Some questions about nutrition advice

[a completely inoffensive name]

Input and output would have to be considered as well as length for life when comparing with previous generations.

Most of us city dwellers sit on our way to work, sit at work, walk to a coffee or a cigarette, sit for more work, sit on our commute home, sit for dinner, sit and watch tv. Then find it difficult to find time to do a half hour of exercise.

Yet we are living close to twice as long as our Roman counterparts. A lot of whom died to minor diseases by modern measures. The diseases we are dying of look like those that take longer than the ancients lived and a lo of these diseases such as gout were limited to the nobility.

We have old rich lazy people diseases that manifest themselves well beyond the average lifespan of most humans who existed before us.

As for evolution and it's speed just look at how quickly being lactose tolerant spread through populations who drink milk. Similarly look at the lack of tolerance to alcohol for populations that had not been exposed to alcohol. A small advantage constantly applied will spread relatively quickly.

Given just these two examples is it not possible that most of us have a higher tolerance for grains than our nomadic ancestors. After all jus look at the high rates of type 2 diabetes in Australa's aborigines. Sure their diet is pretty bad, but they suffer far worse than their western counter parts on similar modern diets of alcohol and junk food.

Be careful with that hypothesis, in the case for lactose, I think all humans have had similar mechanisms for digesting our own mothers milk for millenia. It's not that big of a leap to having that lactose tolerance extend beyond our natural age of typically digesting milk (it cuts off in later years since [I would think] ancient peoples did not drink milk from other animals throughout their life until domestication arrived). However, its a whole other thing for our body to handle something completely brand new and adapt to it for digestive purposes.

But biology isn't exactly my strong suit. The main point being is that evolution promoting a modification in an already established mechanism is going to come about faster then a promotion towards a brand new mechanism being created for a new foreign substance.

[Papewaio]

In general lactose intolerance for adults is higher in countries whose people have not milked animals for generations.

Alcohol which definitely isn't naturally produced with breasts ... it would be a very popular genetic engineer who does make it happen... Tolerance for alcohol is associated with those societies that drink.

Given that the ice age finished only ten or so millennia ago it shows humans have adapted to at least some parts of our diet in the agrarian age. So it isn't too big a leap to point out the paleo diets might not be 100% in alignment with as as we have been under environmental pressure to adapt to the non-nomadic diets of grain based societies.

The thing we haven't had time to adjust too is the modern knowledge worker who toils at a PC. Lack of exercise is the newest phenomena and would be the key bit to realign with what our grandparents and near ancestors did. So Pre-industrial revolution energy expenditure would be where I'd look for quick lifestyle wins not 10,000 year old diets.

[a completely inoffensive name]

In general lactose intolerance for adults is higher in countries whose people have not milked animals for generations.

Alcohol which definitely isn't naturally produced with breasts ... it would be a very popular genetic engineer who does make it happen... Tolerance for alcohol is associated with those societies that drink.

Given that the ice age finished only ten or so millennia ago it shows humans have adapted to at least some parts of our diet in the agrarian age. So it isn't too big a leap to point out the paleo diets might not be 100% in alignment with as as we have been under environmental pressure to adapt to the non-nomadic diets of grain based societies.

The thing we haven't had time to adjust too is the modern knowledge worker who toils at a PC. Lack of exercise is the newest phenomena and would be the key bit to realign with what our grandparents and near ancestors did. So Pre-industrial revolution energy expenditure would be where I'd look for quick lifestyle wins not 10,000 year old diets.

Alcohol is still extremely toxic to humans and provides no benefit nutritionally or energetically to our body as far as I know. It's a poor example in my opinion. Millenia of drinking alcoholic products and we can at most tolerate around 200-250ml of alcohol in a short period (for 180lb males). A standard 12 fl oz (355ml) drink's worth of ethanol (about 23 standard drinks worth if I did my math right) would certainly kill anyone.

Meanwhile, I can drink half a gallon of milk in an hour if I wanted to with no real harm.

Other than that, I would agree with your concluding sentence.

[Papewaio]

From Wikipedia http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoh...ance#section_3
"The tolerance to alcohol is not equally distributed throughout the world's population, and genetics of alcohol dehydrogenase indicate resistance has arisen independently in different ethnic groups.[2] People of European descent on average have a high alcohol tolerance and are less likely to develop alcoholism compared to Aboriginal Australians, Native Americans and some East Asian groups.[3][4][5] This is related to an average higher body mass, but also to the prevalence of high levels of alcohol dehydrogenase in the population.[6][7] The high alcohol tolerance in Europeans and some other ethnic groups has probably evolved as a consequence of centuries of exposure to alcohol in established agricultural societies.[8][2]"

[therother]

Alcohol is still extremely toxic to humans and provides no benefit nutritionally or energetically to our body as far as I know.

As is sugar: I can't say it any better than Robert Lustig, Professor of Paediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology at UCSF:


.

[Rhyfelwyr]

My philosophy is just to get a calory surplus and try to get 1 (whatever unit they measure protein in) for each 1lb lean body mass.

I'm one stone away from being obese and have high blood pressure at 22.

I'm doing it right.

[gaelic cowboy]

Alcohol is still extremely toxic to humans and provides no benefit nutritionally or energetically to our body as far as I know. It's a poor example in my opinion. Millenia of drinking alcoholic products and we can at most tolerate around 200-250ml of alcohol in a short period (for 180lb males). A standard 12 fl oz (355ml) drink's worth of ethanol (about 23 standard drinks worth if I did my math right) would certainly kill anyone.

Meanwhile, I can drink half a gallon of milk in an hour if I wanted to with no real harm.

Other than that, I would agree with your concluding sentence.

Your thinking in terms of today when generally water in the West is safe to drink, back in the day People might often drank beer as a safer alternative to water. Remember these people probably didnt understand that boiling the water would purify it, but they knew fine well not to drink from the local river that was downstream of the local tannery.

[drone]

Your thinking in terms of today when generally water in the West is safe to drink, back in the day People might often drank beer as a safer alternative to water. Remember these people probably didnt understand that boiling the water would purify it, but they knew fine well not to drink from the local river that was downstream of the local tannery.

Indeed. Beer (due to boiling, alcohol content, and hop acidity) was safer than water to drink. Beer was also a way to "store" grains, old-style beers did preserve some nutritional value. Wine was also safer to drink, don't know about nutritional value though.

[a completely inoffensive name]

From Wikipedia http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoh...ance#section_3
"The tolerance to alcohol is not equally distributed throughout the world's population, and genetics of alcohol dehydrogenase indicate resistance has arisen independently in different ethnic groups.[2] People of European descent on average have a high alcohol tolerance and are less likely to develop alcoholism compared to Aboriginal Australians, Native Americans and some East Asian groups.[3][4][5] This is related to an average higher body mass, but also to the prevalence of high levels of alcohol dehydrogenase in the population.[6][7] The high alcohol tolerance in Europeans and some other ethnic groups has probably evolved as a consequence of centuries of exposure to alcohol in established agricultural societies.[8][2]"

We must be arguing two different thing because this does not negate my point. I am not denying that a degree of tolerance to relatively new substances can occur. I am saying that when you make the point of being able to create a new mechanism to allow you to not die when you eat relatively large quantities and actually convert the new material into nutritional or energetic benefit, alcohol is a crappy example because despite thousands of years of growing tolerance it still isn't good for us at all. Thus making your point, "won't we just adapt to our new diets" moot unless you are talking about the really, really long term.

As is sugar: I can't say it any better than Robert Lustig, Professor of Paediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology at UCSF:


.

The poison is the dose, sugar is toxic in the way vitamin A is toxic. We need it for vital purposes but too much will create an imbalance in the mechanisms of our body. You cannot say the same for alcohol.

Your thinking in terms of today when generally water in the West is safe to drink, back in the day People might often drank beer as a safer alternative to water. Remember these people probably didnt understand that boiling the water would purify it, but they knew fine well not to drink from the local river that was downstream of the local tannery.

I am not getting at what the purpose of all this is.

[therother]

The poison is the dose, sugar is toxic in the way vitamin A is toxic. We need it for vital purposes but too much will create an imbalance in the mechanisms of our body. You cannot say the same for alcohol.

Sugar, or at the least fructose in sugar, is essentially metabolised in the same way to alcohol. It's likely to be the main cause of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, for instance. Like alcohol, there is a safe limit to how much and how fast you can absorb. Observational epidemiological studies (*) have associated drinking a glass of red wine a day with decreased risk of heart disease but potentially worse risk of breast cancer (probably lot more by now). For sugar that limit is unknown, but I'd guess about 30g/day (less than one 330ml can of coke) is safe enough and even that should be taken with fibre (e.g. in fruit) to stop your pancreas going mental and over expressing insulin. Also, the body doesn't need sugar (or any dietary carbohydrates, for that matter).

(*) this should be taken with a pinch of salt as such studies can't demonstrate cause, so could be other (unaccounted for) behaviours of red wine drinkers that is responsible for this.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Out of curiosity what's your stance on having an "added sugar tax" like we had a thread about a few weeks ago?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Observational epidemiological studies (*) have associated drinking a glass of red wine a day with decreased risk of heart disease but potentially worse risk of breast cancer (probably lot more by now).

That is due to certain (possibly) beneficial organic compounds within grapes (specifically the skin if I remember correctly) that are present within the wine. Not at all due to the alcohol within it.

For sugar that limit is unknown, but I'd guess about 30g/day (less than one 330ml can of coke) is safe enough and even that should be taken with fibre (e.g. in fruit) to stop your pancreas going mental and over expressing insulin. Also, the body doesn't need sugar (or any dietary carbohydrates, for that matter).

Sure it does. Your body needs energy and simple sugars are a high source of energy. Fructose and sucrose found in HFCS is the same as the fructose and sucrose your body gets from cane sugar and fruits. The issue are the high concentrations of it in drinks like soda or in meals. They trigger insulin spikes which is bad, something that fruits generally don't do unless you liquefy a pound of strawberrys and chug that.

[therother]

The thing we haven't had time to adjust too is the modern knowledge worker who toils at a PC. Lack of exercise is the newest phenomena and would be the key bit to realign with what our grandparents and near ancestors did. So Pre-industrial revolution energy expenditure would be where I'd look for quick lifestyle wins not 10,000 year old diets.

Then you have the problem of explaining manual labourers in western countries, who probably do much harder physical labour than our grandparents, who have very high incidences of CHD and obesity. Exercise, although very good for you, isn't the silver bullet.

[Papewaio]

Then you have the problem of explaining manual labourers in western countries, who probably do much harder physical labour than our grandparents, who have very high incidences of CHD and obesity. Exercise, although very good for you, isn't the silver bullet.

Ive worked in jungle exploration with Indonesian locals. They were considerably harder working and fitter then the workers in metal foundries I also worked with Aussie labourers (who are from around the world).

I think we grossly underestimate how much our physical output has decreased, how much we sit around and how much refined food we eat in large sporadic meals.

More exercise and better snacking (more nuts, yogurts and fibre) not to mention more water and sleep would resolve a lot of the health problems.

Our diet is definitely a factor here, but he Aussie workers use far more leverage and tools. So I suspect the Indonesians more accurately reflected the working style from our grandparents age. After seeing one of my exploration team who was a grandfather himself nimbly climb a tree showing off a six pack I realized how different their physical output was. I myself had trouble keeping up in the days hikes and at the time was relatively fit.

[therother]

Ive worked in jungle exploration with Indonesian locals. They were considerably harder working and fitter then the workers in metal foundries I also worked with Aussie labourers (who are from around the world).

There are probably many more differences in their lifestyle than just more physical activity. Take agricultural workers in America, a very physically demanding job. It's perhaps not up there with your Indonesian locals, but who do considerably more exercise than the average office worker, even if they go to the gym after work. If the major problem is a lack of physical activity, you would expect to see lower rates of lifestyle diseases amongst the agricultural workers than office workers. But we don't see that. Take any native population (or one from a country that had very little incidence of the lifestyle diseases, like Japan pre-WWII) and get them to start eating our food and they'll soon start developing obesity, heart disease and diabetes. Even if they otherwise retain their activity levels. The high levels of cancers come after a generation or two.

More exercise and better snacking (more nuts, yogurts and fibre) not to mention more water and sleep would resolve a lot of the health problems.

Agreed.