Guest guest Posted October 16, 2002 Report Share Posted October 16, 2002 Mel, are you familiar with Westom Price's monumental work " Nutritional & Physical Degeneration? " . If not, I suggest you get aquainted with it before dismissing 'native nutrition' diets as 'sheer hypothesis'. [Please cite some pertinent sections which show that the " Stone Age Diet " scientifically should still be the " ideal " or " best " diet for all human beings in all countries today. Incidentally, there are quite a few other scientists who also question the validity of this Stone Age diet theory. As I have stated on many occasions, humans, like most other animals, have always been opportunistic eaters who have to eat what is environmentally and seasonally available. Thus, there is no standard fixed diet which has universally suited anyone at any stage in history. If you can provide from that tome or any other research sources that the Stone Age diet represents the optimal diet for humans today, then please go ahead and share them with us. If you are unable to do so, then you will appreciate that such a diet shall remain " sheer hypothesis " (i.e. so far nothing more than an unproved theory). Or are you assuming that Price's work is all proved beyond a shadow of doubt without your reading any dissenting texts? Mel Siff] Bellanger St Kilda, Australia ------- Subject: Stone Age Diet Mythology? Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 Eugene Sanik wrote: >The following is a verbatim cut & paste from an article posted a few weeks >ago (I can't find the web address, but I have it saved in a text file): > >...The most successful marathon runner ever was around during I believe the >70's, and lived in a small African village. He lived his whole life on no >carbs b/c he hunted and ate all his food. He had more endurance and never >hit the wall b/c fat provides almost unlimited energy, and the wall comes >from glycogen depetion form the small amount of carbs our bodies store. >Eating like a hunter is more natural and I believe can give a more muscular, >healthy body than any other modern, made up eating plan. Also, the benefit >of most food after a workout has been shown in modern research to be >superior in terms of less nitrogen loss and better protein synthesis, a >protein pulse of huge protein intakes after a workout, similar to eating >after a hunt. This is the way our ancestors ate, this is the way predatory >animals eat, and if you try it u will want to eat like this too when u see >the results it produces... ------ Eugene Sanik commented: >I'm not sure which marathon runner is being used in reference here, and I >certainly don't fully agree with all of the preceding assertions (ie, what >proof there were no carbs, the way our ancestors ate, why we should reverse >physiological evolution to 100,000 years ago). However, this person does >make a point in that if impaired performance is due to glycogen depletion, >why not switch to a fuel that allows no such thing (..fat!) Furthermore, >with each gram of fat providing more than twice as many calories as a gram >of carb, you'll also be getting more bang for your buck, and you won't >have to deal with the evil killer death hormone Insulin :-) > Mel Siff: > >*** I take issue with other aspects of that tale. That " deduction " is the >way that current urbanised " homo sapiens " thinks. It just iterates that >currently trendy preoccupation with the so-called " palaeolithic diet " >(Stone Age diet) which is sheer hypothesis and belief. > >A major fallacy in this line of reasoning is that not every person in a >given African village takes part in the hunt. In fact, a small band of hunters >do the physical hunting, while the remainder help prepare or eat the food >later. Why should one conclude that humans should imitate the predatory animals >when we are supposed to be more closely related the non-predatory great apes, >some of which, like the gorilla are immensely strong on vegetarian diets. This >is not to forget the great strength of the large antelope and buffalo, which >also do not eat meat. > >Nobody is to say if any given diet is " more natural " , since humans (and >most animals) are very opportunistic when it comes to survival. They will eat >whatever is easiest to obtain and most abundant in supply and much of this >is determined by where they live. It is very misleading to state that >primitive humans simply hunted animals. Some of the most ancient surviving >palaeolithic San ( " Bushmen " ) peoples in Africa have left their records in rock art for >tens thousands of years and passed on many of their ancient survival >customs and anyone who is familiar with them knows that they have an exceptionally >good knowledge of what roots, berries, fruits, gourds and other non-animal >sources of food are safe, nutritious or even healing. For all of their >history, they appear to have eaten a mixture of animal and non-animal food, >with some of those living near rivers and the sea also eating fish >(remains of fish are frequently found in Bushmen middens along the Cape coast). > >Thus, if we are to judge by what we have learned from some of the most >ancient groups of people still in fairly natural existence (not only in >Africa, but also in Australia, S America and other 'primitive' >communities), we will appreciate that they ate meat, fats, carbohydrates and all the >same food constituents that we do today, though none of it was " fast food " , and >none of it was preserved by anything other than drying (or salting in some >cases) - and some foods were even widely used as medication. Just as in >our modern communities, there were some folk who were much more physically >active because they had to hunt and defend their communities, while others were >far more sedentary in the roles such as mothers, cooks, artists, musicians, and >clothing manufacturers. > >However, it is highly unlikely that any of them ever reached the level of >chronic inactivity that many of our modern Western children and adults have >reached as " homo electronicus " , pressing TV remote controls, driving cars >to corner shops, playing computer games, having food delivered to the front >door and watching others work. And we call this " evolution " ?? > >Incidentally, aren't we making a huge error in believing that there is such >a thing as " evolution " in a singular sense? After all, while we seem to be >evolving in many ways, we are devolving in other ways, with the technology >changing, but the thought processes, the altruism and the morality changing >at an insignificant rate among humans as a whole. We often make the >mistake of judging progress by the deeds of the few who stand out, not the drifting >and wakeful sleepwalking that seems to characterise the remainder of >humankind - the ones whom we discussed when we lamented that far too many >people fail to distinguish between symbol and thing, between signifier and >signified, between belief and 'reality'. *Don't forget to sign all letters with full name and city of residence if you wish them to be published! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2002 Report Share Posted October 18, 2002 > Mel, are you familiar with Westom Price's monumental work > " Nutritional & Physical Degeneration? " . If not, I suggest you get > aquainted with it before dismissing 'native nutrition' diets as > 'sheer hypothesis'. Mel Siff: > Please cite some pertinent sections which show that the " Stone > Age Diet " scientifically should still be the " ideal " or " best " > diet for all human beings in all countries today. That is forthcoming, over time. The recent tidal-wave of literature on the pernicious effects of insulin -- with the obvious implications vis a vis the tidal wave of high-glycemic carbohydrate that has been incorporated into the diet of the developed world over the last 100 years or so -- has pointed clearly in that direction. Other lines of evidence, such as the very exciting work on fatty acids, particularly the omega-3 fatty acids (represented abundantly in " stone age " diets), suggest similar conclusions. Likewise Cleave's work (and the subsequent tidal-wave of scientific literature) on the importance of dietary fiber -- theretofore dismissed ( " there is no evidence that... " ) as irrelevant, unimportant, etcetera. The picture is coming clearly into view for anyone with eyes to see. Science is slow, and will take quite a while to catch up with the likes of visionaries like Weston Price. But it will get there, and is rolling rapidly in that directly right now. We should distinguish two lines of thought here: 1) the evidence favoring pre-industrial diets (i.e. lacking *refined* carbohydrates, and rich in whole foods that are displaced by those industrial " foods " ), and 2) the evidence favoring pre-*agricultural* diets (lacking grains and their products, among other things). The evidence for #1 is now great and, I would say, overwhelming; it is not really worth discussing. The remaining objections to the obvious are maintained only by a refined carbohydrate industrial cabal and its governmental and academic shills. The evidence for #2 is growing rapidly, but will as I say take a couple more decades, at least, to " arrive " . [Mel Siff: Of course, there are those authorities who point out that many diseases have become more common today because people are living much longer than they did in Palaeolithic times - i.e., people died from other causes when they were relatively young way back then, so that it can be very misleading to compare two very different cohorts of subjects. Science may be slow, but the evidence is that the human lifespan appears to be increasing rather than decreasing to the much more ephemeral lifespans of our primitive ancestors. Another very important confusing factor is that research indicates that lifespan correlates with overall intake of calories, so that, if we wish to make valid comparisons between different groups, we have to correct for any influence exerted by this factor. How does Price overcome that hurdle in a visionary way? ] Mel Siff: > Incidentally, there are quite a few other scientists who also question the > validity of this Stone Age diet theory. As I have stated on many > occasions, humans, like most other animals, have always been > opportunistic eaters who have to eat what is environmentally and > seasonally available. Yes, of course. > Thus, there is no standard fixed diet which > has universally suited anyone at any stage in history. Yes, of course. Did anyone suggest otherwise? (Anyone, that is, except for some pathetic faddists somewhere. I meant: did anyone *seriously* and credibly suggest otherwise.) The " stone age diet " is essentially the diet of hunters and gatherers, who ate a wide variety of both vegetable and animal foods -- whatever, as you point out, was convenient, seasonally-available, etc. There was a notable and complete absence of refined carbohydrate, and indeed total carbohydrate from any source was limited by the nature of the lifestyle (i.e. PRE-agricultural, and thus pre-grains, largely, except for small amounts of foraged wild grains). [As I mentioned before, the primitive groups such as the San or Bushmen of Africa and the Aborigines of Australia have for tens of thousands of years obtained a regular carbohydrate supply not only from wild grains, but also from nuts, seeds, tubers, berries, fruits, honey, nectar and an extensive variety of other non-grain sources. One cannot fixate on grains as the sole or major source of convenient carbohydrates. While we can agree that refined carbs did not exist, the absence of cultivated grains does not mean that any foraging group did not have a regular source of carbs - and the body responds to the chemical composition of foods, not the specific source. Carbohydrate A is carbohydrate A, no matter whether it comes from grains, honey or tubers. Mel Siff] > If you can provide from that tome or any other research sources that the > Stone Age diet represents the optimal diet for humans today, then > please go ahead and share them with us. The evidence is growly massively, on many fronts, such as the ones mentioned above. For one more example: Note that science recently (last 10-15 years or so) " discovered " the preventive importance of non-classically- nutritional factors in vegetables and fruits -- the plethora of fine antioxidant and otherwise protective phytochemicals that are abundant in " primitive " or " stone age " diets. It was amusing to watch organizations such as the ACS (American Cancer Society) flip over and begin recommending that people eat more vegetables and fruits; this was, of course, after decades of denial that diet had any role in cancer. That is just one example of many. [Mel Siff: How can we validly compare the lifespans and diseases of two groups separated by tens of thousands of years on the basis of very limited numbers of biological remains? Do you think that we can accurately compare the pathologies of a modern group with their abundance of medical records with those sparse remains in limited locations around the world? You are surely aware that ancient mummies and other such relics show that cancer, cardiac disease, arthritis and other so-called modern diseases were also quite common in the distant past. In fact, some of the recent archaelogical and anthropological journals to which I subscribe show that the popular sketches of bent over, stooped, cave men were the misleading result of " visionary " reconstructionists who used a few ancient contorted or stooped skeletal remains to conclude that these arthritic remains (as they have been now recognised) were typical of all humans living then. So far, this may well be sort of visionary extrapolation that theorists such as Price are making on the basis of some very thin evidence. ] > If you are unable to do> so, then you will appreciate that such a diet shall > remain " sheer hypothesis " (i.e. so far nothing more than an unproved theory). > Or are you assuming that Price's work is all proved beyond a > shadow of doubt without your reading any dissenting texts? Mel > Siff] I would like to read some good dissenting texts. Most of the objections I've read are pretty shallow hand-waving, or else now-archaic (1950's-ish, ADA-ish) stuff to the effect of " the American diet is the best in the world! " . I would welcome any serious contrary arguments, and would read them carefully. [For a start, examine what I have written above and provide some hard scientific evidence to refute what I have stressed about the rather adventurous, but largely conjectural hypotheses about a " Stone Age " diet still being the optimal diet for modern man. Note that this belief implies that humans do not adapt to changes in diet and there is more than adequate evidence that all animals are able to adapt to a wide diversity of diets. Mel Siff] Bellanger St Kilda, Australia ------- > Subject: Stone Age Diet Mythology? > Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 > > Eugene Sanik wrote: > > The following is a verbatim cut & paste from an article posted > a few weeks ago (I can't find the web address, but I have it > saved in a text file): > > ...The most successful marathon runner ever was around during > I believe the 70's, and lived in a small African village. He > lived his whole life on no carbs b/c he hunted and ate all his > food. He had more endurance and never hit the wall b/c fat > provides almost unlimited energy, and the wall comes from > glycogen depetion form the small amount of carbs our bodies > store. Eating like a hunter is more natural and I believe can > give a more muscular, healthy body than any other modern, made > up eating plan. Also, the benefit of most food after a workout > has been shown in modern research to be superior in terms of > less nitrogen loss and better protein synthesis, a protein > pulse of huge protein intakes after a workout, similar to > eating after a hunt. This is the way our ancestors ate, this > is the way predatory animals eat, and if you try it u will > want to eat like this too when u see the results it produces... > > ------ > > Eugene Sanik commented: > > I'm not sure which marathon runner is being used in reference > here, and I certainly don't fully agree with all of the > preceding assertions (ie, what proof there were no carbs, the > way our ancestors ate, why we should reverse physiological > evolution to 100,000 years ago). However, this person does > make a point in that if impaired performance is due to > glycogen depletion, why not switch to a fuel that allows no > such thing (..fat!) Furthermore, with each gram of fat > providing more than twice as many calories as a gram of carb, > you'll also be getting more bang for your buck, and you won't > have to deal with the evil killer death hormone Insulin :-) > > > Mel Siff: > > *** I take issue with other aspects of that tale. That > " deduction " is the way that current urbanised " homo sapiens " > thinks. It just iterates that currently trendy preoccupation > with the so-called " palaeolithic diet " (Stone Age diet) which > is sheer hypothesis and belief. > > A major fallacy in this line of reasoning is that not every > person in a given African village takes part in the hunt. In > fact, a small band of hunters do the physical hunting, while > the remainder help prepare or eat the food later. Why should > one conclude that humans should imitate the predatory animals > when we are supposed to be more closely related the > non-predatory great apes, some of which, like the gorilla are > immensely strong on vegetarian diets. This is not to forget > the great strength of the large antelope and buffalo, which > also do not eat meat. " Supposed to be more closely related " -- a hotly-debated matter! The animals you mention, it should be pointed out, spend a great deal of time (almost all their time, some days), EATING. The relatively low nutrient density of vegetable fare requires this. Also, the issue has more to do with mental capacities than with physical strength. Apparently, higher nutrient densities, as well as (possibly) specific nutrients -- such as the omega-3 fatty acids -- allowed the development of bigger brains, with all that that came to imply. > Nobody is to say if any given diet is " more natural " , since > humans (and most animals) are very opportunistic when it comes > to survival. They will eat whatever is easiest to obtain and > most abundant in supply and much of this is determined by > where they live. You bet! They also tend to eat what gives the most " bang for the buck " -- i.e. energy secured for energy expended. That means, roughly speaking, FAT, or fatty or oily foods. > It is very misleading to state that primitive > humans simply hunted animals. I don't know that any intelligent student of the matter has ever claimed that. I think even the dummies are aware of that. It sounds to me like maybe you've read some articles by fanatical " Atkins Diet " adherents who equate that diet with the " stone age " diet (and assume that there was *A* stone age diet, rather than many) -- and like you've acquired a definition of " stone age diet " therefrom. Even in the case of those hunter-gatherers (e.g. the Eskimo) who ate almost exclusively animal foods, the pertinent fatty acid composition of the diet scarcely resembles that of the so-called " Atkins Diet " (and I use quotation marks since it is not his diet, but pre-dates his work by many decades) > Some of the most ancient > surviving palaeolithic San ( " Bushmen " ) peoples in Africa have > left their records in rock art for tens thousands of years and > passed on many of their ancient survival customs and anyone > who is familiar with them knows that they have an > exceptionally good knowledge of what roots, berries, fruits, > gourds and other non-animal sources of food are safe, > nutritious or even healing. You bet! Our forebears ate a great variety of foods -- much more variety than we do. ( " We " of the " developed " world, that is.) > For all of their history, they > appear to have eaten a mixture of animal and non-animal food, > with some of those living near rivers and the sea also eating > fish (remains of fish are frequently found in Bushmen middens > along the Cape coast). Yep. > Thus, if we are to judge by what we have learned from some of > the most ancient groups of people still in fairly natural > existence (not only in Africa, but also in Australia, S > America and other 'primitive' communities), we will appreciate > that they ate meat, fats, carbohydrates and all the same food > constituents that we do today, though none of it was " fast > food " , and none of it was preserved by anything other than > drying (or salting in some cases) - and some foods were even > widely used as medication. Yep. > Just as in our modern communities, > there were some folk who were much more physically active > because they had to hunt and defend their communities, while > others were far more sedentary in the roles such as mothers, > cooks, artists, musicians, and clothing manufacturers. > > However, it is highly unlikely that any of them ever reached > the level of chronic inactivity that many of our modern > Western children and adults have reached as " homo > electronicus " , pressing TV remote controls, driving cars to > corner shops, playing computer games, having food delivered to > the front door and watching others work. And we call this > " evolution " ?? BIG 'Yep'! :-) Very likely, NONE of them EVER " reached the level of chronic inactivity that many of our modern Western children and adults have reached " , or anywhere near. Or if they did reach that level of inactivity, then they were dead. ;-) > Incidentally, aren't we making a huge error in believing that > there is such a thing as " evolution " in a singular sense? > After all, while we seem to be evolving in many ways, we are > devolving in other ways, with the technology changing, but the > thought processes, the altruism and the morality changing at > an insignificant rate among humans as a whole. We often make > the mistake of judging progress by the deeds of the few who > stand out, not the drifting and wakeful sleepwalking that > seems to characterise the remainder of humankind - the ones > whom we discussed when we lamented that far too many people > fail to distinguish between symbol and thing, between > signifier and signified, between belief and 'reality'. Good point... and too big an issue for me to tackle right now! Alan Ann Arbor, MI _____________________________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2002 Report Share Posted October 19, 2002 Out of curiosity... What was Stone Age man's best deadlift (or equivalent thereof)? What could stone age man bench (or equivalent thereof)? How fast could they run 100m? Did any of them have a physique that comes close to any elite bodybuilders? Natural bodybuilders even? Could they run a sub 2.10 marathon? Could the 35+, 50+ or even 75+ Stone Age person carry out the feats many modern day Masters athletes perform? Like Mel says, you cannot compare the two groups. Hamish Ferguson Christchurch, New Zealand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 20, 2002 Report Share Posted October 20, 2002 << Out of curiosity... <<<What was Stone Age man's best deadlift (or equivalent thereof)? ---About 100 kilos, picked up of the ground, dragged up the chest and dropped on mastodons head! <<<<What could stone age man bench (or equivalent thereof)? ---How much can an Olympic lifter bench, without triple ply rhino stretch hide and rocky mountain oysters? <<<How fast could they run 100 m? -----depends how close Saber tooth followed Did any of them have a physique that comes close to any elite bodybuilders? Natural bodybuilders even? ---Neanderthal bones indicate considerable muscle mass !!! Could they run a sub 2.10 marathon? ----no but they could chase down wounded game for days <<<Could the 35+, 50+ or even 75+ Stone Age person carry out the feats many modern day Masters athletes perform? -----Probably even better--as indicated by injuries. >>>>Like Mel says, you cannot compare the two groups. I may be out on the ole limb here but I'm not sure that's what Mel means in a general sense(we'll soon know) -that is organic vs. pesticides; synthetic vs. natural etc. I agree that comparisons break down as metaphor drifts into analogy into specifics. Jerry Telle Lakewood CO USA . Jerry Telle Lakewood CO USA Hamish Ferguson Christchurch, New Zealand >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 20, 2002 Report Share Posted October 20, 2002 Hi Hamish and all, I saw a program on Discovery channel about prehistoric man and the bones of an Australopithecan youth in particular. The narrator said that this kid would be stronger than an Olympic weightlifter. Now how scientifically-based that statement was I don't know but I merely throw it in. [it is very dubious, especially when based upon many assumptions about the structure and function of the musculoskeletal and neuromuscular systems. Strength also is very situational and often quite local, so that, while one might be strong in one part of the body, one might be relatively weak elsewhere. In addition, strength, power and rate of force development all depend on how efficiently the neural systems recruit the relevant muscles in any given movement. One example - a modern human with a much more erect gait probably would be much stronger than less erect ancient humans in sprinting and long distance running. On top of all this, all modern and prehistoric humans are/ were not equally strong, so that some modern humans would be weaker/stronger than some prehistoric humans and vice versa. Mel Siff] I must however say that Australian aborigines, South American Indians, New Guineans and Africans, while capable of feats of endurance do not appear as magnificent specimens. Gideon Langart Port Owen South Africa ----- Original Message ----- From: Hamish Ferguson (Bikecoach Account) Out of curiosity... What was Stone Age man's best deadlift (or equivalent thereof)? What could stone age man bench (or equivalent thereof)? How fast could they run 100m? Did any of them have a physique that comes close to any elite bodybuilders? Natural bodybuilders even? Could they run a sub 2.10 marathon? Could the 35+, 50+ or even 75+ Stone Age person carry out the feats many modern day Masters athletes perform? Like Mel says, you cannot compare the two groups. Hamish Ferguson Christchurch, New Zealand * Don't forget to sign all letters with full name and city of residence if you wish them to be published! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2002 Report Share Posted October 21, 2002 Thanks for your response, Mel. I wrote: > We should distinguish two lines of thought here: 1) the evidence > favoring pre-industrial diets (i.e. lacking *refined* > carbohydrates, and rich in whole foods that are displaced by those > industrial " foods " ), and 2) the evidence favoring > pre-*agricultural* diets (lacking grains and their products, among > other things). The evidence for #1 is now great and, I would say, > overwhelming; it is not really worth discussing. The remaining > objections to the obvious are maintained only by a refined > carbohydrate industrial cabal and its governmental and academic > shills. The evidence for #2 is growing rapidly, but will as I say > take a couple more decades, at least, to " arrive " . Mel Siff wrote: > Of course, there are those authorities who point > out that many diseases have become more common today because > people are living much longer than they did in Palaeolithic > times - i.e., people died from other causes when they were > relatively young way back then, so that it can be very > misleading to compare two very different cohorts of subjects. You are correct. That is why I did not compare those cohorts in the terms (longevity) that you are indicating. I said nothing about the lifespan of pre-agricultural people. The fact that pre-agricultural people often died young from accidents, wounds, infections (etc.) has nothing to do with my point. [Modern humans make up for any discrepancies like that from the high rate of automobile accidents, homicides, wars etc that plague us today. As you imply, we cannot compare any different cohorts when there are so many other determinants of lifespan. Mel Siff] I was speaking of the advantages of pre-industrial and pre-agricultural diets for modern people, particularly with respect to the " diseases of civilization " (obesity, cancer, heart disease, diabetes), and with respect to the sorts of physical degeneration that Price described. I did not make those things sufficiently clear and explicit; I took them (wrongly) to be " given " . [in my previous letters, I stressed and continue to stress that we have no way of knowing how rife those diseases were among Stone Age humans - there are virtually no epidemiological data available. I pointed out that palaentologists have even found human remains which do show that such diseases also occurred in those bygone times. However, if we study clinical records of the past century, we notice that the incidence of those diseases has increased dramatically during that short perior, even though intake of grains and carbohydrates goes back many thousands of years before the last century. Thus, Price's conclusions may well have nothing at all to do with differences between palaeolithic and modern diet, but between diets of now and less than a century ago. He is not entitled to extrapolate to times that are extremely remote from the modern time. While we may agree on his conclusions about modern food engineering, preparation and modification, we cannot agree that this has anything to do with changes in the class of macronutrients that we eat now. Mel Siff] > Science may be slow, but the evidence is that the human > lifespan appears to be increasing rather than decreasing to > the much more ephemeral lifespans of our primitive ancestors. Yep. I was not suggesting that civilization be abandoned. [but you were implying that the " noble savages " of the Stone Age enjoyed a superior quality and qunatity of life and health. Mel Siff] Mel Siff wrote: > Another very important confusing factor is that research > indicates that lifespan correlates with overall intake of > calories, so that, if we wish to make valid comparisons > between different groups, we have to correct for any influence > exerted by this factor. How does Price overcome that hurdle > in a visionary way? ] I don't understand the question. Price was not talking about lifespan. *I* was not talking about lifespan. Price was talking about " physical degeneration " , using as yardstick dentition and oral health, among other observable phenomena. [Mel Siff: Whether one is talking about quantity of life or quality of life, he was implying a superiority for our extremely remote ancestors. There simply are not tens of thousands of toothy remains for every age group between birth and death from tens of thousands of years ago to enable him or anyone else to make that sort of conclusion. He is speculating not putting forward any scientific proof. Incidentally, oral health was dreadful in Europe during the past few hundred years up to the last century and it has improved during modern times. Our more medieval European ancestors had little or no concept of oral and general hygiene, though their Hebraic and Arab contemporaries and predecessors did. As a matter of interest, many primitive folk used ash, salt and different alkalis from plant or earth sources to clean their teeth, something that moderns did not do until very recent times.] I wrote: > The " stone age diet " is essentially the diet of hunters and > gatherers, who ate a wide variety of both vegetable and > animal foods -- whatever, as you point out, was convenient, > seasonally-available, etc. There was a notable and complete > absence of refined carbohydrate, and indeed total carbohydrate > from any source was limited by the nature of the lifestyle > (i.e. PRE-agricultural, and thus pre-grains, largely, except > for small amounts of foraged wild grains). Mel Siff wrote: > As I mentioned before, the primitive groups such as the San > or Bushmen of Africa and the Aborigines of Australia have for > tens of thousands of years obtained a regular carbohydrate supply > not only from wild grains, but also from nuts, seeds, tubers, > berries, fruits, honey, nectar and an extensive variety of other > non-grain sources. Not " regular " in the same sense that " regular " means today. Honey was a rare treat. Fruits, only in season. Berries, only in season (and rather low carb, anyway). Nuts and seeds -- very low in carb (rich in fat). Tubers -- yes, high carb, and probably available more often than not. The subject population also had to *move*, usually quite vigorously, in order to obtain these goodies. (More on that below.) [if you visit ever visited these " primitive " societies until quite recently (as a start may I suggest a visit to parts of Namibia or the Kalahari desert in southern Africa), you will have noticed that their intake of foods was not as irregular as you imply, especially since these folk chose to live in warmer climates in Africa and Australia. Nuts and seeds are not generally low in carbohydrates - any book on dietetics will show you that seeds from flowers, trees, etc contain over 25% carbohydrate, while tubers, roots, melons also contain very significant quantities of carbohydrates. Even the muscles, livers and brains of hunted animals contain a certain percentage of carbohydrate in the from of glycogen. The point was not that primitive peoples never ate carbohydrates. The point was that they ate less carbohydrate, and in different forms (obviously, unrefined forms), and that they were periodically deprived or relatively deprived of it -- quite unlike the modern situation. What I just said is of course generalizing greatly. In some contexts (notably the Eskimo) practically no carbohydrate at all was consumed. The absolute quantity of dietary carb consumed had to do no doubt with numerous local and seasonal factors of availability, palatability, and so forth. [Mel Siff: All opinions on actual amount of carbohydrates ingested tens of thousands of years constitute " guesstimates " - we simply do not have the evidence to judge exactly how much they obtained from perishable sources whose remains decayed and were lost from the archaelogical record. We could equally well state that the metabolic systems of those ancient folk was so different from ours that they could not digest or cope with larger quantities of carbs, so that we have " evolved " to become far more efficient onivores than they ever were (let's omit the problems introduced by food processing). ] Keep in mind that the calories have to come from somewhere. In the absence of grain products and dairy (major calorie sources come the neolithic), high meat intake was likely necessary to get adequate calories. Or failing that, high oleogenous seeds and nuts (low carb, high fat/protein), and/or starchy tubers. See: Eaton SB, Eaton SB, Konner, MJ. Paleolithic nutrition revisited: A twelve-year retrospective on its nature and implications. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 51, 207-216, 1997. Cordain L, Brand J, Eaton SB, Mann N, Holt SHA, Speth JD. Plant-animal subsistence ratios and macronutrient energy estimations in worldwide hunter-gatherer diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 71, 682-92, 2000. The higher fat foods were almost certainly favored and prized. See references from beyondveg.com, below. [The brains, the contents of animal stomachs, the liver and parts of the animals which actually contain carbohydrates were and are also highly prized in more " primitive " populations. Mel Siff] Also, I did not make this point before, but should have: the high physical activity levels of primitives burns up carbs before they can cause the metabolic derangement that they can cause in sedentary people. Active athletes (and most primitives are/were active athletes) can consume hefty amounts of carbs before the " spillover " point at which the metabolic problems become evident. Hungry muscles grab and burn the glucose before hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia can get started. For example, and as you probably know, athletes in hard training (especially bodybuilders, whose extensive high-intensity work burns up carbs very fast) can sometimes go into ketosis even while eating a couple hundred grams of carbs per day. They burn it up as fast as they eat it, and it does not have a chance to cause problems. They are on an *effectively* " low-carb diet " -- that is, they are in the metabolic state that develops during carbohydrate restriction -- by virtue of their activity, even while consuming quite a bit of carb. The same was true, in all likelihood, of pre-agricultural people: *effectively* or metabolically on a " low-carb diet " even if eating a fair amount of carbohydrate. [Mel Siff: You are assuming that every single member of every primitive group or tribe was extremely active, instead of recognising that some or many members may have been far less active than the hunters. Gathering is far more isometric and quasi-isometric, so that this pursuit, even though it can involve considerable slow walking, is far less metabolically demanding. On top of this, the fitter members of any society tend to become metabolically more efficient, so that they require smaller amounts of energy to execute the same tasks. Remember, too (if you have ever seen " Bushmen " hunting), that the hunter doesn't spend hours running, but relies on stealthy stalking and patient waiting with bow and arrow or blowgun near popular meeting places for animals (like waterholes), because those hunters are well aware that wasting unnecessary energy can spell doom for them. They also worked " smart, not hard " as often as they could. Far too many theorists seem to think that ancient hunters were some sort of super-athletes who worked daily much harder than we do. Like primitive folk today, they did not even hunt every day if they had enjoyed a good food gathering or hunting expedition a few days before. Mel Siff] Sedentary moderns can get a " paleolithic " -like effect, metabolically, by cutting carbs to the bone -- as with the so-called " Atkins diet " . That is, by cutting carbs down to almost unnaturally-low levels, one can compensate *to some extent* for the lack of athletic activity. Physical activity is the missing link in these popular " low carb " programs, such as the " Atkins diet " . Atkins has to recommend cutting the carbs back so severely -- like 20 grams/day (at the start) -- because most of the people he advises never *move*. Better to allow more carb, and do some hard training to burn it off (and of course to secure the manifold other benefits of hard training). Perhaps he can't bring himself to tell others to get moving because he is himself a couch-potato. All the hemming and hawing about insulin and carbohydrates and macronutrient ratios becomes suddenly much less important if only the subject starts to *move* vigorously. This is the necessary context of the discussion -- seldom touched upon in the welter of " low carb " and " protein power " and " zone " -type books. (Or if touched upon, it is seldom stressed, as the authors probably intuitively sense the confirmed couch-potato-hood of most of their readership.) The best way to describe the issue, in short, is as level of carbs *relative to* physical activity, rather than just *absolute* level of carbs. Mel Siff wrote: > One cannot fixate on grains as the sole or > major source of convenient carbohydrates. No, but as a practical matter the major source of continuously-available carbohydrates IS grains and grain products. [As I pointed out before, nuts, seeds, tubers, roots, fruits, flowering plants and vegetables also contain significant quantities of carbohydrate, so that one can easily obtain large quantities of carbs from such sources, which occur extensively in the wild. Maybe it be more rational to claim that a move from these sources of carbohydrate towards excessive intake of grains has been a more important cause of deficient diet, because grains do not contain a fraction of all the essential minerals, vitamins, anti-oxidants and other micronutrients that occur prolifically in vegetables, fruits, tubers etc. Mel Siff] The advent of agriculture, and hence the advent of a more or less continuous supply of concentrated, high-glycemic carbohydrate, mostly in the form of grains and flour, was a major watershed with major metabolic impact, after which humans lost stature (and probably strength and endurance), and brain size (and probably intelligence). [Comparison of the remains of ancient humans with modern humans shows that the latter generally are much larger in stature, while massive brain volume has nothing to do with quality of brain or its intelligence. It is extremely simplistic and misleading to suggest that palaeolithic humans were far more intelligent than moderns because of larger brain size. Anyone who works in the neurosciences will tell you that idiots may have much larger brains than the average person and that some geniuses may have smaller brains than the norm. If Price ever tried to correlate intelligence with brain volume, then my respect for his intelligence will take yet another dive. Mel Siff] Later, with industrialization, came the continuous supply of *refined* carbohydrates, denuded of the (partially-protective) fiber and germ elements. It was this change that caused the gross physical degeneration observed and documented by Price. Paradoxically, during this very period average lifespan increased dramatically due to a number of non-dietary factors (public health and infrastructure, antibiotics, etc.). 15,000 years ago, one might have trod many miles to obtain scant nourishment. Today, you can't waddle 50 yards in an urban setting without running into yet another refined-carb-and-sat-fat-laden food stand, food store, convenience store, or whatever. If the purveyors of this junk had their way (and they do, much of the time), you'd be eating it 10 times a day. The shocking and rapidly-worsening statistics on obesity and related metabolic illness reflects this. [All of this is confusing two very different causes of degenerative diseases: (a) ingestion of highly processed, denatured foods ( ingestion of excessive amounts of carbohydrates (and fats). One cannot use this information to deduce that palaeolithic humans had 'superior' diets to us, especially to those of us who do not eat junk foods or excessive quantities of any food. Mel Siff] Mel Siff wrote: > While we can agree that refined carbs did not exist, the > absence of cultivated grains does not mean that any foraging > group did not have a regular source of carbs - and the body > responds to the chemical composition of foods, not the > specific source. Carbohydrate A is carbohydrate A, no matter > whether it comes from grains, honey or tubers. See above. Also, carbohydrate A may be different from carbohydrate A, depending on glycemic index (GI), and accompanying non-nutrient protective factors. (Those are factors that can be described in terms of " chemical composition " , but probably not in the way you had in mind.) [And mixing of foods of different GI can alter the effective GI, so the issue once again becomes rather cloudy. Mel Siff] I wrote: > For one more example: Note that science recently (last 10-15 years > or so) " discovered " the preventive importance of non-classically- > nutritional factors in vegetables and fruits -- the plethora of > fine antioxidant and otherwise protective phytochemicals that are > abundant in " primitive " or " stone age " diets. It was amusing to > watch organizations such as the ACS (American Cancer Society) flip > over and begin recommending that people eat more vegetables and > fruits; this was, of course, after decades of denial that diet had > any role in cancer. That is just one example of many. Mel Siff wrote: > How can we validly compare the lifespans and > diseases of two groups separated by tens of thousands of years > on the basis of very limited numbers of biological remains? Lifespans, again, are not at issue. [Mel Siff: Actually, one cannot really state categorically that overall quality of life is not affected by length of life. While it might be wonderful to enjoy perfect health for 20 years and die because of some unknown less " modern " disease, most of us wouldn't mind living 60 years with some obesity, diabetes, mild heart disease, arthritis etc - at least those extra years would be involved with a lot more loving, living, thinking and doing things. Anyway, Price has not provided any evidence (nor could he ever have done so on the basis of the paucity of human remains) that Stone Agers lived higher quality lives than we do today. Only the blind will not admit that the sensible modern Western human (who isn't a stupid gluttonous, drug using fool) enjoys a far higher length and quality of life than those living in prehistoric times.] There will never be (and can never be) absolute proof that long-lived (those who *were* long-lived) pre-agricultural people suffered little from cancer, heart disease, diabetes and other maladies of the modern period by virtue of their high intake of fruits, vegetables and other unrefined foods. The hypothesis is very likely, however. The evidence is now overwhelming that diets rich in those foods -- such as were consumed by our paleolithic forebears -- are protective against the diseases mentioned. Also, those diseases were much rarer in the pre-industrial period than today. Cancer and heart disease were true rarities as recently as the turn of the last (19th-20th) century. That was, you will note, shortly before the massive increase in per capita consumption of refined carbohydrates. [Mel Siff: The fact that moderate-living, moderately active modern humans enjoy a far superior quality and quantity of life is no hypothesis, especially since advances in medicine mean that many of those who do contract diseases or are seriously injured will easily survive. To omit the role played by preventative and therapeutic medicine from the formula for quality and quantity of life is equivalent to considering the efficiency of a racing car without any access to modern mechanics. At least, today " if it is broke, we can fix it " , but it the past, " if it was broke, we usually couldn't fix it " . One personal example - neither my wife nor I would be around today without modern medicine - as a paraplegic and myself as a victim of coronary occlusion, we both would have been nothing more than tombstones in some anonymous graveyard - and we would not have been around to share with many others many years of what we have learned. ] > Do you think that we can accurately compare the pathologies of > a modern group with their abundance of medical records with > those sparse remains in limited locations around the world? See above. Mel Siff: > You are surely aware that ancient mummies and other such > relics show that cancer, cardiac disease, arthritis and other > so-called modern diseases were also quite common in the > distant past. Yes, among a tiny elite who could afford fine (de-germed, de-fibered) flour and sugar. The mummies and other preserved remains would not have been preserved unless they were of the elite. [Mel Siff: So, you are persisting that it is refined grains even back then which caused their demise? As far as I am aware, neither Price nor anyone else has carried out a medical comparison of hundreds of the rich and the less rich who were mummified. By the way, why is that many modern humans who overeat or often overeat the 'wrong' foods and even exercise little happen to enjoy healthy long lives? How can we discuss quality and quantity of life with respect to food intake if we do not also consider possible genetic problems or infection by subtle viruses and bacteria. For example, it may even be that bacteria and viruses will be found to play a major role in the onset and progression of degenerative diseases, so that all of these theories about food intake being the major problem could be way off track. After all, bacteria such as chlamydia pneumoniae and helicobacter pylori have been found to possibly play pivotal roles on cardiac disease and gastric ulcers, respectively. I stand by my original assertion that Price's theories are still nothing more than hypoethetical guesswork.] Mel Siff wrote: > In fact, some of the recent archaelogical and > anthropological journals to which I subscribe show that the > popular sketches of bent over, stooped, cave men were the > misleading result of " visionary " reconstructionists who used a > few ancient contorted or stooped skeletal remains to conclude > that these arthritic remains (as they have been now > recognised) were typical of all humans living then So, you are saying that these ancient peoples were *not* generally afflicted with crippling arthritis? That is likely inasmuch as many of them did not live long enough to develop arthritis. [You misunderstood what I wrote - do read it carefully again. Price and you consider that modern humans alone suffered from a wide range of " modern " disorders, but the records show that such disorders also afflicted primitive humans, despite their allegedly more " noble " eating habits. In fact, it was the distorted remains of primitive man which led reconstructionists to believe that such skeletal distortion was the norm! So much for the stunning health and wellness of all the primitives! Mel Siff] Mel Siff wrote: > So far, this may well be sort of visionary extrapolation that > theorists such as Price are making on the basis of some very > thin evidence. ] Have you looked at Price's work? [Yes, I have and I even cited some of it in some letters ages ago. While I concur with much of what he wrote about modern food refinement and the dairy industry, I do not agree with his theories about the diet of primitive " noble savages " . Mel Siff] It seems that factors in unrefined foods do confer some protection against the " wear and tear " arthritis (osteoarthritis) that you describe. But the forces of time, continuous use, and failing anabolism with age, do add up, regardless of diet. Eventually, if you live long enough, you will get osteoarthritis, regardless of what you eat. Osteoarthritis is a different animal in the sense that it is not a metabolic/toxic disorder as the principle " diseases of civilization " just mentioned. These diseases are largely caused by the consumption of industrialized, refined foods, superimposed on sedentary lifestyle, with a few other (relatively minor) factors thrown in. [Actually, modern science has not managed to identify a single simple cause of osteoarthritis. If they did mange to do so, then a cure for it would become a great deal easier. The fact that large numbers of people who do consume " industrialized, refined foods, superimposed on sedentary lifestyle " , yet live long, relatively healthy lives militates against such a simplistic theory. Mel Siff] > I would like to read some good dissenting texts. Most of the > objections I've read are pretty shallow hand-waving, or else > now-archaic (1950's-ish, ADA-ish) stuff to the effect of " the > American diet is the best in the world! " . I would welcome any > serious contrary arguments, and would read them carefully. Mel Siff wrote: > For a start, examine what I have written above and provide > some hard scientific evidence to refute what I have stressed > about the rather adventurous, but largely conjectural > hypotheses about a " Stone Age " diet still being the optimal > diet for modern man. If I know what, specifically, you want hard scientific evidence *for*, perhaps I can provide it. Just be specific, and I'll do my best. [Mel Siff: I have provided more such evidence above - for a start, look at the diets and health of " primitive " humans who live alongside modern humans today. I cited the forensic studies of mummies and other ancient remains and provided plenty of information on the biochemical composition of various foods. I have suggested that you examine the clinical records from the past century to ascertain that deterioration of diet has occurred even in the same grain eating populations and that increase in certain diseases is not necessarily a consequence in the source of carbs. Etc etc. As yet, I have not even seen vaguely convincing evidence from the Price camp that modern degenerative diseases are a clear consequence of grain intake. That camp is conveniently confusing intake of refined carbs and other foods in general with intake of grain products - and that is " junk " science, with which I take just as much issue as I do with " junk " foods.] General comments: The scientific evidence favoring, for optimal health and prevention of disease, the consumption of a variety of unrefined ( " paleo " ) foods -- fruits, vegs, nuts, seeds, fish, etc. -- is overwhelming. There is nothing conjectural about it. [You are now recognising my premise that the " primitives " probably have always ingested a significant amount of carbs from sources other than grains alone, though your original letter was very insistent that the grain form of carbohydrates is responsible for most degenerative diseases. Humans have always eaten opportunistically and managed to survive quite effectively on any diet which provided an adequate intake of the basic macronutrients, micronutrients and fluids. There is no definitive scientific evidence linking quality or quantity of life to the intake of carbohydrates from grains. Mel Siff] The evidence favoring unrefined grain products (pre- industrial, but not pre-agricultural) for modern disease prevention is also strong. The classic works by Burkitt and Cleave were followed by voluminous medical journal literature, more books and symposia, etc. [Mel Siff: Once again you are confusing the effects of unrefined and refined carbohydrates. The entire discussion has focused on the claims that it is GRAINS per se, not refined grains, which cause modern degenerative diseases. If you are now qualifying the " Stone Age Hypothesis " to mean that it is refinement of foods which can cause an increase in the incidence of degenerative diseases, then many of us will agree with you and Price and we have no need to continue this discussion. On the other hand, if you continue to maintain that it " evil " GRAIN in general, irrespective of quality or quantity, then I will continue to disagree until I see clear scientific evidence.] The evidence for the health benefits of carb restriction are much scantier, but do exist, and are accumulating a lot more rapidly now. The whole hyperglycemia/hyperinsulinemia/ Syndrome-X/etc./etc. meme has finally reached critical mass, and science is now, and will be for the next couple decades, working on filling in all the blank spots. ----------------- Some resources re paleo vs. modern diet: Generally: http://www.beyondveg.com/ -- an outstanding, content-rich site, lots of documentation and detail. It is aimed at " recovering " vegetarians, but there is a load of useful info about many aspects of paleo dietetics (which are favored, generally) [Mel Siff: It is interesting to note, that whenever someone counters arguments by Cordain and others who believe in the evils of grains, they try to justify the weaknesses in their hypotheses. Take this example from Cordain's articles (when someone asked about the " Bushmen " of Africa, the very example that I have quoted on a few occasions): Q: So far we have been discussing grains. What about legumes? Could they have been realistically eaten as a staple by primitive groups without cooking, and if they are natural to the human evolutionary experience, why do they cause gas which indicates fermentation of indigestible products in the gut? If they are not natural for us, how do we account for the !Kung and other primitive groups who eat them? Cordain: As with grain consumption, there are hunter-gatherers who have been documented eating legumes. However, under most cases, the legumes are cooked or the tender, early sprouts eaten raw rather than the mature pod. Some legumes in their raw state are less toxic than others. However, most legumes in their mature state are non-digestible and/or toxic to most mammals when eaten in even moderate quantities. What a " cop out " ! Here the expert is confronted by proof that primitive humans have eaten legumes, but he tries to wriggle out of this situation by stating that " it all depends " , because the " primitives " knew how to prepare their foods sensibly!! Surprise, surprise!! Did he really think that the very ancients were so inexperienced and subnormal as not to know how to prepare their foods for palatability, availability or safety? If you examine the tons of so-called scientific work on those many pages of those links, you will find many other similar flaws or evasions of the facts. I have neither the time nor inclination to dissect all of that material, because I would rather spend more effort on applying sports science in this group. Mel Siff] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2002 Report Share Posted October 22, 2002 From: " Bellanger: > > Mel, are you familiar with Westom Price's monumental work > > " Nutritional & Physical Degeneration? " . If not, I suggest you get > > aquainted with it before dismissing 'native nutrition' diets as > > 'sheer hypothesis'. Mel Siff: > > Please cite some pertinent sections which show that the " Stone > > Age Diet " scientifically should still be the " ideal " or " best " > > diet for all human beings in all countries today. I want to add to this thread: I went on the Atkins diet several years ago... and have had fair success keeping the weight off for about 5-years now... by limiting " excess " carbs (so I do think there is " something " right about watching your carb intake). My original thought process led me to the grand conclusion that carbs were evil... not a " natural " part of the diet humans evolved to eat... but thats all it was (only a grand conclusion). Mel pointed out in one of my previous posts, that we really dont know what our genetic ancestors ate. Are we vegetarians, or meat eaters (I think the jury is still out... but it looks like we eventually evolved into omnivores somewhere along the way. And if we evolved into omnivores... were we vegetarians before that time, or meateaters? If we evolved form chimp-like things though: it would make sense that our " natural " diet consisted of 'seasonal' fruits, nuts and vegetables. One theory I've heard is that when the ice-age came, our evolutionary ancestors had to learn to eat meat to survive. My new grand conclusion is that it is " excess " carbs that cause the problem. Just as excess fat, and excess protein would cause the body harm over time. In our American diet, it is all to easy to overload our systems with carbs, and this may be the real, and only trouble with carbs. I agree strongly with the person who pointed to the necessary nutrients in fruits and vegetables (phyto nutrients and antioxidants). It is my " current " conception that a long time ago business-minded people found ways of extracting certain nutrients from whole foods... and then to hype these nutrients so they would be bought at a higher market price. It is my opinion (not really schooled in sceince nutrition) that there are many nutrients in a varied diet of fruits and vegetables that science cannot put into a vitamin pill. For example: I'm drinking green tea right now. There are I think hundreds of nutrients in tea (tea being a high-nutrient drink) that are beneficial to health... but we really dont know all of them. In this line of reasoning it is my opinion that the minimum daily requirements (for vitamins, etc) were again made up by business people to sell their foods and make profits (money in politics... again... may have caused the primary goal on setting the minimum requirements to be profits, instead of health). As someone said; people tend to think in terms of black and white (IE: there is a problem with carbs, so we must cut carbs out completely). I believe carbs are necessary for health. Possibly seasonal bursts of carbs are good for you (like we see animals in nature doing today). But sustained carbs all year long possibly overtax the body. Bob Mckee Atlanta GA USA * Kindly sign all letters with full name and city if you wish them to be published Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2002 Report Share Posted October 22, 2002 As i have stated previously, the book " How We Heal " presents the information i would recommend becoming familiar with if optimum health is ones goal. Individuals participating in this, or similar, diet routinely observe gradual healing signs in the iris of the eye, as well as reversal of many outward symptoms of 'disease'. Regarding the work of Weston Price, there was no ideal universal diet - however, but rather, it was noticed by Price that the peoples he studied harvested what grew locally, and through trial and error, they discovered the best ways to prepare these foods, which was often times raw. [The fact that some food was eaten raw may have had nothing to do with health or preference, but simply the lack of ready availability of fire, the greater convenience when one was on the move, or preference in taste. Anyway, I am pretty certain that some primitives were just as fussy as many of us and if they could, they would have chosen and prepared their food according to personal taste. You state that " it was noticed by Price that the peoples he studied harvested what grew locally " , yet elsewhere he and you referred to primitive humans being in frequent transit in search of food. This sounds rather contradictory for any nomadic groups. Mel Siff] Being a dentist he went to great pains to record tooth decay in those whom he studied, and always those who strayed from the native diet of the area experienced greater tooth decay, especially several generations afterwards. Apparantly, many archaeologists consider tooth decay in skeletal remains to be a sign of the presence of agriculture, primarily grains. [Dental caries is not simply a consequence of diet or only the " evils " of grains, but also of several other factors, including one's genetic flavour, according to some authorities. If Price did not control statistically for the possible confounding effect of such other factors, his conclusions cannot be regarded as being definitive. Suggestive, maybe, but not definitive or accurate. Mel Siff] Again, I can only suggest that one apply the principles, and find out for oneself. [unfortunately single person samples (N = 1) are of minimal scientific validity. In addition, this sort of trial does not control for the possible existence of a powerful placebo effect. Mel Siff] Bellanger St Kilda, Australia --------- From: " Bellanger: > > > Mel, are you familiar with Westom Price's monumental work > > > " Nutritional & Physical Degeneration? " . If not, I suggest you get > > > aquainted with it before dismissing 'native nutrition' diets as > > > 'sheer hypothesis'. Mel Siff: > > > Please cite some pertinent sections which show that the " Stone > > > Age Diet " scientifically should still be the " ideal " or " best " > > > diet for all human beings in all countries today. Bob Mckee: >I want to add to this thread: > >I went on the Atkins diet several years ago... and have had fair success >keeping the weight off for about 5-years now... by limiting " excess " carbs >(so I do think there is " something " right about watching your carb intake). >My original thought process led me to the grand conclusion that carbs were >evil... not a " natural " part of the diet humans evolved to eat... but thats >all it was (only a grand conclusion). > >Mel pointed out in one of my previous posts, that we really dont know what >our genetic ancestors ate. Are we vegetarians, or meat eaters (I think the >jury is still out... but it looks like we eventually evolved into omnivores >somewhere along the way. And if we evolved into omnivores... were we >vegetarians before that time, or meateaters? If we evolved form >chimp-like things though: it would make sense that our " natural " diet consisted of >'seasonal' fruits, nuts and vegetables. One theory I've heard is that >when the ice-age came, our evolutionary ancestors had to learn to eat meat to >survive. > >My new grand conclusion is that it is " excess " carbs that cause the >problem. >Just as excess fat, and excess protein would cause the body harm over time. >In our American diet, it is all to easy to overload our systems with carbs, >and this may be the real, and only trouble with carbs. > >I agree strongly with the person who pointed to the necessary nutrients in >fruits and vegetables (phyto nutrients and antioxidants). It is my > " current " >conception that a long time ago business-minded people found ways of >extracting certain nutrients from whole foods... and then to hype these >nutrients so they would be bought at a higher market price. It is my >opinion >(not really schooled in sceince nutrition) that there are many nutrients in >a >varied diet of fruits and vegetables that science cannot put into a vitamin >pill. For example: I'm drinking green tea right now. There are I think >hundreds of nutrients in tea (tea being a high-nutrient drink) that are >beneficial to health... but we really dont know all of them. In this line >of >reasoning it is my opinion that the minimum daily requirements (for >vitamins, >etc) were again made up by business people to sell their foods and make >profits (money in politics... again... may have caused the primary goal on >setting the minimum requirements to be profits, instead of health). > >As someone said; people tend to think in terms of black and white (IE: >there >is a problem with carbs, so we must cut carbs out completely). I believe >carbs are necessary for health. Possibly seasonal bursts of carbs are >good >for you (like we see animals in nature doing today). But sustained carbs >all >year long possibly overtax the body. * Kindly sign all letters with full name and city if you wish them to be published Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.