"Junk Food" and Health

lemurcat12

Also: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-paleo-diet-half-baked-how-hunter-gatherer-really-eat/

"Proponents of the Paleo diet follow a nutritional plan based on the eating habits of our ancestors in the Paleolithic period, between 2.5 million and 10,000 years ago. Before agriculture and industry, humans presumably lived as hunter–gatherers: picking berry after berry off of bushes; digging up tumescent tubers; chasing mammals to the point of exhaustion; scavenging meat, fat and organs from animals that larger predators had killed; and eventually learning to fish with lines and hooks and hunt with spears, nets, bows and arrows.

Most Paleo dieters of today do none of this, with the exception of occasional hunting trips or a little urban foraging. Instead, their diet is largely defined by what they do not do: most do not eat dairy or processed grains of any kind, because humans did not invent such foods until after the Paleolithic; peanuts, lentils, beans, peas and other legumes are off the menu, but nuts are okay; meat is consumed in large quantities, often cooked in animal fat of some kind; Paleo dieters sometimes eat fruit and often devour vegetables; and processed sugars are prohibited, but a little honey now and then is fine...."

"On his website, Sisson writes that "while the world has changed in innumerable ways in the last 10,000 years (for better and worse), the human genome has changed very little and thus only thrives under similar conditions." This is simply not true. In fact, this reasoning misconstrues how evolution works. If humans and other organisms could only thrive in circumstances similar to the ones their predecessors lived in, life would not have lasted very long...."

"Even if eating only foods available to hunter–gatherers in the Paleolithic made sense, it would be impossible. As Christina Warinner of the University of Zurich emphasizes in her 2012 TED talk, just about every single species commonly consumed today—whether a fruit, vegetable or animal—is drastically different from its Paleolithic predecessor. In most cases, we have transformed the species we eat through artificial selection: we have bred cows, chickens and goats to provide as much meat, milk and eggs as possible and have sown seeds only from plants with the most desirable traits—with the biggest fruits, plumpest kernels, sweetest flesh and fewest natural toxins. Cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts and kale are all different cultivars of a single species, Brassica oleracea; generation by generation, we reshaped this one plant's leaves, stems and flowers into wildly different arrangements..."

"The Paleo diet not only misunderstands how our own species, the organisms inside our bodies and the animals and plants we eat have evolved over the last 10,000 years, it also ignores much of the evidence about our ancestors' health during their—often brief—individual life spans (even if a minority of our Paleo ancestors made it into their 40s or beyond, many children likely died before age 15). In contrast to Grok, neither Paleo hunter–gatherers nor our more recent predecessors were sculpted Adonises immune to all disease. A recent study in The Lancet looked for signs of atherosclerosis—arteries clogged with cholesterol and fats—in more than one hundred ancient mummies from societies of farmers, foragers and hunter–gatherers around the world, including Egypt, Peru, the southwestern U.S and the Aleutian Islands. "A common assumption is that atherosclerosis is predominately lifestyle-related, and that if modern human beings could emulate preindustrial or even preagricultural lifestyles, that atherosclerosis, or least its clinical manifestations, would be avoided," the researchers wrote. But they found evidence of probable or definite atherosclerosis in 47 of 137 mummies from each of the different geographical regions. And even if heart disease, cancer, obesity and diabetes were not as common among our predecessors, they still faced numerous threats to their health that modern sanitation and medicine have rendered negligible for people in industrialized nations, such as infestations of parasites and certain lethal bacterial and viral infections...."

"...Even though researchers know enough to make some generalizations about human diets in the Paleolithic with reasonable certainty, the details remain murky. Exactly what proportions of meat and vegetables did different hominid species eat in the Paleolithic? It's not clear. Just how far back were our ancestors eating grains and dairy? Perhaps far earlier than we initially thought. What we can say for certain is that in the Paleolithic, the human diet varied immensely by geography, season and opportunity. "We now know that humans have evolved not to subsist on a single, Paleolithic diet but to be flexible eaters, an insight that has important implications for the current debate over what people today should eat in order to be healthy," anthropologist William Leonard of Northwestern University wrote in Scientific American in 2002."

"...If we compare the diets of so-called modern hunter-gatherers, however, we see just how difficult it is to find meaningful commonalities and extract useful dietary guidelines from their disparate lives (see infographic). Which hunter–gatherer tribe are we supposed to mimic, exactly? How do we reconcile the Inuit diet—mostly the flesh of sea mammals—with the more varied plant and land animal diet of the Hadza or !Kung? Chucking the many different hunter–gather diets into a blender to come up with some kind of quintessential smoothie is a little ridiculous. "Too often modern health problems are portrayed as the result of eating 'bad' foods that are departures from the natural human diet…This is a fundamentally flawed approach to assessing human nutritional needs," Leonard wrote. "Our species was not designed to subsist on a single, optimal diet. What is remarkable about human beings is the extraordinary variety of what we eat. We have been able to thrive in almost every ecosystem on the Earth, consuming diets ranging from almost all animal foods among populations of the Arctic to primarily tubers and cereal grains among populations in the high Andes.”

It goes on.

Gianfranco_R

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Gianfranco_R wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-can-we-learn-from-the-kitavans/

"2,250 people live on Kitava. They are traditional farmers. Their dietary staples are tubers (yam, sweet potato and taro), fruit, fish, and coconut. They don’t use dairy products, alcohol, coffee, or tea. Their intake of oils, margarine, cereals, and sugar is negligible. Western foods constitute less than 1% of their diet. Their activity level is only slightly higher than in Western populations. 80% of them smoke daily and an unspecified number of them chew betel. The macronutrient composition of the Kitavan diet was estimated as 21% of total calories from fat, 17% from saturated fat, 10% from protein, and 69% from carbohydrates."

Note: the sat fat seems to be mainly from plant-based sources, such as coconut, rather than the usual sources in the western pattern diet.

"Lindeberg’s Kitava study examined a sample of 220 Kitavans aged 14-87 and compared them to healthy Swedish populations. They found substantially lower diastolic blood pressure, body mass index, and triceps skinfold thickness in the Kitavans. Systolic blood pressure was lower in Kitava than in Sweden for men over 20 and women over 60. Total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B were lower in men over 40 and in women over 60. Triglycerides were higher in Kitavans aged 20-39 than in Swedes of the same age. HDL was not significantly different...."

"Lindeberg’s studies were done in the early 90’s and have not been confirmed by other studies in the ensuing two decades. In the Kitava study, the ages of subjects were not objectively verifiable, but were estimated from whether or not they remembered significant historical events. The absence of heart disease and stroke was deduced by asking islanders if they had never known anyone who had the symptoms of either condition. This was reinforced by anecdotal reports from doctors who said that they didn’t see those diseases in islanders. EKGs were done on the Kitavans, but a normal EKG does not rule out atherosclerosis or cardiovascular disease. I’m not convinced that we have enough solid data to rule out the presence of cardiovascular disease or other so-called “diseases of civilization” in that population.

But even supposing those diseases don’t exist in Kitava, what could we deduce from that? Lindeberg thinks it constitutes evidence to support the Paleolithic diet of meat, fish, vegetables, fruit and nuts that our ancestors ate 2,000,000 to 10,000 years BP. We aren’t really sure what our Paleolithic ancestors ate, but we can be reasonably sure they didn’t typically eat what Kitavans eat. The Paleolithic diet included meat and was probably much higher in protein than the Kitavan diet. Most of our Paleolithic ancestors probably did not have access to coconuts or taro or to an abundance of fish. Our ancestors were hunter-gatherers, while the Kitavans are farmers; agriculture did not develop until around 10,000 BP.

I don’t see how we could assume the absence of those diseases was due to the Kitavan diet. Other causes would have to be ruled out, including heredity and environmental factors. Even if it was due to the diet, how could we possibly know whether it was due to the diet as a whole or to some specific aspect or component of the diet?

What can we conclude?

The Kitava study serves as a disconfirming example to discredit the claims made for low-carb diets. Kitavans eat a very high-carb diet, with lots of saturated fat and little protein, and they appear to thrive on it without becoming obese or developing a high incidence of metabolic syndrome as the low-carb theorists would predict.

It is evidence against the hypothesis that low-fat diet recommendations caused the obesity “epidemic” simply because people replaced fat with carbohydrates. It shows that a diet high in carbohydrates does not necessarily lead to obesity, especially if they are complex carbohydrates and the total calorie intake is not excessive.

It supports the general consensus of most diet experts that a predominately plant-based diet is healthy. It supports Mom’s admonishments to eat our vegetables.

It suggests that saturated fat need not be avoided, especially if it is of vegetable rather than animal origin.

It tends to confirm the health benefits of weight control and the principle that weight can be controlled simply by limiting calories. The Kitavans are not overweight, and their intake of calories is lower than the conventional Western diet.

It tends to support advice to avoid processed foods and refined carbohydrates.

It reinforces the concept that humans can thrive on a wide variety of diets...."

I said "studies", do you want another one?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/244410

Now we are on 1977 and an abstract that doesn't even discuss diet?

This is informative: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/evolution-of-diet/

And confirms what stated in the studies I posted:
"So far studies of foragers like the Tsimane, Arctic Inuit, and Hadza have found that these peoples traditionally didn’t develop high blood pressure, atherosclerosis, or cardiovascular disease. “

Eat whatever you want, but you are safer without junk, highly processed food.

lemurcat12

We've yet to define "junk." So far I'm the only one who even offered a definition. We also have yet to have a reasonable argument as to why including a little "junk" (as I defined it) in the context of an overall healthful, calorie-appropriate diet would be bad for health, and no your links don't support such a claim.

OP (and I think you, from past experience) is arguing that one should follow some sort of "paleo" diet, which goes way beyond not basing your diet on "junk" or "highly processed foods." The problem with the "paleo" argument is set forth in the links I have cited, and in this case the "paleo" diet seems to be the Sisson-preferred low carb version in particular, which is certainly not supported by the studies or the links (as noted, reasonably to very high carb diets have quite good health outcomes, both in the Kitava study and in the blue zones).

I'm generally in favor of mostly eating a whole-foods based diet myself, as you know (so trying to suggest otherwise is kind of odd), consistent with the links I cited--I'd use blue zones as the main argument, not an idea that there's one ideal human diet--but this is not an argument for the restrictions of the paleo diet or that low carb is somehow preferable. Not at all.

Gianfranco_R

lemurcat12 wrote: »

We've yet to define "junk." So far I'm the only one who even offered a definition. We also have yet to have a reasonable argument as to why including a little "junk" (as I defined it) in the context of an overall healthful, calorie-appropriate diet would be bad for health, and no your links don't support such a claim.

OP (and I think you, from past experience) is arguing that one should follow some sort of "paleo" diet, which goes way beyond not basing your diet on "junk" or "highly processed foods." The problem with the "paleo" argument is set forth in the links I have cited, and in this case the "paleo" diet seems to be the Sisson-preferred low carb version in particular, which is certainly not supported by the studies or the links (as noted, reasonably to very high carb diets have quite good health outcomes, both in the Kitava study and in the blue zones).

I'm generally in favor of mostly eating a whole-foods based diet myself, as you know (so trying to suggest otherwise is kind of odd), consistent with the links I cited--I'd use blue zones as the main argument, not an idea that there's one ideal human diet--but this is not an argument for the restrictions of the paleo diet or that low carb is somehow preferable. Not at all.

I missed your definition of junk, but no reason to make our own definitions, when there are dictionaries available:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/junk food

lemurcat12

Gianfranco_R wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

We've yet to define "junk." So far I'm the only one who even offered a definition. We also have yet to have a reasonable argument as to why including a little "junk" (as I defined it) in the context of an overall healthful, calorie-appropriate diet would be bad for health, and no your links don't support such a claim.

OP (and I think you, from past experience) is arguing that one should follow some sort of "paleo" diet, which goes way beyond not basing your diet on "junk" or "highly processed foods." The problem with the "paleo" argument is set forth in the links I have cited, and in this case the "paleo" diet seems to be the Sisson-preferred low carb version in particular, which is certainly not supported by the studies or the links (as noted, reasonably to very high carb diets have quite good health outcomes, both in the Kitava study and in the blue zones).

I'm generally in favor of mostly eating a whole-foods based diet myself, as you know (so trying to suggest otherwise is kind of odd), consistent with the links I cited--I'd use blue zones as the main argument, not an idea that there's one ideal human diet--but this is not an argument for the restrictions of the paleo diet or that low carb is somehow preferable. Not at all.

I missed your definition of junk, but no reason to make our own definitions, when there are dictionaries available:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/junk food

I don't think there's a universally-accepted definition such that we can assume that everyone means the same thing. In fact, OP demonstrated in the other thread that he is using it quite differently than I was.

For the record, although I don't think it's hard to find (page 1), mine was identical to the dictionary one you cited: "food that is high in calories but low in nutritional content." I said specifically: "high cal, low nutrient foods."

Are you just arguing to argue or do you actually have a point? Sometimes it's hard to tell, and since the definition you seem to like is the same as the one I used, this seems like one of those "just arguing to argue" things.

Gianfranco_R

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Gianfranco_R wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

We've yet to define "junk." So far I'm the only one who even offered a definition. We also have yet to have a reasonable argument as to why including a little "junk" (as I defined it) in the context of an overall healthful, calorie-appropriate diet would be bad for health, and no your links don't support such a claim.

OP (and I think you, from past experience) is arguing that one should follow some sort of "paleo" diet, which goes way beyond not basing your diet on "junk" or "highly processed foods." The problem with the "paleo" argument is set forth in the links I have cited, and in this case the "paleo" diet seems to be the Sisson-preferred low carb version in particular, which is certainly not supported by the studies or the links (as noted, reasonably to very high carb diets have quite good health outcomes, both in the Kitava study and in the blue zones).

I'm generally in favor of mostly eating a whole-foods based diet myself, as you know (so trying to suggest otherwise is kind of odd), consistent with the links I cited--I'd use blue zones as the main argument, not an idea that there's one ideal human diet--but this is not an argument for the restrictions of the paleo diet or that low carb is somehow preferable. Not at all.

I missed your definition of junk, but no reason to make our own definitions, when there are dictionaries available:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/junk food

I don't think there's a universally-accepted definition such that we can assume that everyone means the same thing. In fact, OP demonstrated in the other thread that he is using it quite differently than I was.

For the record, although I don't think it's hard to find (page 1), mine was identical to the dictionary one you cited: "food that is high in calories but low in nutritional content." I said specifically: "high cal, low nutrient foods."

Are you just arguing to argue or do you actually have a point? Sometimes it's hard to tell, and since the definition you seem to like is the same as the one I used, this seems like one of those "just arguing to argue" things.

Sorry sometimes I just skim read your posts, why on earth should we argue if your definition coincides with the Merriam Webster?
And by the way, do you know the definition of "projection", in psychology?

lemurcat12

You are the one who quoted the dictionary definition as if you were disagreeing or proving some point. Why? I dunno, but it's consistent with your posting pattern.

If you think there's a clear and unambiguous meaning of "junk food," it's OP you are arguing with, not me.

lemurcat12

Also, going back to the thread topic, this is the claim being debated (and with which I disagreed):
"junk food, consumed even in the context of an overall balanced and nutrient-dense diet that hits all nutrient requirements, is actively bad for you."

Junk food, again, is "high cal, low nutrient foods."

You asserted, apparently in support of OP's position, that: "you are safer without junk."

The question is why? The fact that humans seem to have done well on a wide variety of traditional diets (and not so well on some others) does not mean that "junk" in the context stated above would be harmful. Maybe it is, although I see no reason to think so, but so far no compelling evidence has been presented.

Also "junk" for some reason gets often assumed to mean packaged stuff or sweets, but the fact is that a wide range of foods (including some that are adored by many paleo and keto adherents) would fit the definition. I include in it the low cal, not particularly nutritious for the calories extra that I often have after dinner, whether it happens to be ice cream or cheese or something else. I'd also probably include a main dish that tends to be much higher cal than what I would normally have (pulled pork, for example, instead of pork loin). Sure, it has some nutrients, but not so much more the calories, and most everything has some nutrients. That's why I think how we draw the line on "junk food" ends up being kind of ambiguous.

I think OP is defining "junk food" to include those things forbidden by the paleo diet, for example, corn on the cob, even when it's in season, grown locally, no more processed than anything else I'd get from a local farm. It's funny that to eat in the way paleo-types (or keto types) would recommend I couldn't continue with my current habits of getting a produce box from a local farm or trying to eat as much in season as possible, which means that in some times of the year I do have a lot of corn or potatoes or sweet potatoes or fruit, etc., and that I even have locally-grown oats and popcorn that I sometimes prepare. I'm not saying people shouldn't eat as they like (I think they should!), but the stuff about traditional diets seems at least as consistent with just going with what is easily available locally even if it has lots of carbs than the "don't eat grains and legumes and dairy" or "don't eat potatoes and corn or most fruits, because carbs."

Then again, if I was really attached to trying to be traditional, my ability to eat produce right now would be much more limited, so I'm lucky. (Also, who knows where my ancestors were in the paleo period, but certainly not here.)

Gianfranco_R

lemurcat12 wrote: »

You are the one who quoted the dictionary definition as if you were disagreeing or proving some point. Why? I dunno, but it's consistent with your posting pattern.

If you think there's a clear and unambiguous meaning of "junk food," it's OP you are arguing with, not me.

Well, if I quote you, and I write something like "I don't think so" or "I doubt it", then you can assume I'm in disagreement. You can also assume I disagree with you if I make a statement or post a link that directly contradict your statements.
Otherwise, you can assume I'm just having a conservation with you'll and/or thinking out loud, also because I seldom have strong opinions on the subjects we discuss on here.

J72FIT

Which is better, a banana or a twinkie? I say they are both the same because if you ate nothing but either of the two you would be malnourished in both instances. There is no junk foods, only junk diets and to try and determine a foods value or lack there of without the context of the entire diet is a waste of precious energy...

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt

J72FIT wrote: »

Which is better, a banana or a twinkie? I say they are both the same because if you ate nothing but either of the two you would be malnourished in both instances. There is no junk foods, only junk diets and to try and determine a foods value or lack there of without the context of the entire diet is a waste of precious energy...

QFT