Low-carb diets get thermodynamic defence

Will wrote:


Hmm, do you suppose living at much higher population densities (made
possible by more abundant food) in more permanent settlements (since the
cornfields don't migrate) could have anything to do with increased
incidence of diseases?

You can't write a diet book or make absurd claims based on that.

Lyle

Ignoramus29728 wrote:

In article , Will wrote:

In article ,
Ignoramus29728 wrote:


In article , Lyle McDonald wrote:

Ignoramus29728 wrote:


In article , Lyle McDonald wrote:


Not how an essential nutrient is defined.

As well, what grains provide is calories in an easy/inexpensive/bulk
form, which are necessary for survival.

Of course, what the paleo-folks forget is that the development of grain
refining allowed humans to breed beyond the realm of any other animal.
The increase in efficiency allowed humans to benefit from a reproductive
standpoint.
That the overconsumption of said grains within the context of inactivity
in modern times (leading to health problems) is a different issue is
lost on them.


What the paleo folks are also saying, is that as soon as ancient
people started eating grains, they started having health problem and
deaths from diseases cut life expectancy. I saw a number stated that
life expectancy dropped by 30 years.

Whether that is actually true, is not clear to me as I like to see
more evidence than I have seen.

If they can source it, great.
I have a feeling it's a lot of bull****.

I tried googling for "paleolithic neolithis life expectancy".

I found this:

http://www.humanevolution.net/a/goddess.html

``"Diamond pointed out that along with these social ills came physical
ills as well. Hunter-gatherer era skeletons of American Indians dug up
in the Illinois and Ohio River valleys differ so dramatically from the
later, smaller, and less healthy agriculture era skeletons in the same
region that Diamond called corn, often thought to be an agricultural
wonder, "a public health disaster." (Hartmann 1996: 109, Beyond ADD)

"Nutritional problems and susceptibility to infectious disease seem to
have been an even worse consequence. Anthropologist George Armelagos
studied the skeletons of Indians who lived in Illinois from A.D. 950
to A.D. 1300; their adoption of intensive agriculture in A.D. 1200 was
accompanied by a sudden increase in disease. In the preagricultural
phase, only 16 percent of the skeletons showed signs of
iron-deficiency anaemia. After A.D. 1200, the incidence shot up to 64
percent. The overall rate of infectious diseases that leave a mark in
bone went from 27 percent to 81 percent. Average life expectancy
dropped from twenty-six to nineteen years." (Budiansky 1992: 37, The
Covenant of the Wild)''

Hmm, do you suppose living at much higher population densities (made
possible by more abundant food) in more permanent settlements (since the
cornfields don't migrate) could have anything to do with increased
incidence of diseases?


It could, but iron deficiency would not be one of them.


This implies to me that the problem was not a presence of grains but an
absence of red meat. This is a far cry from a diet high in both.

Lyle

Ignoramus29728 wrote:

In article , Will wrote:

In article ,
Ignoramus29728 wrote:


In article , Lyle McDonald wrote:

Ignoramus29728 wrote:


In article , Lyle McDonald wrote:


Not how an essential nutrient is defined.

As well, what grains provide is calories in an easy/inexpensive/bulk
form, which are necessary for survival.

Of course, what the paleo-folks forget is that the development of grain
refining allowed humans to breed beyond the realm of any other animal.
The increase in efficiency allowed humans to benefit from a reproductive
standpoint.
That the overconsumption of said grains within the context of inactivity
in modern times (leading to health problems) is a different issue is
lost on them.


What the paleo folks are also saying, is that as soon as ancient
people started eating grains, they started having health problem and
deaths from diseases cut life expectancy. I saw a number stated that
life expectancy dropped by 30 years.

Whether that is actually true, is not clear to me as I like to see
more evidence than I have seen.

If they can source it, great.
I have a feeling it's a lot of bull****.

I tried googling for "paleolithic neolithis life expectancy".

I found this:

http://www.humanevolution.net/a/goddess.html

``"Diamond pointed out that along with these social ills came physical
ills as well. Hunter-gatherer era skeletons of American Indians dug up
in the Illinois and Ohio River valleys differ so dramatically from the
later, smaller, and less healthy agriculture era skeletons in the same
region that Diamond called corn, often thought to be an agricultural
wonder, "a public health disaster." (Hartmann 1996: 109, Beyond ADD)

"Nutritional problems and susceptibility to infectious disease seem to
have been an even worse consequence. Anthropologist George Armelagos
studied the skeletons of Indians who lived in Illinois from A.D. 950
to A.D. 1300; their adoption of intensive agriculture in A.D. 1200 was
accompanied by a sudden increase in disease. In the preagricultural
phase, only 16 percent of the skeletons showed signs of
iron-deficiency anaemia. After A.D. 1200, the incidence shot up to 64
percent. The overall rate of infectious diseases that leave a mark in
bone went from 27 percent to 81 percent. Average life expectancy
dropped from twenty-six to nineteen years." (Budiansky 1992: 37, The
Covenant of the Wild)''

Hmm, do you suppose living at much higher population densities (made
possible by more abundant food) in more permanent settlements (since the
cornfields don't migrate) could have anything to do with increased
incidence of diseases?


It could, but iron deficiency would not be one of them.


This implies to me that the problem was not a presence of grains but an
absence of red meat. This is a far cry from a diet high in both.

Lyle

On 2004-08-19, Will wrote:
In article ,
Ignoramus29728 wrote:

In article , Lyle McDonald wrote:
Ignoramus29728 wrote:

In article , Lyle McDonald wrote:

Not how an essential nutrient is defined.

As well, what grains provide is calories in an easy/inexpensive/bulk
form, which are necessary for survival.

Of course, what the paleo-folks forget is that the development of grain
refining allowed humans to breed beyond the realm of any other animal.
The increase in efficiency allowed humans to benefit from a reproductive
standpoint.
That the overconsumption of said grains within the context of inactivity
in modern times (leading to health problems) is a different issue is
lost on them.


What the paleo folks are also saying, is that as soon as ancient
people started eating grains, they started having health problem and
deaths from diseases cut life expectancy. I saw a number stated that
life expectancy dropped by 30 years.

Whether that is actually true, is not clear to me as I like to see
more evidence than I have seen.

If they can source it, great.
I have a feeling it's a lot of bull****.

I tried googling for "paleolithic neolithis life expectancy".

I found this:

http://www.humanevolution.net/a/goddess.html

``"Diamond pointed out that along with these social ills came physical
ills as well. Hunter-gatherer era skeletons of American Indians dug up
in the Illinois and Ohio River valleys differ so dramatically from the
later, smaller, and less healthy agriculture era skeletons in the same
region that Diamond called corn, often thought to be an agricultural
wonder, "a public health disaster." (Hartmann 1996: 109, Beyond ADD)

"Nutritional problems and susceptibility to infectious disease seem to
have been an even worse consequence. Anthropologist George Armelagos
studied the skeletons of Indians who lived in Illinois from A.D. 950
to A.D. 1300; their adoption of intensive agriculture in A.D. 1200 was
accompanied by a sudden increase in disease. In the preagricultural
phase, only 16 percent of the skeletons showed signs of
iron-deficiency anaemia. After A.D. 1200, the incidence shot up to 64
percent. The overall rate of infectious diseases that leave a mark in
bone went from 27 percent to 81 percent. Average life expectancy
dropped from twenty-six to nineteen years." (Budiansky 1992: 37, The
Covenant of the Wild)''

Hmm, do you suppose living at much higher population densities (made
possible by more abundant food) in more permanent settlements (since the
cornfields don't migrate) could have anything to do with increased
incidence of diseases?

Societies that did so early essentially cultivated these diseases and
developed (enough) immunity to them. Later, when they encountered other
societies that hadn't develope germ "technology", they wiped them out
without even meaning to. Well, they usually did mean to, they just
didn't need to try very hard.

This is one of the primary arguments of Jared Diamond's book "Guns Germs
and Steel" on why Europe took over the planet. They had a couple other
things going their way too, but germs were a big'un.

--
-aj

On 2004-08-19, Will wrote:
In article ,
Ignoramus29728 wrote:

In article , Lyle McDonald wrote:
Ignoramus29728 wrote:

In article , Lyle McDonald wrote:

Not how an essential nutrient is defined.

As well, what grains provide is calories in an easy/inexpensive/bulk
form, which are necessary for survival.

Of course, what the paleo-folks forget is that the development of grain
refining allowed humans to breed beyond the realm of any other animal.
The increase in efficiency allowed humans to benefit from a reproductive
standpoint.
That the overconsumption of said grains within the context of inactivity
in modern times (leading to health problems) is a different issue is
lost on them.


What the paleo folks are also saying, is that as soon as ancient
people started eating grains, they started having health problem and
deaths from diseases cut life expectancy. I saw a number stated that
life expectancy dropped by 30 years.

Whether that is actually true, is not clear to me as I like to see
more evidence than I have seen.

If they can source it, great.
I have a feeling it's a lot of bull****.

I tried googling for "paleolithic neolithis life expectancy".

I found this:

http://www.humanevolution.net/a/goddess.html

``"Diamond pointed out that along with these social ills came physical
ills as well. Hunter-gatherer era skeletons of American Indians dug up
in the Illinois and Ohio River valleys differ so dramatically from the
later, smaller, and less healthy agriculture era skeletons in the same
region that Diamond called corn, often thought to be an agricultural
wonder, "a public health disaster." (Hartmann 1996: 109, Beyond ADD)

"Nutritional problems and susceptibility to infectious disease seem to
have been an even worse consequence. Anthropologist George Armelagos
studied the skeletons of Indians who lived in Illinois from A.D. 950
to A.D. 1300; their adoption of intensive agriculture in A.D. 1200 was
accompanied by a sudden increase in disease. In the preagricultural
phase, only 16 percent of the skeletons showed signs of
iron-deficiency anaemia. After A.D. 1200, the incidence shot up to 64
percent. The overall rate of infectious diseases that leave a mark in
bone went from 27 percent to 81 percent. Average life expectancy
dropped from twenty-six to nineteen years." (Budiansky 1992: 37, The
Covenant of the Wild)''

Hmm, do you suppose living at much higher population densities (made
possible by more abundant food) in more permanent settlements (since the
cornfields don't migrate) could have anything to do with increased
incidence of diseases?

Societies that did so early essentially cultivated these diseases and
developed (enough) immunity to them. Later, when they encountered other
societies that hadn't develope germ "technology", they wiped them out
without even meaning to. Well, they usually did mean to, they just
didn't need to try very hard.

This is one of the primary arguments of Jared Diamond's book "Guns Germs
and Steel" on why Europe took over the planet. They had a couple other
things going their way too, but germs were a big'un.

--
-aj

["Followup-To:" header set to misc.fitness.weights.]
On 2004-08-19, Lyle McDonald wrote:
Ignoramus29728 wrote:

In article , Will wrote:

In article ,
Ignoramus29728 wrote:


In article , Lyle McDonald wrote:

Ignoramus29728 wrote:


In article , Lyle McDonald wrote:


Not how an essential nutrient is defined.

As well, what grains provide is calories in an easy/inexpensive/bulk
form, which are necessary for survival.

Of course, what the paleo-folks forget is that the development of grain
refining allowed humans to breed beyond the realm of any other animal.
The increase in efficiency allowed humans to benefit from a reproductive
standpoint.
That the overconsumption of said grains within the context of inactivity
in modern times (leading to health problems) is a different issue is
lost on them.


What the paleo folks are also saying, is that as soon as ancient
people started eating grains, they started having health problem and
deaths from diseases cut life expectancy. I saw a number stated that
life expectancy dropped by 30 years.

Whether that is actually true, is not clear to me as I like to see
more evidence than I have seen.

If they can source it, great.
I have a feeling it's a lot of bull****.

I tried googling for "paleolithic neolithis life expectancy".

I found this:

http://www.humanevolution.net/a/goddess.html

``"Diamond pointed out that along with these social ills came physical
ills as well. Hunter-gatherer era skeletons of American Indians dug up
in the Illinois and Ohio River valleys differ so dramatically from the
later, smaller, and less healthy agriculture era skeletons in the same
region that Diamond called corn, often thought to be an agricultural
wonder, "a public health disaster." (Hartmann 1996: 109, Beyond ADD)

"Nutritional problems and susceptibility to infectious disease seem to
have been an even worse consequence. Anthropologist George Armelagos
studied the skeletons of Indians who lived in Illinois from A.D. 950
to A.D. 1300; their adoption of intensive agriculture in A.D. 1200 was
accompanied by a sudden increase in disease. In the preagricultural
phase, only 16 percent of the skeletons showed signs of
iron-deficiency anaemia. After A.D. 1200, the incidence shot up to 64
percent. The overall rate of infectious diseases that leave a mark in
bone went from 27 percent to 81 percent. Average life expectancy
dropped from twenty-six to nineteen years." (Budiansky 1992: 37, The
Covenant of the Wild)''

Hmm, do you suppose living at much higher population densities (made
possible by more abundant food) in more permanent settlements (since the
cornfields don't migrate) could have anything to do with increased
incidence of diseases?


It could, but iron deficiency would not be one of them.


This implies to me that the problem was not a presence of grains but an
absence of red meat. This is a far cry from a diet high in both.

Lyle

Diamond also says that protien content of available domesticatable crops
was a huge determinant of civilization development.

Wheat and Barley just plain rock in this department. Maize sucks a lot.

--
-aj

"aj" wrote in message


[...]

Societies that did so early essentially cultivated these diseases and
developed (enough) immunity to them. Later, when they encountered
other societies that hadn't develope germ "technology", they wiped
them out without even meaning to. Well, they usually did mean to,
they just didn't need to try very hard.

This is one of the primary arguments of Jared Diamond's book "Guns
Germs and Steel" on why Europe took over the planet. They had a
couple other things going their way too, but germs were a big'un.

I haven't read the book but given the number of killer diseases which begin
in Asia and make their way west I reckon that theory's more than a bit iffy.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

"aj" wrote in message


[...]

Societies that did so early essentially cultivated these diseases and
developed (enough) immunity to them. Later, when they encountered
other societies that hadn't develope germ "technology", they wiped
them out without even meaning to. Well, they usually did mean to,
they just didn't need to try very hard.

This is one of the primary arguments of Jared Diamond's book "Guns
Germs and Steel" on why Europe took over the planet. They had a
couple other things going their way too, but germs were a big'un.

I haven't read the book but given the number of killer diseases which begin
in Asia and make their way west I reckon that theory's more than a bit iffy.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

Lyle McDonald wrote in message ...
Will wrote:
Hmm, do you suppose living at much higher population densities (made
possible by more abundant food) in more permanent settlements (since the
cornfields don't migrate) could have anything to do with increased
incidence of diseases?

You can't write a diet book or make absurd claims based on that.


Sure you can!!!!
See:
Mark Cohen
"Health and the Rise of Civilization"
New Haven
Yale University Press, 1977

or:
Stephen Boyden
"The Biology of Civilisation"
Sidney
University of New South Wales Press, 2004

BTW, I can't seem to find your book on amazon.com. Can you perhaps
post some reviews?


Ray Audette
Author "NeanderThin"
www.NeanderThin.com

Lyle McDonald wrote in message ...
Will wrote:
Hmm, do you suppose living at much higher population densities (made
possible by more abundant food) in more permanent settlements (since the
cornfields don't migrate) could have anything to do with increased
incidence of diseases?

You can't write a diet book or make absurd claims based on that.


Sure you can!!!!
See:
Mark Cohen
"Health and the Rise of Civilization"
New Haven
Yale University Press, 1977

or:
Stephen Boyden
"The Biology of Civilisation"
Sidney
University of New South Wales Press, 2004

BTW, I can't seem to find your book on amazon.com. Can you perhaps
post some reviews?


Ray Audette
Author "NeanderThin"
www.NeanderThin.com