Is low carbing a 30 or 2,000,000 year old concept?

Ignoramus18142 wrote:
Thanks to Renegade for a link to this interesting article. According
to some antropological research, most modern hunter gatherers (who
live similarly to how our ancestors lived before agriculture), derive
56-65% of energy from animal sources and eat low carb plants.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/71/3/682

``Most (73%) of the worldwide hunter-gatherer societies derived 50%
(56?65% of energy) of their subsistence from animal foods, whereas
only 14% of these societies derived 50% (56?65% of energy) of their
subsistence from gathered plant foods. This high reliance on
animal-based foods coupled with the relatively low carbohydrate
content of wild plant foods produces universally characteristic
macronutrient consumption ratios in which protein is elevated (19?35%
of energy) at the expense of carbohydrates (22?40% of energy).''



Here we go again....

So, you're telling us you're going to go find animal carcasses, eat the
rotting flesh, chew on raw dead animal bones and fight vultures for the
scraps?

You just can't seem to understand that we all have different ways of
doing things and living like a caveman is not the best for most people.

Martha

Martha

BMM Ignoramus18142 wrote:
Thanks to Renegade for a link to this interesting article. According
to some antropological research, most modern hunter gatherers (who
live similarly to how our ancestors lived before agriculture), derive
56-65% of energy from animal sources and eat low carb plants.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/71/3/682

``Most (73%) of the worldwide hunter-gatherer societies derived 50%
(56?65% of energy) of their subsistence from animal foods, whereas
only 14% of these societies derived 50% (56?65% of energy) of their
subsistence from gathered plant foods. This high reliance on
animal-based foods coupled with the relatively low carbohydrate
content of wild plant foods produces universally characteristic
macronutrient consumption ratios in which protein is elevated (19?35%
of energy) at the expense of carbohydrates (22?40% of energy).''



BMM Here we go again....

BMM So, you're telling us you're going to go find animal carcasses, eat
BMM the
BMM rotting flesh, chew on raw dead animal bones and fight vultures for
BMM the
BMM scraps?

BMM You just can't seem to understand that we all have different ways
BMM of
BMM doing things and living like a caveman is not the best for most
BMM people.

BMM Martha

BMM Martha



I agree. It takes a lot of time to plant your food and wait for it to grow,
much more than stalking and killing an animal. With the invention of better
farming techniques came settlements, society and longer lives since most
plants don't maul you to death (thought I did have a run in with a bad head
of lettuce once). There is actually no proof that our ancestors lived
longer better lives. That being said, I do believe we eat way too much
processed crap as well as too many modified plants. There are many diseases
that were mostly unheard of 30 years ago, alsheimers and diabetes chief
among them. And let us consider the asian societies that live on a heavy
carb (rice) diet. I have not seen too many you could call fat. I also
can't bend like a lot of them, but well, that's a different story.

--
Joker
226/222/195
You have to be very careful when you do a Google search for "vacuum
enthusiast"

Black Metal Martha wrote:
Ignoramus18142 wrote:

Thanks to Renegade for a link to this interesting article.
According
to some antropological research, most modern hunter gatherers (who
live similarly to how our ancestors lived before agriculture),
derive
56-65% of energy from animal sources and eat low carb plants.

So, you're telling us you're going to go find animal carcasses, eat
the
rotting flesh, chew on raw dead animal bones and fight vultures for
the
scraps?

You're being foolish. There are stores and ranches for
that now. Plenty of animal carcasses in the store. Only
the best restaurants have the rotting flesh (aged prime
beef) and any trip to McD will get you bones that are
prechewed (their claim of 100% beef, is it no additives
or is it they use the whole thing). As to fighting
vultures, I leave that to folks who like the big sales
and crowded stores.

You just can't seem to understand that we all have different ways of
doing things and living like a caveman is not the best for most
people.

Eating the way humans are evolved for has nothing to do
with living in a different world. Do you actually believe
your own statements?

It supposedly takes about 5 million years for a species
eating some diet to evolve into that diet so it is an
ideal diet for that species. Five million years ago
human ancestors were just coming out of the trees and
barely starting to switch from fruits to roots as the
largest portion of their diet if current evolutionairy
theory works. Somewhere between 5 and 2 million years
ago human ancestors became hunter-gatherers, and humans
have been evolving into that ever since. Agriculture is
20-30K years old. Compare those time scales. A factor
of a hundred in evolution.

Humans are better adapted to eat the types of foods that
hunter-gatherers eat than we are adapted to eat
agricultural grain. In a million years that will no
longer be true.

So what did hunter-gatherers eat? A very wide range of
stuff! It gives room for all sorts of very healthy
dietary systems and sure enough there are all sorts of
healthy dietary systems. Veggies, roots, fruit, meat
in nearly any ratio seem to work great. Both low carb
and low fat plans fit within that.

Some stuff that hunter-gathers didn't eat were donuts,
french fries, candy bars. Nearly any diet plan bars
those anyways.

Ignoramus18142 wrote:

BMM Here we go again....

BMM So, you're telling us you're going to go find animal
carcasses, eat
BMM the
BMM rotting flesh, chew on raw dead animal bones and fight
vultures for
BMM the
BMM scraps?

Um, I find animal carcasses either in stores, or on cattle
auctions.

Um, is it rotting meat as I said?

There is actually no proof that our ancestors lived longer better
lives.

This is an excellent point.

Which has been made many, many, many times before both in this ng and
rec.running, though you continue with your junk science.

That being said, I do believe we eat way too much
processed crap as well as too many modified plants. There are many
diseases
that were mostly unheard of 30 years ago, alsheimers and diabetes
chief
among them. And let us consider the asian societies that live on a
heavy
carb (rice) diet. I have not seen too many you could call fat.

They live differently from us in many respects.

I also can't bend like a lot of them, but well, that's a different
story.


I think that you are right and carbs, as such, are not the cause of
our troubles in rich countries. It is something else.

So, you admit you are WRONG? Good, finally.

Martha

I On 4 Feb 2005 15:26:04 -0800, Doug Freyburger
I wrote:
Black Metal Martha wrote:
Ignoramus18142 wrote:

Thanks to Renegade for a link to this interesting article.
According
to some antropological research, most modern hunter gatherers (who
live similarly to how our ancestors lived before agriculture),
derive
56-65% of energy from animal sources and eat low carb plants.

So, you're telling us you're going to go find animal carcasses, eat
the
rotting flesh, chew on raw dead animal bones and fight vultures for
the
scraps?

You're being foolish. There are stores and ranches for
that now. Plenty of animal carcasses in the store. Only
the best restaurants have the rotting flesh (aged prime
beef) and any trip to McD will get you bones that are
prechewed (their claim of 100% beef, is it no additives
or is it they use the whole thing). As to fighting
vultures, I leave that to folks who like the big sales
and crowded stores.

I Bones that are boiled for a few hours are the basis for a few great
I dishes, amongst Eastern Europeans at least.

You just can't seem to understand that we all have different ways of
doing things and living like a caveman is not the best for most
people.

Eating the way humans are evolved for has nothing to do
with living in a different world. Do you actually believe
your own statements?

I Moreover, my description of what ancient people ate, has nothing to
I do
I with what I want Martha to eat. I do not mind at all that she
I continues her eating the way she does it now (getting the results she
I is getting now). I could not care less what she eats.

It supposedly takes about 5 million years for a species
eating some diet to evolve into that diet so it is an
ideal diet for that species. Five million years ago
human ancestors were just coming out of the trees and
barely starting to switch from fruits to roots as the
largest portion of their diet if current evolutionairy
theory works. Somewhere between 5 and 2 million years
ago human ancestors became hunter-gatherers, and humans
have been evolving into that ever since. Agriculture is
20-30K years old. Compare those time scales. A factor
of a hundred in evolution.

I DrLith made an excellent point that we are adaptable to a variety of
I diets. Some promitive societies like some polynesians do live on a
I super high carb, lwo fat diet. This is not the predominant situation,
I according to the study that I posted, but it is possible. These
I primitive polynesians, though, are not eating grains.

Humans are better adapted to eat the types of foods that
hunter-gatherers eat than we are adapted to eat
agricultural grain. In a million years that will no
longer be true.

I Provided that those who suffer from grains leave less offspring,
I which
I is not guaranteed.

So what did hunter-gatherers eat? A very wide range of stuff! It
gives room for all sorts of very healthy dietary systems and sure
enough there are all sorts of healthy dietary systems. Veggies,
roots, fruit, meat in nearly any ratio seem to work great. Both low
carb and low fat plans fit within that.

I Absolutely.

Some stuff that hunter-gathers didn't eat were donuts, french fries,
candy bars. Nearly any diet plan bars those anyways.

I Unfortunately, some low carb diet plans advocate eating fake low carb
I junk food, probably to make money for the brands promoted by the plan
I authors.

I --
I 223/172.9/180

To boil down this discussion, it seems to me that eating low carb, low fat ,
low protein whatever may have short-term effects, but they won't continue.
The best way to eat IS like our ancestors and not eat all the processed junk
we're fed today. No boxed meals, no plastic wrapped, over processed sugar
bars, or deep fried ANYTHING. If it does not bear a striking resemblance to
it's natural state, you probably do not want it. Oh, and the reason they
never find cancer in cave men is because they died before it could get them.

--
Joker
226/222/195
You have to be very careful when you do a Google search for "vacuum
enthusiast"

"It supposedly takes about 5 million years for a species eating some diet to
evolve into that diet so it is an ideal diet for that species. "


Could you give a referance on this?

--
Joker
226/222/195
You have to be very careful when you do a Google search for "vacuum
enthusiast"

Joker wrote in message
. com...

Oh, and the reason they
never find cancer in cave men is because they died before it could get
them.

Precisely. And if it were available, our ancestors would have loved
McDonalds, Mars, et. al.
--
Matthew
185/179/160

On 4 Feb 2005 06:49:26 -0800, "Black Metal Martha"
So, you're telling us you're going to go find animal carcasses, eat the
rotting flesh, chew on raw dead animal bones and fight vultures for the
scraps?

You just can't seem to understand that we all have different ways of
doing things and living like a caveman is not the best for most people.

Martha
Not that I'm personally defending the 'Paleo Diet' but... the argument
that Cordain (the researcher/author) puts forth is that this ratio of
macro nutrients (carbs/fats/protien) is the 'fuel mix' that our bodies
evolved to deal with best genetically... and that our genes haven't
changed since then.

I think the source of the macro nutrients (whether rotting flesh, or
roasted and seasoned chicken from Swiss Chalet) is another, side
issue.

The inclusion of more fat in our diets is one theory of how and why we
evolved into homo 'sapien' (the brain is made up of high percentage
of fat).

The question I have is: can we fairly say that the human body evolved
to be best suited to eat a low ratio of carbs? Or did the human body
evolve to be 'highly adaptable' irregardless of the ratio?

I haven't read the book, so can't say if or how Cordain responds to
this (other than claims that many new diseases arrived with the 'birth
of agricuture' as can be found by studying ancient egyptians).

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 21:52:40 GMT, "Joker"
wrote:
I agree. It takes a lot of time to plant your food and wait for it to grow,
Yep, back then it was very much a matter of what food was 'the best
bang for your buck'.

If getting the food 'cost' you more energy than what you got in
return....

much more than stalking and killing an animal. With the invention of better
farming techniques came settlements, society and longer lives since most
plants don't maul you to death (thought I did have a run in with a bad head
of lettuce once). There is actually no proof that our ancestors lived
longer better lives. That being said, I do believe we eat way too much
Well, Cordain does provide some evidence that disease, even in
'elderly' hunter-gathers (in their 50's and 60's) was very rare... but
I'm they also got a lot more exercise than most people today. Also,
what would it have been like if they lived into their 70's, 80's or
90's? (I'm not sure if those cases he cites are 'modern' hunter
gatherers, or paleolithic ones....)


processed crap as well as too many modified plants. There are many diseases
that were mostly unheard of 30 years ago, alsheimers and diabetes chief
The epidemelogical studies show the exact same thing. Diets high in
processed foods (high GI foods) have a strong correlation with a long
list of diseases.

among them. And let us consider the asian societies that live on a heavy
carb (rice) diet. I have not seen too many you could call fat. I also
can't bend like a lot of them, but well, that's a different story.
I don't know about the asian societies in general but the Okinewans
(who eat less rice, and more fish) are/were much healthier than their
Japanese counter-parts.

"Renegade5" wrote in message
. rogers.com...
On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 21:52:40 GMT, "Joker"
wrote:
among them. And let us consider the asian societies that live on a heavy
carb (rice) diet. I have not seen too many you could call fat. I also
can't bend like a lot of them, but well, that's a different story.
I don't know about the asian societies in general but the Okinewans
(who eat less rice, and more fish) are/were much healthier than their
Japanese counter-parts.

The Okinawans also eat a substantial amount of soy.

Jenn