Re: Re: The Ancestral Human Diet

[Guest guest]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4643312.stm

> Hi folks:

>

> Not to disagree with the main trust of this - regarding nutrition -

> which may be accurate, but some would take issue with the suggestion

> that there has been no material change in the human genome in 100,000

> years.

>

> A paper in the news just recently shows there have been dramatic

> changes in shape and size of the human skull since the 1300s. IIRC a

> much more vertical forehead, and appreciably greater brain volume in

> the region immediately behind the forehead.

>

> I read this within the past two weeks. A Google News search should

> turn it up if anyone is interested.

>

> Rodney.

>

>

>>

>> Proc Nutr Soc. 2006 Feb;65(1):1-6.

>>

>> The ancestral human diet: what was it and should it be

>> a paradigm for contemporary nutrition?

>>

>> Eaton SB.

>>

>> Awareness of the ancestral human diet might advance

>> traditional nutrition science. The human genome has

>> hardly changed since the emergence of

>> behaviourally-modern humans in East Africa

>> 100-50x10(3) years ago; genetically, man remains

>> adapted for the foods consumed then. The best

>> available estimates suggest that those ancestors

>> obtained about 35% of their dietary energy from fats,

>> 35% from carbohydrates and 30% from protein. Saturated

>> fats contributed approximately 7.5% total energy and

>> harmful trans-fatty acids contributed negligible

>> amounts. Polyunsaturated fat intake was high, with

>> n-6:n-3 approaching 2:1 (v. 10:1 today). Cholesterol

>> consumption was substantial, perhaps 480 mg/d.

>> Carbohydrate came from uncultivated fruits and

>> vegetables, approximately 50% energy intake as

>> compared with the present level of 16% energy intake

>> for Americans. High fruit and vegetable intake and

>> minimal grain and dairy consumption made ancestral

>> diets base-yielding, unlike today's acid-producing

>> pattern. Honey comprised 2-3% energy intake as

>> compared with the 15% added sugars contribute

>> currently. Fibre consumption was high, perhaps 100

>> g/d, but phytate content was minimal. Vitamin, mineral

>> and (probably) phytochemical intake was typically 1.5

>> to eight times that of today except for that of Na,

>> generally <1000 mg/d, i.e. much less than that of K.

>> The field of nutrition science suffers from the

>> absence of a unifying hypothesis on which to build a

>> dietary strategy for prevention; there is no Kuhnian

>> paradigm, which some researchers believe to be a

>> prerequisite for progress in any scientific

>> discipline. An understanding of human evolutionary

>> experience and its relevance to contemporary

>> nutritional requirements may address this critical

>> deficiency.

>>

>> PMID: 16441938 [PubMed - in process]

>>

>>

>> __________________________________________________

>>

[Guest guest]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4643312.stm

> Hi folks:

>

> Not to disagree with the main trust of this - regarding nutrition -

> which may be accurate, but some would take issue with the suggestion

> that there has been no material change in the human genome in 100,000

> years.

>

> A paper in the news just recently shows there have been dramatic

> changes in shape and size of the human skull since the 1300s. IIRC a

> much more vertical forehead, and appreciably greater brain volume in

> the region immediately behind the forehead.

>

> I read this within the past two weeks. A Google News search should

> turn it up if anyone is interested.

>

> Rodney.

>

>

>>

>> Proc Nutr Soc. 2006 Feb;65(1):1-6.

>>

>> The ancestral human diet: what was it and should it be

>> a paradigm for contemporary nutrition?

>>

>> Eaton SB.

>>

>> Awareness of the ancestral human diet might advance

>> traditional nutrition science. The human genome has

>> hardly changed since the emergence of

>> behaviourally-modern humans in East Africa

>> 100-50x10(3) years ago; genetically, man remains

>> adapted for the foods consumed then. The best

>> available estimates suggest that those ancestors

>> obtained about 35% of their dietary energy from fats,

>> 35% from carbohydrates and 30% from protein. Saturated

>> fats contributed approximately 7.5% total energy and

>> harmful trans-fatty acids contributed negligible

>> amounts. Polyunsaturated fat intake was high, with

>> n-6:n-3 approaching 2:1 (v. 10:1 today). Cholesterol

>> consumption was substantial, perhaps 480 mg/d.

>> Carbohydrate came from uncultivated fruits and

>> vegetables, approximately 50% energy intake as

>> compared with the present level of 16% energy intake

>> for Americans. High fruit and vegetable intake and

>> minimal grain and dairy consumption made ancestral

>> diets base-yielding, unlike today's acid-producing

>> pattern. Honey comprised 2-3% energy intake as

>> compared with the 15% added sugars contribute

>> currently. Fibre consumption was high, perhaps 100

>> g/d, but phytate content was minimal. Vitamin, mineral

>> and (probably) phytochemical intake was typically 1.5

>> to eight times that of today except for that of Na,

>> generally <1000 mg/d, i.e. much less than that of K.

>> The field of nutrition science suffers from the

>> absence of a unifying hypothesis on which to build a

>> dietary strategy for prevention; there is no Kuhnian

>> paradigm, which some researchers believe to be a

>> prerequisite for progress in any scientific

>> discipline. An understanding of human evolutionary

>> experience and its relevance to contemporary

>> nutritional requirements may address this critical

>> deficiency.

>>

>> PMID: 16441938 [PubMed - in process]

>>

>>

>> __________________________________________________

>>

[Guest guest]

Yes, and if the skull changed other things could have changed also.

But the Paleo idea also leaves out that we migrated out of trees where we ate fruit, nuts, maybe a bird egg or 2 - who could know?

But the only thing I can think of is, if we can eat anything like it was that long ago after so many climatic events, it'd have to be arabica beans.

Regards

[ ] Re: The Ancestral Human Diet

Hi folks:Here is the link for the human skull paper mentioned below:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4643312.stmRodney.--- In , "Rodney" <perspect1111@...> wrote:>> Hi folks:> > Not to disagree with the main trust of this - regarding nutrition - > which may be accurate, but some would take issue with the suggestion > that there has been no material change in the human genome in 100,000 > years.> > A paper in the news just recently shows there have been dramatic > changes in shape and size of the human skull since the 1300s. IIRC a > much more vertical forehead, and appreciably greater brain volume in > the region immediately behind the forehead.> > I read this within the past two weeks. A Google News search should > turn it up if anyone is interested.> > Rodney.>

[Guest guest]

Yes, and if the skull changed other things could have changed also.

But the Paleo idea also leaves out that we migrated out of trees where we ate fruit, nuts, maybe a bird egg or 2 - who could know?

But the only thing I can think of is, if we can eat anything like it was that long ago after so many climatic events, it'd have to be arabica beans.

Regards

[ ] Re: The Ancestral Human Diet

Hi folks:Here is the link for the human skull paper mentioned below:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4643312.stmRodney.--- In , "Rodney" <perspect1111@...> wrote:>> Hi folks:> > Not to disagree with the main trust of this - regarding nutrition - > which may be accurate, but some would take issue with the suggestion > that there has been no material change in the human genome in 100,000 > years.> > A paper in the news just recently shows there have been dramatic > changes in shape and size of the human skull since the 1300s. IIRC a > much more vertical forehead, and appreciably greater brain volume in > the region immediately behind the forehead.> > I read this within the past two weeks. A Google News search should > turn it up if anyone is interested.> > Rodney.>