A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Low Carbohydrate Diets
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What make one feel hungry?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old November 24th, 2003, 05:52 AM
Miche
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default How did nature make human body so vulnerable to carbohydrate?

In article ,
Pat Paris wrote:

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:12:38 +1300, Miche
wrote:

I was just responding to the idea that seems to be going round the group
that before agriculture people basically didn't eat carbohydrates.

I've not seen anyone say that. Jean B. said she thought "most of the
calories" came from game and I believe she is correct.

they did, but not as 60-70% of the diet as people do after
the "low-fat revolution".

What percent of their diet would you say was carbohydrate?


Read "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond. The answers are in there.

Miche

--
If you want to end war and stuff you got to sing loud.
-- Arlo Guthrie, "Alice's Restaurant"

  #52  
Old November 24th, 2003, 10:43 AM
Tim Josling
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default How did nature make human body so vulnerable to carbohydrate?

I read "Eat Right 4 Your Type" and found it unconvincing. He just does
not provide good evidence for his theory.

And it is counter-intuitive. Blood type is 2-3 genes. It may be
statistically correlated with the rest of your genotype but it you can
have 99% hunter gatherer genes and 1% agrarian blood type, if there is
such a thing.

Tim Josling

Jean B. wrote:
Tim Josling wrote:

Just one other thing... you are a unique individual. Use the different
diets as a starting point but at the end of the day you are looking for
something that works for you.

Some people are adapted to carbs, just like some people are somewhat
adapted to dairy food.


[snip]


This sounds possibly akin to eating according to blood type.


  #53  
Old November 24th, 2003, 11:02 AM
Tim Josling
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cites (was How did nature make human body so vulnerable tocarbohydrate?)

Miche wrote:

Now the Alawa of the Northern terriotories Australia traditionally (i.e.
non-Agriculturally) use Oryza rufipogon which can be coooked and stored
for years.
http://sites.uws.edu.au/vip/listerp/tbot.htm
(also on that page:
Screw palm (Pandanus spiralis) seed. The kernel within the seed is
edible but difficult to extract. It is apparently high in oils and
carbohydrates and highly sought after by people in the Top End.)


I saw a TV show where they demonstrated this. It took all day to make a
small cake. And this was something that only happened once a year at
'harvest time'. The Australian Aboriginal diet was very low in carbs.

They are not adapted to carbs, thus when confronted by modern junk food
diet they have terrible rates of diabetes etc.

Noone is saying hunter gatherer diets had no carbs. Noone is saying that
agricultural peoples have not adapted at all.

But I am saying hunter gatherer diets were low in carbs, high in fiber,
low in calories, high in famines (in many cases), and relatively high in
protein. Bone marrow provided considerable fat.

Tim Josling

  #54  
Old November 24th, 2003, 03:20 PM
Jean B.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cites (was How did nature make human body so vulnerabletocarbohydrate?)

Tim Josling wrote:

Miche wrote:

Now the Alawa of the Northern terriotories Australia traditionally (i.e.
non-Agriculturally) use Oryza rufipogon which can be coooked and stored
for years.
http://sites.uws.edu.au/vip/listerp/tbot.htm
(also on that page:
Screw palm (Pandanus spiralis) seed. The kernel within the seed is
edible but difficult to extract. It is apparently high in oils and
carbohydrates and highly sought after by people in the Top End.)


I saw a TV show where they demonstrated this. It took all day to make a
small cake. And this was something that only happened once a year at
'harvest time'. The Australian Aboriginal diet was very low in carbs.

They are not adapted to carbs, thus when confronted by modern junk food
diet they have terrible rates of diabetes etc.

Noone is saying hunter gatherer diets had no carbs. Noone is saying that
agricultural peoples have not adapted at all.

But I am saying hunter gatherer diets were low in carbs, high in fiber,
low in calories, high in famines (in many cases), and relatively high in
protein. Bone marrow provided considerable fat.

Tim Josling


I think we can all agree that these people did not eat the junky
processed carbs that most people eat in abundance now.
--
Jean B.
  #55  
Old November 24th, 2003, 05:47 PM
Bob M
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cites (was How did nature make human body so vulnerable to carbohydrate?)

Tim Josling wrote in message ...
Miche wrote:

Now the Alawa of the Northern terriotories Australia traditionally (i.e.
non-Agriculturally) use Oryza rufipogon which can be coooked and stored
for years.
http://sites.uws.edu.au/vip/listerp/tbot.htm
(also on that page:
Screw palm (Pandanus spiralis) seed. The kernel within the seed is
edible but difficult to extract. It is apparently high in oils and
carbohydrates and highly sought after by people in the Top End.)


I saw a TV show where they demonstrated this. It took all day to make a
small cake. And this was something that only happened once a year at
'harvest time'. The Australian Aboriginal diet was very low in carbs.

They are not adapted to carbs, thus when confronted by modern junk food
diet they have terrible rates of diabetes etc.

Noone is saying hunter gatherer diets had no carbs. Noone is saying that
agricultural peoples have not adapted at all.

But I am saying hunter gatherer diets were low in carbs, high in fiber,
low in calories, high in famines (in many cases), and relatively high in
protein. Bone marrow provided considerable fat.

Tim Josling


I agree. The point is that the people didn't eat carbs that often.
For instance, black berries grow wild in PA. I used to eat them all
the time. Basically, there was maybe one month out of the year when
they were available, and you had to find the darn things. So, sure,
there were carby foods available, but they were sparse.
  #56  
Old November 24th, 2003, 05:48 PM
revek
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default How did nature make human body so vulnerable to carbohydrate?


"Miche" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Pat Paris wrote:

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:12:38 +1300, Miche
wrote:

I was just responding to the idea that seems to be going round the

group
that before agriculture people basically didn't eat carbohydrates.

I've not seen anyone say that. Jean B. said she thought "most of

the
calories" came from game and I believe she is correct.

they did, but not as 60-70% of the diet as people do after
the "low-fat revolution".

What percent of their diet would you say was carbohydrate?


Read "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond. The answers are in

there.

Which boil down to-- not much compared to modern standards. Yes,
cromagnon gathered starch/sugar, and knew about wheat and rice early on,
but they didn't cultivate it until at least 7000 to 8000 years ago (in
Turkey). Animal husbandry-- actual ranching, collecting a herd,
culling, penning close to habitation, those are much stronger
evidence-wise and go back almost 30 thousand years. Before that, there
is no evidence that cromagnon cultivated or nurtured his food sources at
all. In any case, 7 or 8 thousand years is *not enough time for us to
evolve adaptations to our food. Not by a long shot. Our attraction to
starch and sugar are for the obvious reason-- a high energy source in an
environment where such food wasn't always easy to come by.

I second the recomendation to read "Guns, Germs and Steel". Fascinating
stuff.

revek


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.543 / Virus Database: 337 - Release Date: 11/21/2003


  #57  
Old November 24th, 2003, 06:07 PM
Pat Paris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cites (was How did nature make human body so vulnerable to carbohydrate?)

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:08:58 +1300, Miche
wrote:

For those wanting cites, here they a

snip

Thank you for the citations. I must note, however, that while these
citations show the availability of wild rice and other carbohydrates
(some of which "may" be classified as "high carb" but not in the
modern sense), they do not present evidence on the amount of
carbohydrates in Paleolithic diets. Here are some that do:

http://tinyurl.com/wc7o
From the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2000
March;71(3):682-692, Plant-animal subsistence ratios and
macronutrient energy estimations in worldwide hunter-gatherer diets by
Cordain L, Miller JB, Eaton SB, Mann N, Holt SH, Speth JD.

"Our analysis showed that whenever and wherever it was ecologically
possible, hunter-gatherers consumed high amounts (45-65% of energy) of
animal food. Most (73%) of the worldwide hunter-gatherer societies
derived 50% ( or =56-65% of energy) of their subsistence from animal
foods, whereas only 14% of these societies derived 50% ( or =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)."


http://tinyurl.com/wcb0
There are 8 major cereal grains which are consumed by modern man
(wheat, rye, barley, oats, corn, rice, sorghum, and millet) [Harlan
1992]. Each of these grains were derived from wild precursors whose
original ranges were quite localized [Harlan 1992]. Wheat and barley
were domesticated only ~10,000 years ago in the Near East; rice was
domesticated approximately 7,000 years ago in China, India, and
southeast Asia; corn was domesticated 7,000 years ago in Central and
South America; millets were domesticated in Africa 5,000-6,000 years
ago; sorghum was domesticated in East Africa 5,000-6,000 years ago;
rye was domesticated ~5,000 years ago in southwest Asia; and oats were
domesticated ~3,000 years ago in Europe.
Consequently, the present-day edible grass seeds simply would have
been unavailable to most of mankind until after their domestication
because of their limited geographic distribution. Also, the wild
version of these grains were much smaller than the domesticated
versions and extremely difficult to harvest [Zohary 1969].


http://tinyurl.com/wc7y
The Southern Greek Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic Sequence at
Franchthi
Inhabitants of the cave were probably seasonal hunter-gatherers. No
certain gathering of plant foods is attested before ca. 11,000 b.c.,
although large numbers of seeds of the Boraginaceae family may come
from plants gathered to furnish soft "bedding" or for the dye which
their roots may have supplied. First appearing at ca. 11,000 b.c. are
lentils, vetch, pistachios, and almonds. Then ca. 10,500 b.c. and
still well within the Upper Paleolithic period appear a few very rare
seeds of wild oats and wild barley. Neither wild oats nor wild barley
become at all common until ca. 7000 b.c., after which they become a
regular and typical feature of the Upper Mesolithic botanical
assemblage.


http://tinyurl.com/wc8p
`First farmers' with no taste for grain
The Neolithic period is traditionally associated with the beginning of
farming, yet in Britain - by contrast with much of the rest of Europe
- the evidence has always been thin on the ground. Where are the first
farmers' settlements? Where are the fields?

The almost complete absence of this kind of evidence has led some
archaeologists, over recent years, to question the view that people in
Britain actually grew most of their food in the 4th and 3rd millennia
BC. Now, a scientific study of Neolithic human bone seems to point in
the same revisionist direction.

The small-scale study - the first of its kind - of the bones of about
23 Neolithic people from ten sites in central and southern England,
suggests that these `first farmers' relied heavily on animal meat for
food, or on animal by-products such as milk and cheese, and that plant
foods in fact formed little importance in their diet. The bones date
from throughout the Neolithic, c 4100BC - c 2000BC.


Miche (bowing out of this thread now)

Bye.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
help needed on where to start Diane Nelson General Discussion 13 April 21st, 2004 06:11 PM
Anxiety Eating Carol Frilegh General Discussion 4 April 14th, 2004 12:39 PM
Low carb diets General Discussion 249 January 9th, 2004 12:15 AM
Ok everybody..I am fat Tony General Discussion 17 January 7th, 2004 02:13 AM
Do you feel hungry before you eat? Chris Braun General Discussion 1 December 25th, 2003 04:32 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.