The Perfect Human Diet
meridianova
Posts: 438 Member
I just found this documentary through amazon video, and I completely recommend it for anyone either questioning or following a low-carb or paleo diet. It goes through the evolution of human development and discusses the scientific studies that have been done on what the REAL human diet should be.
What I found amazing is that it addresses the questions I've had regarding the correlation between the low-fat, high-carb diet guidelines and the perceived declining intelligence of our society.
What I found amazing is that it addresses the questions I've had regarding the correlation between the low-fat, high-carb diet guidelines and the perceived declining intelligence of our society.
0
Replies
-
There is no perfect diet, people should do what works for them.0
-
If anything, I like this movie best as a counter-point to things like "Forks Over Knives" which make the claim that the best diet would be vegan (or at least heavily plant based). It's a decent movie, very slow and dry at points though.0
-
okay i saw it, yes it's good. I now take back how "humans are designed to be non-meat eaters" The TedTalk discussed how the earliest human fossils show that we ate plants. Which is what is discussed in the movie, for us to develop we moved over to a more meat based diet.
exactly. that's one of the things i really liked about the video... it presents the known and understood science of human development first, then covered the previously unknown topics and showed the discoveries that indicate that we developed as carni/omnivores, not herbivores.0 -
Human body is amazing, it's one of the very few species which can survive under multiple climates, food habits and life styles. Inuits in Arctic who predominantly eat meat and fish do as well as vegetarian cultures in Asia. I have seen people do great with raw food vegan diet and the problem I have with Paleo is no one knows what people ate 1000s of years ago and can't be judged with few bodies excavated. In early 1900s the average human life span in US was 45 years, worse else where in the world. You can argue that, it's hard to know if they would have been diabetic if they lived longer. If Cave men lived 30 years, that doesn't really say much about how healthy they were in the old age. Now, that being said I do think insane amount of sugar and high fructose corn syrup is probably what's making every one bloat up.0
-
It helps to remember that "average life expectancy at birth" is not the same as "average life expectancy once you reach adulthood". There has been a monumental drop in infant mortality, child deaths, deaths from disease and infections, etc. over the last 120 years. Basically, if you survived childhood, didn't get involved in any wars, didn't get pregnant and die giving birth, and made it to late middle age without dying of an infected injury, you could expect to live a pretty long life. These people weren't dying of old age at 45-50 years old. They were dying of diseases when they were 6 months old or infections in their 20s. All those early deaths drag the overall average life expectancy down.
Consider the following as well:
That drop right around 1917-1919... hmm, odd that it corresponds with America's entry into WWI?
1928 -- Invention of Penicillin
1932 -- Invention of Prontocil
1940s - 1950s -- Invention of a whole slew of other antibiotics
Then there's also infant mortality to account for (as well as mothers dying in childbirth)...
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4838a2.htm
In short: The increase in life expectancy of the 20th century had little to do with diet.
The following is a better explanation of how severe this impact can be [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy]Life expectancy increases with age as the individual survives the higher mortality rates associated with childhood. For instance, the table above listed the life expectancy at birth in Medieval Britain at 30. Having survived until the age of 21, a male member of the English aristocracy in this period could expect to live:[19]
* 1200–1300: to age 64
* 1300–1400: to age 45 (due to the impact of the bubonic plague)
* 1400–1500: to age 69
* 1500–1550: to age 71
You'll note that those men who made it to 21, had a life expectancy of 71 years old in the first half of the 16th century. And that's without antibiotics and a real understanding of infection, disease, and medical treatment.0 -
Yup, that is because number one killer in the world in early 1900s were bacterial and viral infections. Once the vaccines, antibiotics and other medicines were invented, the life expectancy went up. As less people died of infections, people started living longer and heart stroke became a big killer in later years.0
-
You can download the database from CDC which classifies death by age, diseases etc. In 1900 , the mortality rate for under 10 was 11%. How ever, more than 56% of deaths were in the age group of 11-59 years. Pretty evenly spread out.0
-
You can download the database from CDC which classifies death by age, diseases etc. In 1900 , the mortality rate for under 10 was 11%. How ever, more than 56% of deaths were in the age group of 11-59 years. Pretty evenly spread out.
So, you're saying that almost 40% of the people who survived to 11 would make it to 60 years or older? That's 100 people, 11 die before 11 years old. After that, of the 89 people, 56 will die before 60. That's 33 out of those 89 who will make it to 60+ years old. That doesn't seem that bad, especially with the diseases around.
Also, there's some reason to suspect the increase in death from heart attack and stroke comes from an increase in precisely naming the cause of death (not just attributing it to "old age"). So, while stroke and heart attack are probably increasing from the carbs, it's impossible to accurately compare our current data with the data from the early 1900s because it is not complete.0 -
That was the point I am trying to make, you can't blame carbs for heart stroke or claim, earlier generations were healthy because they ate Paleo etc. The truth is Paleo is a good story hardly backed by any science. There is no data which shows cave man was more healthier than current population. Now it does make sense to eat natural foods, non gmo grains and plant based products. A french diet high in fat and moderate in protein with decent carbs was probably a middle ground. If people wouldn't have gone low fat and high carb with sugars, may be the insulin resistance wouldn't have been that common.0
-
Yeah, it is really hard to compare the various data points. There are many things I like and some I dislike about paleo. It's why my reddit name is partlyPaleo (because I don't buy all of it). In particular, I like avoiding processed foods and using animal fats. I don't agree with their position on milk, despite being lactose intolerant myself. I just avoid dairy that has lactose in appreciable amounts and stick to the high fat counterparts.
I am also not convinced that tubers are a "better" choice than rice. Personally, I'll just avoid both. Actually, the most important study that I am concerned with is my own reaction to my change in diet. That's what's most important. All the indicators are that my body prefers this way of eating compared to what I was eating before. But, I only speak for my own body. I don't pretend that everyone should or could eat like I do.0 -
I wasn't trying to argue about paleo or anything. I don't think Leonidas was either. Just talking about what's being posted here. Personally, I started off investigating paleo (but going primal instead) and then transitioned to keto. These days, I've gone even deeper down the rabbit hole. But, it's all the same. Some people respond better than others to different foods.
There's a ton of great books and information out there. I read a fair amount of them. As for the movie mentioned here. I did like it. I just found it a little slow moving.0 -
Essentially carnivore. I eat [almost] only meat, as fatty as possible. I will have some eggs and high fat dairy. That's pretty much it. Few, if any, artificial sweeteners. There is some in my protein powder, if I decided to mix some into my coffee, which is rare. No nuts, nut butters, etc. No processed foods (except aforementioned protein powder). Few if any vegetables, and they are used as spices not actual food amounts (like garlic in melted butter over my steak or jalapenos in my can of sardines). I do get some carbs from heavy cream, cheese, and eggs. I also will have some liver once in a while, which has some carbs. I wouldn't refuse myself veggies if I really wanted some, but I actively choose to not eat them. I call it my anti-vegan diet. I ask myself, "does this contain something a vegan would eat?" If it does, I probably don't eat it.
I stopped tracking a while ago, but I was eating <10 g of carbs a day (typically much less, like 2-3 g). I get 0 g of fiber (as I eat nothing that has fiber in it and don't supplement fiber or anything else, for that matter).0 -
I'm aware of that belief. I am not concerned about it. Also, you may be giving too much credit to vegetables as a balancing source. Take what you eat each day, take out all the vegetables. Are you suddenly super high on protein? Of course not. The vegetables actually add very little aside from bulk. They aren't a large source of calories for you (if they were, you'd be over your carb limit). If you take out 100 calories worth of vegetables and replace it with 100 calories of fatty meat or cheese, you may be upping your protein by all of 8 grams to compensate.
When I test, which I do, I find that my blood ketones are high enough for my liking (typically between 0.8 and 1.7). I don't worry about staying at 1.5 or above; I know some people do. Anything above 0.5 is fine. Also, it's not nearly as high protein as it sounds. I typically am under 120g of protein, less than 25%. My fat is typically between 70-80%. Today I ate a bunch of chicken, which I don't usually eat because it's too lean. When I put my food in for today I get:
Calories: 2,166
Carbs: 3 g (0.5%)
Fat: 185 g (77.2%)
Protein: 120 g (22.3%)
Fiber: 0 g
That's beef ribs, pork ribs, bratwurst, chicken wings, a couple eggs, 3 TBS of heavy cream, and some cheese.
That said, I have had days where I was WELL above the upper limit of my protein. I'm talking well over 200 grams. Tuna or chicken breast are way too lean for me to not go over. It had no noticeable effect on my rate of weight loss. It may be because it isn't every day. Also, I tend to naturally have lower consumption days after heavy eating days like that (not as hungry) which may help compensate. I'm just not worried about protein or going over. I've read the information regarding eating too much on keto. It is what it is. I don't truly consider my way of eating "keto" anymore. It's just how I eat. In or out of ketosis, if I feel good and keep on the right track, then I am happy. Of course, all my tests and numbers say I still am in keto. That's besides the point.0 -
Yeah, no worries. I kind of do my own thing. I have heard protein can throw you out. I have never seen it though. Lowest I have seen after massive protein was 0.6. I am down to my last two blood strips, but I am tempted to get more and try a 200g+ day and see if it goes below 0.5. The days when I get that high tend to be travel days where access to fat sources are harder to get than lean protein. The same conditions where I don't have access to my meter.
My diet sounds high protein because of all the meat, but it really isn't much more than most keto people eat. I am also not advocating my way of eating for others. It is more an ongoing self-investigation. I don't generally bring up specifics because I don't want to defend it. Also, for many people, the fact that keto means more veggies than they used to eat can help them mentally justify sticking with it. "Sure, I may eat two pounds of bacon a week; but, I also have veggies at every meal."
Edit: Everything is personal to you. If you up the protein and it slows down the weight loss, drop it down again. I think you current goal is probably fine if you're happy with it. I have the ketonix breath meter as well as the blood strips. I consider it good for relative measures (am I in or not? Am I deep or not?) but less useful for answering specifics (does maltitol kick me out? Yes, but it takes the blood meter to see it).0 -
Insulin resistance is not just genetics, its predominantly food habits. I was low fat most of my life and had no problem, till I hit my thirties. I personally took the low fat too far and hardly ate 30-40g of fat per day. If you consider a family who share genetics, depending on other factors, they might be insulin resistance or insulin sensitive. This can change over time as cells respond to insulin in different way with aging etc.. Also, Human genes don't change in 35 years, its no coincidence that obesity and insulin resistance started going up after the USDA came up with the low fat guidelines.0
