Re: The Ancestral Human Diet

[Guest guest]

The human genome must have been such to survive many different types of catastrophic events.

There is the belief that as few as 1000 may have survived a volcanic eruption which wiped out most of the world's population. Those learned to survive as vegetarians, supposedly.

The best diet for longevity? I don't see a concensus.

The best diet for type 2 susceptible people? No concensus.

The approved diet for HTN? DASH.

The approved diet for CAD? Ornish.

When I consider that humans today probably live longer than any of those developing or surviving peoples, it seems to me that if there is a best diet, it will contain a lot of medicinal drugs, like insulin, fosamax, verapamil, coderone, warfarin, statins, along with surgical techniques like heart bypasses, dialysis, and various cancer removals.

Let's say they did get 35% of their energy from fats. What do I do with that? Can't I also assume they needed that for the amount of energy they had to carry from one place to another, while getting more food? An ounce of fat = 300 kcals, an ounce of carbs needs about 15 oz of water. Fat is more efficient, but that might not work today, living to 80yo.

Recall that Lucy was 39 inches tall. Couldn't their height alone, be a large factor in deciding how long they lived?

I don't believe "The field of nutrition science suffers from theabsence of a unifying hypothesis on which to build adietary strategy for prevention." is important, rather it's the lack of knowledge how the human body works, understanding the systems, the feedback loops in detail.

I don't need to look at how the human body worked umpteen years ago, I need to know how it works now, in the environment we are in now, which toxins to avoid, which books to throw out.

Regards.

[ ] The Ancestral Human Diet

Proc Nutr Soc. 2006 Feb;65(1):1-6.The ancestral human diet: what was it and should it bea paradigm for contemporary nutrition?Eaton SB.Awareness of the ancestral human diet might advancetraditional nutrition science. The human genome hashardly changed since the emergence ofbehaviourally-modern humans in East Africa100-50x10(3) years ago; genetically, man remainsadapted for the foods consumed then. The bestavailable estimates suggest that those ancestorsobtained about 35% of their dietary energy from fats,35% from carbohydrates and 30% from protein. Saturatedfats contributed approximately 7.5% total energy andharmful trans-fatty acids contributed negligibleamounts. Polyunsaturated fat intake was high, withn-6:n-3 approaching 2:1 (v. 10:1 today). Cholesterolconsumption was substantial, perhaps 480 mg/d.Carbohydrate came from uncultivated fruits andvegetables, approximately 50% energy intake ascompared with the present level of 16% energy intakefor Americans. High fruit and vegetable intake andminimal grain and dairy consumption made ancestraldiets base-yielding, unlike today's acid-producingpattern. Honey comprised 2-3% energy intake ascompared with the 15% added sugars contributecurrently. Fibre consumption was high, perhaps 100g/d, but phytate content was minimal. Vitamin, mineraland (probably) phytochemical intake was typically 1.5to 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 theabsence of a unifying hypothesis on which to build adietary strategy for prevention; there is no Kuhnianparadigm, which some researchers believe to be aprerequisite for progress in any scientificdiscipline. An understanding of human evolutionaryexperience and its relevance to contemporarynutritional requirements may address this criticaldeficiency.PMID: 16441938 [PubMed - in process]

[Guest guest]

The human genome must have been such to survive many different types of catastrophic events.

There is the belief that as few as 1000 may have survived a volcanic eruption which wiped out most of the world's population. Those learned to survive as vegetarians, supposedly.

The best diet for longevity? I don't see a concensus.

The best diet for type 2 susceptible people? No concensus.

The approved diet for HTN? DASH.

The approved diet for CAD? Ornish.

When I consider that humans today probably live longer than any of those developing or surviving peoples, it seems to me that if there is a best diet, it will contain a lot of medicinal drugs, like insulin, fosamax, verapamil, coderone, warfarin, statins, along with surgical techniques like heart bypasses, dialysis, and various cancer removals.

Let's say they did get 35% of their energy from fats. What do I do with that? Can't I also assume they needed that for the amount of energy they had to carry from one place to another, while getting more food? An ounce of fat = 300 kcals, an ounce of carbs needs about 15 oz of water. Fat is more efficient, but that might not work today, living to 80yo.

Recall that Lucy was 39 inches tall. Couldn't their height alone, be a large factor in deciding how long they lived?

I don't believe "The field of nutrition science suffers from theabsence of a unifying hypothesis on which to build adietary strategy for prevention." is important, rather it's the lack of knowledge how the human body works, understanding the systems, the feedback loops in detail.

I don't need to look at how the human body worked umpteen years ago, I need to know how it works now, in the environment we are in now, which toxins to avoid, which books to throw out.

Regards.

[ ] The Ancestral Human Diet

Proc Nutr Soc. 2006 Feb;65(1):1-6.The ancestral human diet: what was it and should it bea paradigm for contemporary nutrition?Eaton SB.Awareness of the ancestral human diet might advancetraditional nutrition science. The human genome hashardly changed since the emergence ofbehaviourally-modern humans in East Africa100-50x10(3) years ago; genetically, man remainsadapted for the foods consumed then. The bestavailable estimates suggest that those ancestorsobtained about 35% of their dietary energy from fats,35% from carbohydrates and 30% from protein. Saturatedfats contributed approximately 7.5% total energy andharmful trans-fatty acids contributed negligibleamounts. Polyunsaturated fat intake was high, withn-6:n-3 approaching 2:1 (v. 10:1 today). Cholesterolconsumption was substantial, perhaps 480 mg/d.Carbohydrate came from uncultivated fruits andvegetables, approximately 50% energy intake ascompared with the present level of 16% energy intakefor Americans. High fruit and vegetable intake andminimal grain and dairy consumption made ancestraldiets base-yielding, unlike today's acid-producingpattern. Honey comprised 2-3% energy intake ascompared with the 15% added sugars contributecurrently. Fibre consumption was high, perhaps 100g/d, but phytate content was minimal. Vitamin, mineraland (probably) phytochemical intake was typically 1.5to 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 theabsence of a unifying hypothesis on which to build adietary strategy for prevention; there is no Kuhnianparadigm, which some researchers believe to be aprerequisite for progress in any scientificdiscipline. An understanding of human evolutionaryexperience and its relevance to contemporarynutritional requirements may address this criticaldeficiency.PMID: 16441938 [PubMed - in process]

[Guest guest]

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]

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]

Hi folks:

Here is the link for the human skull paper mentioned below:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4643312.stm

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]

Hi folks:

Here is the link for the human skull paper mentioned below:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4643312.stm

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]

> >

> >

> > __________________________________________________

> >