Some questions about nutrition advice

[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]

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

Hmm. It often annoys me that sugary drinks are often the cheapest available, sometimes cheaper than bottled water. Sugar in liquid form is particularly bad for you. So I'd probably be in favour of a tax similar to the alcohol tax on Coke and the like. For other products, I think I'd be more in favour of proper labelling and banning anything with high sugar content being labelled with words like "diet" or "healthy".

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.

Interesting, thanks.

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.

The body requires glucose to function and glucose is a sugar (when we say blood sugar we mean blood glucose). We don't need to eat sugars though: fats can be transformed into glucose. There's a brief description of the process on wikipedia.

[Greyblades]

Hmm. It often annoys me that sugary drinks are often the cheapest available, sometimes cheaper than bottled water. Sugar in liquid form is particularly bad for you. So I'd probably be in favour of a tax similar to the alcohol tax on Coke and the like.

Where do you shop? In my experience, water's usually half the price of a bottle of cola

[a completely inoffensive name]

The body requires glucose to function and glucose is a sugar (when we say blood sugar we mean blood glucose). We don't need to eat sugars though: fats can be transformed into glucose. There's a brief description of the process on wikipedia.

Yes, fats are also another energy source for the body. However, fats have their own problems when consumed in relatively large amounts and relying on fats to be the main provider of energy instead of carbohydrates or sugars is just swapping one set of problems for another. Which leads me back to my original statement of everything in moderation makes most of these non issues.