet in ancient humans and ancestral species of humans.  Anything approaching keto (or veganism) would be considered specialization.

 

Homo erectus reigned as hunter-gatherers for about 1.8 million years and the widespread advent of cooking came very late in their reign, along with Homo ergaster.  Homo heidelbergenesis came next (about 700,000 - 600,000 years ago) and had cooking in full swing - eventually giving rise to H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens.  

 

Sapiens is not quite the carnivore that Neanderthalensis was (we know this because of the isotopic evidence, which is the only direct evidence of the level of persistent carnivory a species had that we can derive from fossilized remains), even though we were genetically similar enough to interbreed with - they were top predators who were beginning to hyperspecialize in sight, having larger eyes and occipital lobes - and we believe this inflexibility of Neandertals might have contributed to their extinction.

 

Neandertals, being isolated to upper Europe in the cold, are the ones who focused more on meat.  Sapiens, before coming up out of Africa (and after), remained generalists.

 

The major shift that cooked starches triggered occurred before the evolution of H. sapiens sapiens - it actually helped precipitate the speciation of modern humans.  And sapiens is only 200,000 years old.  Remember agriculture is only about 12,000 years old, occurring well after the evolution of modern humans.  

 

The cooked starches were originally mostly in the form of tubers, USOs, things you can find in the ground year-round ... way before we started farming, way before we even existed.   This is when the selection of amylase copies began occurring, such that we humans have much more amylase in the saliva than any other primate.

 

 

 

However, you are correct that agriculture radically altered our diet, our environment; essentially, most groups of modern humans have now become like something omnivorous granivores.   This is very new to our genome.  But we are in the process of adapting and will do so in time.  Evolution demands it.

 

The exceptions to this are the still-living hunter-gatherer societies that live in very isolated regions, untouched by industry and still living off the land without much agriculture, if any at all.  These are the humans that are living most like our pre-agriculture ancestors did and didn't have as many changes to adapt to.  There is nothing ketogenic or low carb about their diets.  

 

 

 

Wow, you made me quote myself.  What an ass you are.


Edited by Duchykins, 13 March 2017 - 04:44 AM.

  • Unfriendly x 2
  • Good Point x 1
  • dislike x 1

#46 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 13 March 2017 - 04:47 AM

So what's all this fascination and hyperfocus on cereals?    Is that what your pet sources of bad information do?



#47 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 13 March 2017 - 05:26 AM

 
 
Genomic signatures of diet-related shifts during human origins
 
 
 

 

There are numerous anthropological analyses concerning the importance of diet during human evolution. Diet is thought to have had a profound influence on the human phenotype, and dietary differences have been hypothesized to contribute to the dramatic morphological changes seen in modern humans as compared with non-human primates. Here, we attempt to integrate the results of new genomic studies within this well-developed anthropological context. We then review the current evidence for adaptation related to diet, both at the level of sequence changes and gene expression. Finally, we propose some ways in which new technologies can help identify specific genomic adaptations that have resulted in metabolic and morphological differences between humans and non-human primates.

 
______
 
 
Several recent studies have focused on signatures of natural selection in humans and non-human primates, both at the level of genome sequence as well as in gene expression data. Additionally, a number of studies have been very successful in identifying specific signatures of adaptation to dietary changes in the genome of modern humans (e.g. [1–4]).These case studies have shown that it is possible to identify specific coding, regulatory and copy number adaptive changes in the human genome related to changes in diet. However, the next challenge is understanding the larger sets of genes or pathways that have been under selection owing to shifts in the human diet, as compared with other primates, and in particular great apes. Gene set enrichment analyses, which focus on broader categories of genes showing signatures of positive selection, reveal a striking pattern across studies where many selective differences appear to be related to diet and metabolism. This consistent result suggests that selection acted to optimize differential metabolic requirements in humans and non-human primates. The challenge now is how to locate and make biological sense of the particular genes or pathways that underlie these metabolic adaptations. We propose that two sources of information need to be integrated to address this challenge: anthropological and comparative genomic analyses.
 
There are a number of prominent hypotheses in the anthropological literature concerning the importance of diet in human evolution. Comparisons with extant great apes as well as the fossil and archaeological record suggest that among the most important changes in diet was an increase in animal products (meat and fat) and starchy plant products during human evolution (reviewed in [5]). Diet and foraging patterns are thought to have had a profound influence on the human phenotype, and dietary differences have been hypothesized to contribute to the dramatic morphological changes seen in modern humans [6–8].These dietary changes can inform our understanding of sequence and gene expression differences found in metabolic genes between primates.
 
Here, we attempt to integrate the results of genomic studies within this well-developed anthropological context. We then review the current evidence for adaptation related to diet, both at the level of sequence and gene expression. Finally, we propose some ways in which genomic technologies can help identify specific adaptations owing to metabolic differences between humans and non-human primates.
 
 
________
 
 
 
The importance of metabolic changes during human evolution
 
(a) Shifts in the diets of modern human populations as compared with ape diets
 
First we will compare the changes in diet between apes and modern human populations, and then review the changes that occurred in the time since the human lineage diverged from our most recent common ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos. There is an enormous amount of geographical and temporal variation in the modern human diet, but the underlying strategy remains omnivory. The most dramatic change in the recent diet of humans is the domestication of animals and plants [9]. Nutrient intake varies widely among modern human populations, where some have a heavy reliance on carbohydrates in the form of cereals, roots and tubers from agriculture and gathering, while other populations have an emphasis on fat and protein extracted from animal husbandry, hunting and fishing [10].These diets distinguish human populations from members of the larger family of living Hominidae, which includes the gorilla, chimpanzee and bonobo. All of the African apes have a diet that includes large quantities of fruit and/or structural plant parts. This is not to say these animals are exclusively vegetarian, as we know chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas sometimes eat invertebrates [11], and chimpanzees [12,13] as well as bonobos hunt vertebrates [14,15].
 
 
 
 
(b) Dietary shifts in hominin evolution
 
The connection between diet and the appearance of possibly adaptive traits in hominins is of great importance for understanding human evolutionary history as well as the health and disease consequences of these adaptations for modern humans.  Hominins, as a group, include humans and all of our ancestors arising after the human–chimpanzee divergence approximately 4.6–6.2 Ma [16]. In this review, we consider dietary traits acting at several scales, from molecular to organismal, associated with the intake and processing of food. In order to interpret the signatures of diet-related molecular changes, it is important to revisit the evolutionary history of humans at the organismal level.  The phylogenetic affinities and the accompanying diets of many early hominin species remain unclear; however, ecological studies of extant primates and functional analyses of fossil remains suggest that hominins in general occupied an omnivore trophic niche [17] and provide us with several clear indicators of their dietary components. The fossil remains of several australopithecine and paranthropine species show that diet varied between 4.5 and 1.2 Ma, but that overall these hominins had large molars lacking well-developed shearing crests, thick enamel and powerful jaws [18–22]. These dental traits indicate crushing of hard food items during mastication and a diet that included seeds, rich in protein and fat, but do not preclude a diet including underground storage organs (USOs), such as roots and tubers, covered with abrasive soil and rich in carbohydrates [23–25]. The relative contribution of seeds versus USOs to the early hominin diet is currently an area of active discussion and research (reviewed in [26]).  The genus Homo is first recognized in Africa approximately 2.5 Ma. The evolution of the genus Homo between 2.5 and 1.9 Ma is poorly understood because of the difficulties in assigning fossil specimens to distinct taxa. However, there appears to be a trend of gradually increasing brain size during this period [27–29]. Dental and skeletal traits of early Homo are difficult to interpret, though increased occlusal relief suggests an emphasis on shearing of food items during mastication [30]. It is notable that both stable isotope and dental microwear studies suggest that it is difficult to demonstrate a highly specialized diet for early hominins[31–35].
 
 
It is with the origin of Homo erectus approximately 1.9 Ma and the appearance of the Acheulean tool industry approximately 1.6 Ma that we see several traits that signify a clear shift towards the modern human formand a change in diet as compared with their more robust predecessors. With H. erectus, there is an increase in body size, skeletal indicators of a striding bipedal gait, a reduction in the size of the teeth and jaws and a substantial jump in relative brain size, which together with the evidence from the archaeological record suggest a dietary strategy that included bulk processing of a significant proportion of high-quality, calorie-rich food items [6,28,36–38] There is evidence at this time for extraction of marrow and flesh from large mammals using stone tools [39–41], although recent evidence argues that this may have occurred much earlier in Australopithecus afarensis [42]. Early representatives of the genus Homo probably used tools for the processing of both animal and plant materials and for wooden tool production [36,43]; however, hunting weapons do not show up unequivocally in the fossil record until about 400 thousand years ago [44]. While the archaeological record clearly shows that scavenging occurred at carnivore kill sites, there is little consensus as to what constitutes evidence for distinguishing passive scavenging, ‘power scavenging’, and hunting [45], where power scavenging is defined as actively driving another animal away from a carcase, as opposed to passive scavenging which involves harvesting food from an abandoned carcase [39]. The evidence from the feeding apparatus, particularly the reduction in post-canine tooth size, the increased occlusal relief and the gracilization of the jaws, indicates continued emphasis on shearing food items during mastication with a reduction in the hardness of foods consumed and/or the use of technology to process foods prior to ingestion[19,25,30,46]. The fossil and archaeological evidence suggests there was not only an increase in access to animal products during this period, but also the continued importance of plant material. Taken together, the hallmark of the early Homo diet is its great versatility and consistent access to high-quality foods[31,47]. Regardless of the predominate meat procurement mode, the increased availability of protein and fat in the diet of H. erectus via oil-rich seeds, USOs and meat [17] would provide consistently available, high-quality, calorie-rich fuels for such energetically expensive adaptations as a large brain.
 
 
 
© Trade-off hypotheses regarding diet
 
As discussed above, a hallmark of the evolution of human diet is the inclusion of a high percentage of nutrient-rich foods(including animal products). Several hypotheses have been put forth to connect changes in nutrition with evidence of adaptation, specifically the increase in brain size over the past 2 Myr, and many of them focus on tissue mass changes. The first, and most prominent, of these hypotheses is the expensive tissue hypothesis proposed by Aiello & Wheeler [6].They noticed that the total mass-specific basal metabolic rate of humans is well within the range of other primates, but that we have a larger brain, which results in greater energy requirements. Taken together, they predicted that some other structure or structures had to decrease in mass in order to reduce energy consumption and allow for the expansion of our metabolically demanding human brain. Aiello & Wheeler [6] hypothesized that the increasing quality and digestibility of the hominin diet during evolution allowed for the reduction of the energetically expensive gut tissue. Then, the net gain in energy could be allocated to the human brain. The differences in gut size among mammal species are consistent with empirical observations relating digestive organs to diet quality [48]; herbivores usually have large guts to better extract nutrients from plant tissue, whereas the simpler gut of humans is more typically found in carnivores. Another trade-off prediction comes from Leonard et al. [7], who suggest that a decrease in muscle mass and an increase in adiposity provided a potential source of energy to fuel the evolution of the human brain in two main ways. First, an energetically expensive tissue, skeletal muscle, was reduced. Second, a tissue known for its ability to store energy, fat, was increased.
 
Together these hypotheses illustrate that diet may have acted as a ‘releaser’ and a ‘challenger’ in human evolution. Examples of a release of energetic constraint would be the re-allocation of energy-expensive tissues, allowing for the development and maintenance of the human brain, or an increase in diet quality in terms of energy value [6,49–51]. Diet can also act as a challenger as foraging for foods high in quality often provides both an energetic challenge as well as a cognitive challenge [52–56]. When considering diet as a ‘releaser’ and a ‘challenger’ of metabolism, we are in the position to identify and characterize interesting genetic and molecular candidates that could be responsible for adaptive traits.
 
 
__________
 
3. Genomic analyses allow us to identify trends across sets of genes
 
There has been an exponential increase in genomic information available for humans and non-human primates in the last decade (reviewed in [57–59]). This includes genomic variation between human populations as well as our closest primate relatives. Using these data, a number of studies looked for signatures of natural selection in gene sequence and/or differential gene expression within many primate lineages, most with the goal of determining human-specific adaptations [60–71]. Many of these studies have performed categorical enrichment analysis, which tests whether larger, pre-defined, classes of genes, such as ‘immunity and defence’ or ‘lipid metabolism’ are statistically over-represented among the genes showing signatures of selection or differential expression. Even if there is only a moderate signal for the individual genes with the category, there might be an important biological signal if many genes involved in a process are changing function in concert along a lineage. The predefined categories for human genes come from databases such as the Gene Ontology (GO) [72], or the Protein ANalysis THrough Evolutionary Relationships (PANTHER) [73] databases, which group genes in categories based on experimental evidence or predicted function. It is important to note that these annotations are partially hand-curated and so their interpretation presents some caveats: genes can be placed in multiple categories, some of the categories are not independent and some category labels can be difficult to interpret biologically. Nevertheless, by grouping genes into larger categories, we can begin to discern patterns of change at a genomic, rather than at a single gene, level. However, a change in expression or signature for positive selection in DNA sequence does not always imply a change in diet; even with a conserved diet, a change in gene expression may simply modify how the nutrients are processed and used. Therefore, it is critical to understand the biological context for all of these new datasets, and so it is essential to integrate them within the extensive anthropological framework concerning changes in diet during human evolutionary history.
 
_____
 
4. Signatures of metabolic changes based on genome-wide scans for natural selection
 
In the search to uncover the genotypic changes underlying shifts in human phenotypes, there have been many in-depth accounts of polymorphisms segregating within human populations that confer some adaptive advantage in diet and digestion. The most prominent example is the ability to digest milk solids (lactose) into adulthood (lactase persistence) in some human populations [2,3,74,75]. Multiple regulatory polymorphisms in these different populations help drive lactose-phlorizin hydrolase (LPH) gene expression in adults. This regulatory locus shows one of the strongest signals of positive selection in the human genome [3,76–79]. There are now many examples of recent adaptations in genes as well as in gene families that appear to be shaped by more recent diet-related pressures (e.g. taste [80,81] and olfactory [82] receptor genes).  However, as reviewed above, as hominoids diverged from our last common ancestors with the Pan lineage, there were significant changes in their diet—indicating that older adaptive changes might be found throughout the genome.
 
 
[my note: the genus Pan consists of chimps and bonobos]
 
 
(a) Comparisons of metabolic categories changing between protein-coding and regulatory genomic regions between species
 
Comparative genomic studies looking for signatures of positive selection have taken two general approaches: the first is to scan the genome looking for regions where there is an overabundance of nucleotide substitutions as compared with nucleotides that are thought to be evolving neutrally [60–62,65,66]; the second is to look for regions that are extremely evolutionarily conserved, but show an accelerated number of changes in the human genome [63,64]. These studies have also differed in their focus on selection working on either protein-coding [60,62,65,66] or putative regulatory regions near genes [61,63,64]. Indeed, there appear to be different signatures coming from coding and regulatory regions [83] (i.e. coding and non-coding). Overall, however, many of these studies have found signatures of selection in genes that may have played a role in adaptations to dietary changes.
 
In coding regions, genes involved in sensory perception (i.e. processes such as taste and smell) have been under positive selection [60,65,66], as well as genes related to immune responses, which are expected to be under lineage-specific selection. Looking between mammalian clades, many genes involved in conveying sensory perception to the brain also appear to be under positive selection in the primate lineage, but not in the rodent lineage, correlating with the increased brain size and complexity in the primate lineage [62]. Other studies of more recent signals of positive selection within and between human populations also show some enrichments for metabolism-related genes, such as protein, carbohydrate and phosphate metabolism (for an extensive review, see [84]).
 
Regulatory regions in humans also show signatures of positive selection in genes related to metabolism, especially glucose metabolism [61]. Glucose metabolism categories include carbohydrate metabolism, glycolysis, other polysaccharide metabolism and anion transport. Glucose metabolism-related genes scoring high in humans include HK1, GCK and GPI, which are all involved in steps of glycolysis. One test to see whether these diet-related signals are biologically meaningful is to perform branch-specific enrichments, where only regions under positive selection in each species are used in the enrichments. These analyses show that the metabolic categories for each species can be quite different, and that even for the same category the specific genes showing evidence of selection are usually distinct subsets on different species' branches [61,62,71]. A weaker signal for glucose metabolism-related categories is seen on the chimpanzee branch, but the specific genes involved differ on the human and chimpanzee branches. On the chimpanzee branch, metabolic categories that are not enriched on the human branch include glycogen metabolism, sulphur redox metabolism and acyl-CoA metabolism [61].
 
A formal comparison of the different categories showing evidence for positive selection in coding and putative regulatory regions on the human branch revealed that very different categories of genes are evolving through changes in these regions [83]. Specifically, selection in coding regions is more prevalent on genes involved in olfaction, immunity and male reproduction; whereas selection in regulatory regions was associated with genes involved in neural development.
 
 
(b) Comparisons of metabolic categories changing between protein-coding and regulatory genomic regions within humans
 
In a scan for more recent adaptation in the DNA sequence owing to diet between human populations, Hancock et al. [85] show that there have been shifts in allele frequencies between populations in different ecoregions and with different diets. The strongest correlations between SNPs and environmental variables were seen in genic and non-synonymous SNPs. The strongest signal related to diet is seen in populations where the main dietary components are roots and tubers. Roots and tubers are mainly composed of starch and have low levels of other essential nutrients. Populations with diets rich in roots and tubers show significant shifts in allele frequency in the ‘starch and sucrose metabolism’ and ‘folate biosynthesis’ categories [85]. This study illustrates that there are numerous genetic changes of small effect scattered through the genome related to more recent dietary shifts.In contrast, the functional impact of regulatory SNPs throughout the genome is currently not well understood. Specific examples such as the regulatory variants that confer lactose tolerance (the ability to drink milk after weaning) in multiple populations [2,3,74,75] are known,suggesting that more are present and may be found in future functional genomic studies.
 
 
 
________
 
 
5. Evidence from the evolution of gene expression between humans and non-human primates
 
(a) Evidence for changes in metabolic pathways
 
One way to identify gene expression patterns that are consistent with positive selection is to look for lineage-specific changes in expression levels as compared with changes in multiple lineages. Cases where a lineage-specific shift in gene expression levels is seen in conjunction with low variance within the species are suggestive of directional selection driving that change [68,86]. There are clear changes in gene expression in humans, compared with non-human primates, that are centred in metabolic pathways in a number of different tissues [67–71], and some of these may be changes owing to directional selection. The metabolic pathways, again, differ on the human and chimpanzee branches [68]. For example, Blekhman et al. [68] found that fatty acid metabolism showed evidence of directional selection in gene expression in human heart tissue, whereas vitamin B6 metabolism and folate biosynthesis show evidence of directional selection on the chimpanzee branch. Additionally, Khaitovich et al. [67] found an enrichment for diet-related genes that both are differentially expressed between species and are in a large region of linkage disequilibrium (evidence of a selective sweep on that genomic region) in multiple human populations. Thus, it is likely that positive selection acted on gene expression changes before these populations diverged approximately 100 000 years ago [87–90], although many of these changes could have been selected for in morphologically modern human populations before moving out of Africa. Other changes in transcriptional regulation could also be important contributors to diet-related adaptations. For example, a recent study on alternative splicing within expressed genes in humans and non-human primates [70] found an enrichment for genes involved in metabolic processes in differentially spliced exons in humans as compared with chimpanzees and macaques.
 
 
(b) Evidence for changes in energy transport
 
In brain tissues, there is a consistent pattern of changes in expression of genes critical to aerobic energy metabolism [67,69,71,91]. This includes categories such as oxidative phosphorylation, electron transport and other nuclear-encoded genes that function in the mitochondria. This differential expression of aerobic energy metabolism-related genes could be due to the increased neural activity and metabolic requirements of the human brain. This trend is seen in adult human brain tissue, but not in foetal tissue, where selected enrichment categories are related to neuronal signalling and connectivity [71]. Some aerobic energy metabolism genes also show evidence of positive selection in their amino acid sequence during anthropoid primate evolution [92–94]; these changes correlate with changes in brain size and lifespan in primate life histories.
 
Unsurprisingly, different categorical enrichments are seen from different tissues. For example, the differential expression of genes related to aerobic energy metabolism has only been found in studies examining expression in brain regions between species [67,69,91]. To get a more complete picture of the important functional shifts in gene expression between tissues and species, future studies will need to examine more tissues throughout the body.
 
 
_________
 
 
 
6. Other shifts in the genomic landscape owing to dietary shifts
 
Shifts in diet will also have effects on other functional levels, such as chromatin structure or protein processing. For instance, epigenetic changes may also play a large role in differential gene expression between species, and recent work in mouse models has shown that diet can play a role in changes in chromatin modification [95–97]. These epigenetic changes can also have a lasting impact since changes in maternal diet can affect methylation status for multiple generations (reviewed in [98]). Two preliminary studies of methylation change between humans and chimpanzees noted significant differences in methylation patterns, with a higher amount of methylation seen in humans [99,100]. Dietary changes incorporating more sources of methyl groups (e.g. methionine or choline) and folate would change the methylation states for many genes, and these changes could be important in development and later disease susceptibility (reviewed in [101,102]).
 
A recent study has also measured shifts in the concentration of 21 metabolites between humans and non-human primates [103], and found that a statistically significant number of them differ in relative concentration.Specifically, the relative concentration of metabolites related to energy metabolism, such as lactate and creatine, appear to have changed rapidly during human evolution.Genes involved in these metabolic processes also show greater sequence and gene expression divergence than expected. The authors suggest that the human brain may be working at the edge of its metabolic capabilities, as suggested through additional comparisons of metabolites between schizophrenic and control individuals [103].
 
 
[my note: keep in mind that biologists are working with evolutionary timescales, and that the changes that occurred over the 1.8 million year reign of Homo erectus would be considered rapid and recent]
 
________
 
 
 
7. Next steps in understanding the impact of diet on phenotype
 
In order to empirically test whether these patterns of genome-wide metabolism and energy metabolism are biologically relevant, the next steps will be to take different experimental approaches for a better understanding of the intersection of genotype, phenotype and diet in primates.
 
What does the anthropological evidence suggest to test questions surrounding the genetic impact of dietary shifts? One possibility would be to look for genetic and genomic signatures of adaptations related to digestion of meats, fats, and marrows, possibly even scavenged meats with attached immune challenges (rotting or parasite infested, for instance). This will be critical for distinguishing how during human evolution adaptations in gut, brain, muscle and fat and reproductive adaptations arose even though all are related to diet. A parallel investigation could be undertaken to see whether there is genetic evidence for more ancient adaptations to the adoption of cooking habits [104]. For instance, Blekhman et al. [68] hypothesized that signatures of selection in gene expression in the liver reflected the beginning of cooking meat during human evolution. Since it is challenging to detect specific dietary influences on musculoskeletal anatomy during human evolution, we contend that combining morphological approaches with genomic approaches is a next step in addressing these questions by looking at the evidence for natural selection at the molecular and tissue levels.
 
Experimentally, this could include exploring changes in pathways between species using other molecular approaches, such as in vitro cell culture assays. For example, one could treat a relevant cell type with varying levels of metabolites or oxygen, and then measure subsequent changes in gene expression or other metabolite concentrations between species. This would allow for a dissection of the genome-wide influence of a single factor between species, possibly helping to elucidate networks of genes that have changed.
 
Alternatively, detailed investigations of changes over large networks or pathways of genes would be informative. Like many complex traits, if changes in diet have been important in human evolution, we might expect many small changes at multiple loci. Likewise, genomic sequence and expression from other populations will increase our power to understand these adaptations. The recently published Neanderthal genome [105] will also be valuable in understanding the timing of certain specific mutations.
 
By comparing gene expression across tissues as well as between species, we may start to understand the genetic underpinnings of phenotypic changes related to dietary changes. For instance, paralogues within a gene family could be differentially ‘tuned’ to function in specific tissues. Phylogenetic histories of gene duplication, and gene family expansion, would help to illuminate this type of pattern, as seen in the olfactory receptors in humans [106]. Alternatively, if there are tissue changes (e.g. a reduced gut or enlarged brain) between species, analyses looking for shifting patterns of gene expression, protein function or methylation state in these tissues would be valuable. A similar effect might be expected at the level of natural selection on DNA sequence, showing an enrichment of selection on tissue-specific genes in tissues that have changed dramatically in size or energy consumption between species, whereas ubiquitously expressed genes may not show those enrichments.
 
The pattern we describe would also predict that other studies should see similar shifts in phenotypes (and the underlying genotypic shifts) in other organisms where diet has changed dramatically within a clade. With genome sequencing technologies rapidly advancing as costs decrease, it is now possible to create resources for new ‘model’ organisms to address specific questions. For example, measurements of brain and gut volume in addition to gene expression studies in Onychomys, a small (approx. 30 g), highly carnivorous cricetid rodent [107], would be an interesting natural experiment in the morphological and genetic patterns that occur when a carnivore evolves from a seed-eating ancestor. Another system to investigate is the elephant-nose fish Gnathonemus petersii. Gnathonemus petersii has an extremely large brain (particularly the cerebellum) that is exceptionally expensive for an ectotherm, with 60 per cent of total oxygen consumption being used by the brain compared with 2–8% in most vertebrates and 20 per cent in humans [108]. The enlarged cerebellum of G. petersii may be due to an energetic trade-off with the digestive tract [109], and the size of the brain varies widely within closely related species [110]. Experimental taxa such as these would be a powerful source of detailed information on the interplay between the genetic, physiological and morphological changes involved in energetic re-allocations.
 
A difficult gap between genotype and phenotype remains, and so next steps need to look at physiological, developmental and morphological differences—challenging in human and non-human primate species and populations. A combination of the experimental data reviewed here may assist in gaining a comprehensive understanding of how dietary changes have moulded the modern human phenotype.
 
 
 
 

 

 



#48 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 13 March 2017 - 05:41 AM

Genetic Evidence of Human Adaptation to a Cooked Diet
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

Ancestral humans underwent marked increases in body size and brain volume coupled with reductions in tooth and gut size beginning approximately 2 Ma (Aiello and Wheeler 1995). These biological features indicate the consumption of an easier-to-digest diet with increased caloric density, and have been argued to reflect a heavier reliance on animal foods (Aiello and Wheeler 1995; Stanford and Bunn 2001; Milton 2003; Speth 2010) and improved methods of food processing, including cooking (Wrangham et al. 1999; Wrangham and Carmody 2010).  Cooking enhances nutrient digestibility and reduces diet-induced thermogenesis, thereby substantially increasing the energy gained from important hominin foods like meat and tubers (Carmody and Wrangham 2009; Carmody et al. 2011). Evidence that present-day humans cannot extract sufficient energy from uncooked wild diets, whether or not they include meat (Koebnick et al. 1999), has led to the suggestion that hunter-gatherers are biologically committed to these benefits of cooking (Wrangham and Conklin-Brittain 2003), including the provision of sufficient energy to fuel an exceptionally large brain (Fonseca-Azevedo and Herculano-Houzel 2012). The hypothesis that cooked food is obligatory for modern humans predicts genetic signals of human adaptation to a cooked diet. Indirect evidence of such adaptation—including pseudogenization of the masticatory myosin gene (MYH16) and of two bitter taste receptor genes (TAS2R62 and TAS2R64) after the split from the common ancestor with chimpanzee, but prior to the split from the common ancestor with Neandertals and Denisovans (Perry et al. 2015)—encourages direct testing of this hypothesis.
 
Dietary modifications have previously been shown to cause genetic adaptation. Several populations with a legacy of dairying have acquired the ability to digest lactose into adulthood through persistence of the lactase enzyme (Bersaglieri et al. 2004; Gerbault et al. 2011), a trait that has evolved multiple times in the last approximately 7,000 years under strong positive selection (Tishkoff et al. 2007; Ranciaro et al. 2014). Additionally, populations with a history of consuming starch-rich foods have been argued to exhibit higher copy numbers of the gene encoding salivary amylase, the enzyme responsible for starch digestion in the mouth (Perry et al. 2007). The adoption of cooking is thought to be partly responsible for this adaptive covariation, as amylase is inefficient at digesting starch unless it has been first gelatinized by heat (Hardy et al. 2015). That diet-induced genetic adaptations exist among modern populations suggests that dietary modifications with longer evolutionary histories and broad systemic effects might produce more widespread genetic change.
 
Although the anatomical evidence from fossil Homo suggests that cooking began in the Lower Paleolithic, archaeological evidence for the control of fire is weak until the Middle Paleolithic (Gowlett and Wrangham 2013). Fire was certainly controlled by 250,000 years ago (James 1989), but is evidenced only occasionally back to 400,000 years; the oldest widely accepted date of anthropogenic fire is from Wonderwerk Cave, South Africa at 1 Ma (Berna et al. 2012). Although control of fire does not necessarily imply cooking, strong preferences for cooked items among great apes, combined with a readiness to wait for raw food to be cooked, suggest that cooking would likely have followed shortly thereafter (Wobber et al. 2008; Warneken and Rosati 2015). Notably, later putative dates for the origin of cooking overlap with the proposed split between modern humans and the last common ancestor of Neandertals and Denisovans, dated to between 275,000 and 765,000 years ago (Prufer et al. 2014), making it unclear whether cooking was present in the last common ancestor of our clade. Gelatinized starch granules embedded in the dental calculus of Neandertals suggest they were consuming cooked plant items by 50,000 years ago (Henry et al. 2011). However, sporadic evidence of fire use in cold-weather sites has led some to suggest that early Neandertals used fire opportunistically but did not control it (Roebroeks and Villa 2011; Sandgathe et al. 2011). Testing whether adaptation to a cooked diet occurred before or after the split between the modern human and Neandertal–Denisovan lineages could therefore help inform the timing of the control of fire.
 
Studies of genetic adaptation to a cooked diet cannot easily be performed in humans because of the rigorous experimental controls and tissue biopsies required (Somel et al. 2008). We therefore used gene expression changes in a model organism in response to raw and cooked diets to identify candidate genes that may have been affected by dietary change during human evolution. We then tested whether these genes exhibit expression differences between humans and nonhuman primates by comparing them to published genes showing human-specific expression patterns (Somel et al. 2008; Blekhman et al. 2010). We compared those genes affected by cooking and/or food type and then tested for signals of positive selection on these genes in humans. We focused on these effects in liver, a tissue for which diet has been shown to alter gene expression (Somel et al. 2008) and gene expression differences among humans and nonhuman primates have been catalogued (Blekhman et al. 2010).
 
________
 
 
 
Putative Cooking-Related Genes Show Evidence of Positive Selection in the Human Lineage
 
Differences in gene expression between humans and chimpanzees could reflect consumer experience or hard-wiring of physiology by natural selection. To test whether genes affected by food type and food preparation might have been targets of selection during human evolution (fig. 4a), we investigated whether genes that were differentially expressed by diet in mice were enriched among genes with evidence of positive selection in the human lineage (Kosiol et al. 2008). No significant enrichments were observed for genes associated with food type. By contrast, we found that genes associated with food preparation exhibited more overlap than expected by chance, particularly in the comparison of raw versus cooked meat. A total of seven putatively selected cooking-related genes were identified (table 1), of which six are involved in immune processes. Importantly, the overlap between genes differentially expressed in mice and those positively selected on the chimpanzee lineage was not significant, suggesting that the putative selective events were restricted to the human lineage. Promoter regions under positive selection on the human lineage have previously been shown to be enriched for nutrition-related functions (Haygood et al. 2007). We therefore examined whether cooking-related genes in our data set showed a greater than expected overlap with positively selected promoters, but found enrichment for neither food type nor food preparation.
 
________
 
 
Positive Selection in Putative Cooking-Related Genes Predates the Origin of Modern Humans
 
We used high-coverage genome sequences from two archaic hominins, a Neandertal and a Denisovan, both from Denisova cave in the Altai mountains (Meyer et al. 2012; Prufer et al. 2014), to determine whether it is more likely that selection on adaptations to a cooked diet occurred before or after the split between the human and Neandertal–Denisovan lineages.  First, we compared the putatively selected cooking-related genes in our data set against a list of genes with evidence of recent selection on the human lineage since the split with Neandertals and Denisovans (Prufer et al. 2014), but found no overlap exceeding chance. Second, we identified nonsynonymous single nucleotide changes (SNCs) that are fixed in modern human populations (1000 Genomes Project Consortium 2012) and asked whether these pre- or postdate the split of humans from Neandertals and Denisovans. Among putatively selected cooking-related genes, all observed nucleotide changes occurred before the split (raw versus cooked foods: 4 genes with 6 SNCs; raw versus cooked meat: 6 genes with 11 SNCs; table 1). However since 98.7% of the 23,819 SNCs observed in all genes expressed in our data set occurred before the split, we cannot exclude the possibility that this distribution occurs by chance. Nevertheless, both analyses suggest that if genes associated with cooking have undergone selection, the selective events likely occurred at least 275,000–765,000 years ago (Prufer et al. 2014). In addition, we note that the Mup and Cmah genes that show a lower expression in mice fed cooked food are pseudogenized not only in modern humans but also in the Neandertal and Denisovan genomes, providing an additional line of evidence that changes associated with cooking are likely to predate the split between the modern and archaic lineages.
 
 
_________
 
 
All human societies cook. This practice distinguishes us from other species and has been argued to be obligatory given our biological commitment to a high-quality diet and the fact that cooking substantially increases net energy gain (Wrangham and Conklin-Brittain 2003; Carmody and Wrangham 2009; Wrangham and Carmody 2010). However our current understanding of human digestive specialization compared with other primates is largely restricted to anatomical rather than physiological features, including diminution of mouth, teeth, stomach, and large intestine.  Although these changes strongly indicate adaptation to reliance on easily chewed and rapidly digested food, some raw foods fit this description, for example, fruits, marrow, brains, liver, honey, and select items like seeds that benefit substantially from nonthermal processing. Without understanding molecular adaptations to a cooked diet, it is therefore impossible to be sure whether habitual cooking has shaped our physiology, and if so, how.
 
In this study, we provide the first evidence that eating cooked versus raw foods influences liver gene expression. We also find abundant differences in gene expression between diets of meat versus tuber, with enrichment of lipid-related metabolic processes on meat diets and carbohydrate-metabolic processes on tuber diets. By contrast, manipulating conditions of caloric intake or consumer energy balance had minimal impact on gene expression. Together, these results suggest that differential expression was driven primarily by changes in nutrient availability and/or specific physiological processes, as opposed to simply energy flux.
 
Genes differentially expressed between mice fed raw and cooked meat were almost exclusively upregulated on the raw meat diet. These genes were highly enriched for immune-related functions, supporting the common but poorly tested assumption that cooking of meat prevents a costly immune response (Ragir 2000; Carmody and Wrangham 2009). However, the specific triggers of immune upregulation on the raw meat diet remain unclear. Cultures of two common pathogenic taxa prepared from the raw versus cooked meat diets did not suggest contamination, although differences in the activity of other foodborne pathogens cannot be ruled out from the available data. Interestingly, meat consumption has been shown to trigger inflammation in humans due to the formation of antibodies against N-glycolylneuraminic acid (Neu5Gc), a monosaccharide lost from human cell surfaces due to a human-specific inactivating deletion (Chou et al. 1998). However, wild-type mice produce endogenous Neu5Gc (Chandrasekharan et al. 2010), suggesting that it is unlikely that antibodies to Neu5Gc alone explain the observed immune activation. Moreover, whether cooking diminishes anti-Neu5Gc activity has not been studied. The mechanism of immune upregulation on the raw meat diet remains ripe for future inquiry, but our results do suggest that the adoption of cooking by ancestral hominins likely facilitated the consumption of a high-meat diet, another innovation argued to have been transformative in human evolution (Aiello and Wheeler 1995; Stanford and Bunn 2001).
 
In the case of tuber, we found that genes involved in carbohydrate metabolic processes were less highly expressed on cooked compared with raw tuber diets. This is consistent with an established literature showing that cooking enhances the efficiency of carbohydrate digestion by gelatinizing starch, a process that renders starch more susceptible to digestion by salivary and pancreatic amylases (Carmody and Wrangham 2009). Increases in the copy number of salivary amylase (AMY1) in modern human populations and pancreatic amylase (AMY2B) in domestic dogs—both of which have relatively starch-rich diets—have been hypothesized to reflect selection for increased expression to improve the digestion of starch-rich foods (Perry et al. 2007; Axelsson et al. 2013). In agreement with this we found that expression levels of Amy1 were higher where diets imposed a higher demand for starch digestion, including in mice fed raw versus cooked tuber, and in mice fed tuber versus meat.
 
Genes that were differentially expressed with food type and food preparation in mice overlapped to an extent beyond chance with genes known to differ in their expression between humans and nonhuman primates. Moreover, when matching factors under the assumption that humans consume more meat and cooked items than nonhuman primates, we observed a strong correspondence in the directionality of expression patterns between the mouse data set and the human and nonhuman primate data sets. This correspondence confirms that controlled feeding experiments in mice can usefully inform aspects of human and nonhuman primate dietary divergence (Somel et al. 2008; Carmody et al. 2011). Importantly, it also suggests that published differences between humans and nonhuman primates in liver gene expression may be partly confounded by diet.
 
Although food type and food preparation were each associated with significant changes in gene expression, we found that only cooking-related genes were enriched among genes with evidence of positive selection in the human lineage. Notably, six of seven of these putatively selected cooking-related genes represent immune genes observed to be downregulated in their expression on cooked versus raw meat diets. To date, most reports on the evolutionary effects of cooking have focused on the enhancement of energy gain through increased nutrient digestibility and reduced costs of digestion. However our new results indicate that habitual cooking would also have led to reduced energy spent on immune upregulation, especially if ancestral hominins were already exploiting meat routinely prior to the adoption of cooking, as the current archaeological record suggests (Ferraro et al. 2013; Zink and Lieberman 2016).
 
The timing of the adoption of cooking remains unclear, with biological indicators suggesting an early date around 2 Ma (Wrangham et al. 1999), archaeological evidence suggesting controlled fire at 1 Ma (Berna et al. 2012) and hearths at 300,000 years ago (Shahack-Gross et al. 2014) although not all Neandertal occupations bear evidence of fire until approximately 40,000 years ago (Sandgathe et al. 2011), and the earliest direct evidence of cooked food consumption at just 50,000 years ago (Henry et al. 2011). In our data set, putatively selected cooking-related genes all predate the split between the human and Neandertal–Denisovan lineages, an event dated to between 275,000 and 765,000 years ago (Prufer et al. 2014). These new data support the view that 1) cooking predated the evolution of modern humans; and 2) cooking was practiced sufficiently often to have had selective effects in Neandertals and Denisovans, despite the sporadic archaeological evidence of fire (Roebroeks and Villa 2011).
 
Overall, our results draw new attention to the potentially transformative role of cooking for energy balance and food choice during human evolution. In addition, they support the idea that cooking was present among multiple hominin taxa at a date earlier than the earliest direct evidence of cooking in the archaeological record. Future work exploring the effects of a cooked diet at the molecular level will illuminate the human dietary niche and could ultimately provide a mechanistic understanding of the diverse positive and negative consequences of cooking for human health.

 

 

 


Edited by Duchykins, 13 March 2017 - 05:55 AM.


#49 resveratrol_guy

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,315 posts
  • 290

Posted 13 March 2017 - 08:14 AM

This is not a simple issue, and it only matters so much what we ate before we had technology. What matters most is the diet which best satisfies the conflicting constraints of ethics, human health, environmental health, energy efficiency, economy, entertainment, etc. The diet we evolved to eat addresses only the health issues. There is no question that we need to understand those issues better. However, the waters are muddied with politics and arbitrary belief systems, which is why for the most part vegans, omnivores, and carnivores can barely stand to talk, let alone agree on the ethics or the science. Having said that, frankly, I'm pleased to see the reasoned debate here. That's a start.

 

Yes, first and foremost, we need to understand what sins really are in a scientifically informed manner. Certainly, there's no excuse for poor animal husbandry or environmental stewardship when the resources are available for better care. Ultimately, we pay the price for such shortcuts through our own suffering. On the other hand, vegans are consumers too, and their obsession with organic food is creating distortions in land utilization which are forcing the poor to use more and more shortcuts to increase yield. It's easy to throw up our hands and conclude that all dietary conduct is equivalent, when the answer to this indeterminate ethical question is probably just to use our judgment and do our best to be responsible. Ask the golden question: if everyone behaved like me, would the world be better or worse off? And definitely talk to people who have diametrically opposing views to yours.

 

And Duchykins, please knock off the personal insults. They detract from your otherwise rich contributions.

 


Edited by resveratrol_guy, 13 March 2017 - 08:16 AM.

  • Agree x 1

#50 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 13 March 2017 - 03:59 PM

By the way, regarding making a qualitative distinction between killing a plant and killing an organism with a central nervous system that feels pain and is sentient I can assure you that I'll be by far more comfortable in organizing an encounter between God and some humans in order for them to discuss about forgiving than pulling a lettuce. :)


Oh gosh, less than ten minutes of shock in one facility, during one tour, and oh you'll lose this argument alright, you'll stop eating meat, I assure you. All prior arguments will be forgotten, you'll lose them effortlessly, forgotten totally these arguments seem shameful, words do not work.

The trouble is we're not allowed to take you by the hand to experience the inside for yourself, the full brunt of sensation -- texture and taste in your mouth, when you smell screaming animals, mechanized one after the next, casually, you change: films are a substitute, but videos are up in your head, they're luxuries in the comfort of your home. Turn it off and look away when the footage scares you.

I've been around heady advocacy for a long time. We reach out to children, children instinctively understand love and compassion toward animals far more than dried out old adults, blinded by as you appear by convenience and price, separated effectively you are from the nature you take for granted: bees, rain, ecosystems...

...what a sin really is.


Sin, God, Jesus: the warm western refuge. It won't save you if you're inside a mainstream animal factory facility.

And then this:

We don't really know what plants feels...and the assumptions that feeling makes an organism a superior form of life, intended as better form or one which deserves more respect, is debatable.

The vegetal reign is one of the few, if not the only, not killing for a living (with only very rare exceptions), therefore dismissing it as inferior isn't a show of great awareness.


As if vegans seeking to minimize mechanized suffering now disrespect the plant and fungi kingdoms. It's just silliness, nonsense. People arguing this way just don't know what they don't know, and ignorance is ok if the results weren't so heartbreakingly tragic for everyone.

#51 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 13 March 2017 - 09:31 PM

I don't know about that.  Toddlers have to first be taught that other people have self-awareness and feelings just like they do.  Then they have to be taught that pets around the house have feelings too.  Parents have to teach young children what hurts, what scares them, and what feels nice when interacting with cats and dogs.

 

Industrialization has removed nearly everyone from the reality of animal agriculture.    That's one of the reasons we are shocked when we finally learn about it; it's so foreign to how we grew up - the other reason being that what we do today is truly horrific on larger scale, and very unlike how we treated our food animals in pre-industrialized eras.

 

This kind of cultural conditioning even works on domesticated dogs (and cats, to a lesser extent), except the ones trained to hunt and/or guard.

 

I don't think much will be changing about industrialized animal agriculture until we first get people to eat less meat - and by this I do not mean vegan or vegetarian, but by re-normalizing the eating of organ meats.  This will simultaneously allows us to get the same level of nutrition (better nutrition, actually), and eat less meat by volume because of the nutrient density and diversity of organ meats as compared to skeletal muscle (including the greater ease of digestion of organ meats, except perhaps for heart muscle).   This is turn would cause the industry to raise fewer food animals, since we currently raise much more just for their skeletal muscle (and use organ meats mostly for non-human consumption).  The lowering of numbers of livestock would improve their quality of life alone, since keeping them en masse is their biggest problem at the moment.

 

But that's not a complete solution.  

 

The other thing we have to do is have a more complete list of nutrients that exist (which we don't have currently) and have a more complete understanding of the subtleties of nutrition (we know less about the subtleties of nutrition than we do about the subtleties of psychiatric drugs, and that's pretty sad).  Once we have that, we then have the task of developing methods and technologies of manufacturing supplements and fortified foods that are the equal (or better) of whole foods.  Right now we're not even close to that.   Food synergy is serious business, and the complex combination of nutrients in whole foods matters, especially now that we know that isolated nutrients do not operate exactly the same way in the body as equivalent doses of their naturally-occurring counterparts do in whole foods.   Nature and evolution still does it better than we do.  But I believe it is possible for us to achieve this level of knowledge and technology in the future. 

 

We have to do this because H. sapiens is unambiguously omnivorous and in any given group of humans, you would be hard-pressed to find a statistically significant proportion of parents that would knowingly and deliberately put their children on diets that leave them worse off than other children in the same group (or a riskier diet that has a smaller margin of nutritional error).  The majority would remain on generalist diets until such time that we can manufacture things that are the equal of whole foods.        

 

The kind of evolutionary changes that would have to take place within our bodies to make us specialize in herbivory would be on a scale large enough to change our species.  Such evolutionary changes could not even happen in one speciation event - it would take at least two speciation events to result in an herbivorous hominin.  And that hominin would not be sapiens.


Edited by Duchykins, 13 March 2017 - 09:43 PM.


#52 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 14 March 2017 - 01:38 AM

One major solution is lab created artificial meat. It's coming; but you're right, no one yet understands the vast chemical complexities of even a simple carrot, as Michael Pollen was fond of saying.

Lab created artificial meat -- support it, encourage it, and it'll definitely improve living conditions for all life on earth -- plants, animals, ecosystems rivers, streams, lakes, oceans, forests... Meanwhile, like so many future tech promises, we await healthier days presumably ahead (unless we're flooded off our lands first by climate change brought to you, in large measure, by the west's sick addiction to easy, cheap, government subsidized meat).

#53 resveratrol_guy

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,315 posts
  • 290

Posted 15 March 2017 - 07:55 AM

Virto meat is slowly progressing, although it's probably going to be decades before it's at McDonalds. The first actual vitro burger was a few hundred thousand dollars a few years ago, and apparently tasted OK, but it's a long way from there to $2 McVitros that actually provide superior nutrition to natural alternatives. It's sort of like the CO2 problem: People rail about the evils of a high carbon lifestyle, but nothing is going to change until the economics force people to carbon-free energy. Meanwhile, the greenies just keep oil cheaper for selfish people, so total global CO2 emissions continue to climb unabated. I think a similar dynamic is at work in the meat industry, and the food industry more generally. Avoiding meat just makes it cheaper for those who don't care. Only economics will finally put an end to the horrors of factory farming. It worked for whale oil: once we killed enough whales to drive the price above gasoline, and once gasoline engines become commonplace, it no longer made sense to extract.

Once in a while, I find that one of my fish has acquired an awful disease. I'll see them gasping for oxygen, or doing backflips, or frantically darting around. Most of the time, this occurs without any sign of environmental stress, as the other fish and plants seem fine. As small and stupid as they are, it still pains me to see what they endure. Many times, I've wondered whether I should just take them out and kill them quickly, but I've come to the conclusion that I have no clue as to whether that would cause more harm than good. But then, I stop to think what would happen to them in nature: they'd be eaten within hours by a predator, spared their suffering, and above all spared the senescence of old age. For this reason, I would say that responsible hunters, and customers who purchase pastured meat, are the most ethical carnivores, and I'm hard pressed to say that what they're doing is wrong. Their prey enjoy totally free lives, which for the most part end in an instant, outside in the fresh air. And fortunately, the oldest meat eater ever, Jean Calment, ate chicken, which happens to be a strikingly stupid animal which is quickly and easily killed in the field. (I do not endorse indoor chicken farms with no freedom of foraging.) Until we have vitro meat, I think this is the best alternative; there is no need to kill anything smarter than a chicken, and certainly no need for industrial torture. That being said, I'm not sure that we're doing the animals any favors by letting them live into fragility. Seriously, the polar bears are dying of starvation and drowning because they can't find enough ice to walk on, but no one is hunting them. That wouldn't occur in a balanced predatory environment. Look at any coral reef video. It's extremely rare to see an unhealthy fish; they simply don't survive, and I don't think we can call the predators immoral for attempting to feed themselves in the only way they know. That said, the difference between natural predation and industrial animal husbandry could hardly be starker.

Now, it's easy for me to tell the world's poor that they should eat organic pastured chicken, or go hunting in their nonexistent free time in their nonexistent urban forest. They need protein as much as the rest of us, and fast food is unfortunately a brilliant short term answer. I would advise them to obtain their meat on sale, at a price which would make the industry unprofitable, if everyone practiced the same. Sure, this could lead to even more production quality shortcuts, but it would also put the meat industry in a challenging financial position, whose only escape would be more investment in vitro meat startups.

None of this is simple or surgical, but all of it matters. We can neither be high and mighty and assume that the entire third world can afford to eat the most environmentally responsible food, nor can we assume that therefore we don't need to try, either, because not everyone can do so.


  • Good Point x 1

#54 ceridwen

  • Guest
  • 1,292 posts
  • 102

Member Away
  • Location:UK

Posted 15 March 2017 - 08:02 AM

I hate to say this but chickens are actually quite intelligent. They can count and recognise people

#55 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 2,841 posts
  • 722
  • Location:Austria

Posted 15 March 2017 - 10:03 AM

I hate to say this but chickens are actually quite intelligent. They can count and recognise people

 

How could you possibly know that chicken could count?

 

Long time ago I visited Pygmies in their east Zairian jungle with a translator. Thereby I realized by their unsatisfactory answers to many of my questions - answered either with 1 or many - that they simply haven't invented numbers within their own language yet.

 

But beside, the most disturbing thing I learned from these in certain places still beautifully living people: females foraging each morning and males hunting every 2-3 days with the remaining time for socializing, play and fun (talk about paradise..) - as soon as other African encroaches closer on them, they're more than ready to drop their lifestyle for cloth, money, alcohol and ganja. Ending up as beggars and the lowest of African society in slums.

 

Greed seems something very deep within us humans, intelligence not so much.


Edited by pamojja, 15 March 2017 - 10:17 AM.


#56 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 15 March 2017 - 10:54 AM

Of course chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) are bright, intelligent, and curious -- as anyone who's spent time in their company knows.

Onward, to assert that some captive, aquarium cichlids are stupid is kind of funny: let us stick me and you in a confined, glass prison with some fancy rocks and plastic plants, filter our air, feed us some flakes, and let's see how small and stupid we shall become.

All animals are "intelligent" because if they were not intelligent, then they would not be here today. Intelligence is such an amusing concept -- as if humans are the sole operators. When we look at what we're doing to our own home, I wonder about intelligence.

[Artificial meat is] sort of like the CO2 problem: People rail about the evils of a high carbon lifestyle, but nothing is going to change until the economics force people to carbon-free energy. Meanwhile, the greenies just keep oil cheaper for selfish people, so total global CO2 emissions continue to climb unabated..


Alternative energies are one of the fastest growing businesses in the world. Since you've labeled anyone trying to progress this new model as greenies, I might as well stick with Sierra's propaganda (they're as good as anyone for pushing toward actionable solutions):

"A transition is underway around the world: away from an energy system powered by increasingly expensive and unsustainable fossil fuel resources toward one powered fully by abundant, local, and affordable renewable energy sources. In the years ahead, this transition is poised to improve the quality of life for millions, reduce harmful greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and help forge a world that is more just and equitable for both current and future generations..."

They speak to generations after contemporary adults, knowing that few if any elders shall change anything about lifestyle unless it benefits them personally in convenience, in economics and in the short term: http://www.sierraclu...hundred-percent

I think a similar dynamic is at work in the meat industry, and the food industry more generally. Avoiding meat just makes it cheaper for those who don't care. Only economics will finally put an end to the horrors of factory farming..


This isn't true, and I, sthira, wouldn't be so bitchy-argumentative for argumentative's sake if this point you've expressed weren't so damned destructive. I shan't convince you; but a quick google search for alternatives to meat might (for human health, for human dignity, for fair wages, for human and animal rights, for direct-to-individual-animal welfare, for the vast dark overhanging global clouds of which climate change, in part caused by runaway meat-appetites, is only one problem...) searching for alternatives and changing N1 behavior has never been easier. It won't be "economics" that'll put an end to destructive selfishness -- it'll be hundreds of millions of people dying. And as usual, Africa shall be first to be pruned. As is already happening now. Meanwhile, together, me and you with our sloppy, easy, government-subsidized meat and dairy habits shall take down into extinction how many unique species of plants and animals and fungi that wildlife biologists have barely even begun to observe, classify, or attempt to understand?

We have better ways of mass-behaving, and they're approaching. But first some generations just, um, sorry: just need to adapt or die off. Bad times are coming; good times are coming! Ain't that like some Led Zeppelin anthem?

None of this is simple or surgical, but all of it matters. We can neither be high and mighty and assume that the entire third world can afford to eat the most environmentally responsible food, nor can we assume that therefore we don't need to try, either, because not everyone can do so.


There ya go, now that's looking up. If you're able to do nothing else, donate some of your wealth to help move the progressive needle (like lab meat, e.g.)

Greed seems something very deep within us humans, intelligence not so much.


Exactly: thank you.
  • Agree x 1

#57 resveratrol_guy

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,315 posts
  • 290

Posted 18 March 2017 - 03:23 AM

Well, look, we all basically agree that vitro meat is the way to go, just like electric cars. If money were no object, we'd all be driving one. But you have to realize: the world is loaded with selfish people. Just look at China: even the rich can't live well anymore because their environment has been so decimated by morally bankrupt obsession with financial assets.

 

Yes, people who eat lots of meat, and especially lots of processed meat, will be accelerating their own demise. And at some point, China will probably poison itself into some level of national social conscience. But then, just as you said, Africa will take the baton. It's about time for them to industrialize obsessively like China of the past few decades. When that occurs, the predictable effect will be the desire for higher animal protein intake. It's only when societies reach a sort of utopian level that its citizenry starts to exhibit the virtues of rational restraint against profligate consumption. But that can only happen when it's all robots on the bottom and they're feeding all of us. We're a long way from that, if it's even conceivable. That means that greed and short term thinking will continue to rule. The only antidote to that is pain, and in particular, economic pain.

 

To be clear, I'm not arguing against your assertion that there are healthier ways to eat, some of which even cost less, than resorting to industrialized meat as a protein source. What I'm arguing with is this notion that enough people actually care, to make a difference. I don't think they do. Spend a week in Shanghai and I think you'll understand. Americans and Australians have moderated their meat intake in recent years. Is that progress? No, because now we raise even more meat in order to meet Chinese demand, then fly it across the world while emitting more CO2.


Edited by resveratrol_guy, 18 March 2017 - 03:25 AM.






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: ketosis, ketone, ketogenic, diet

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users