Hunter-gatherers vs Westerners
Options
Replies
-
Not sure if you're trolling, but I'll bite. To do effective studies on nutrition, you need to have multiple trials in a controlled environment with many participants in which all factors can be accounted for. That would be hard to do outside of a research university.
It's basically impossible to do what you described with human beings. However, studying the whole animal all at once is not the only way. We can use a bottom up approach, eventually we will reverse engineer the entire human body, probably not in our lifetimes though. Then we can understand the mechanisms and how they interact. That's the ultimate goal of the science of human biology IMO.
These studies so often performed using food questionnaires, following people for a few months etc. are so problematic, yet we run around acting like the conclusions drawn from them are rock solid science... scary. The entire low fat heart health dogma was preached to the public based on almost no evidence a few decades ago, that's scary too.
I've read plenty of well controlled scientific studies that back up the most well established nutritional recommendations using biomarkers rather than questionnaires. These studies have helped established mechanisms for how the metabolism of nutrients work. Which, yes, is what I would view as the ultimate goal of the science of human biology as well. Sure, there's plenty of research that still needs to be done, and every study has limitations and potential for error, but I believe these controlled studies are the best way of establishing those mechanisms.
I guess when I think about using biomarkers, I think back to when the human genome was being mapped. The natural question back then was 'Whose genome was being mapped?' And now I ask 'Whose biomarkers are being studied?'0 -
I've read plenty of well controlled scientific studies that back up the most well established nutritional recommendations using biomarkers rather than questionnaires. These studies have helped established mechanisms for how the metabolism of nutrients work. Which, yes, is what I would view as the ultimate goal of the science of human biology as well. Sure, there's plenty of research that still needs to be done, and every study has limitations and potential for error, but I believe these controlled studies are the best way of establishing those mechanisms.
I guess when I think about using biomarkers, I think back to when the human genome was being mapped. The natural question back then was 'Whose genome was being mapped?' And now I ask 'Whose biomarkers are being studied?'
I'm a little confused about what you are asking and whether or not it is a rhetorical question. The biomarkers being studied would be of whichever participants were in that particular study. Which is why, of course, to establish an accepted mechanism, it's important to have many studies in many population groups. This is especially important in the light of nutrigenomics, in which further research could lead to personalized dietary advice based on one's unique genotype.0 -
I would go eve further and say all studies are false. Unless you accurately test each person on the planet for whatever you are testing, the results are going to be an estimate, and not 100%.0 -
lol"Hunter Gatherers?" Do you live in the year 10,000BC?
Campbell is in it for the $, same old...Activists In It For The Money?
Much like the Natural Law Party’s John Fagan rants against genetically improved foods to drive business to his food testing company, Dr. T. Colin Campbell, of the anti-meat Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and friends warn of the supposed dangers of dioxin in food (especially in meat) to drive business to Campbell’s dioxin testing company.October 9, 2001
Udder Nonsense
T. Colin Campbell grew up on a Virginia dairy farm, and came to consider milk “the nectar of life.” But after becoming a nutritional researcher, he changed his tune, and now says “it’s unnatural to drink milk.” Could this be because Campbell, who spread his anti-dairy views in a recent writeup in Discover, is president and CEO of Paracelsian — “a company that promotes holistic health and sells assays to measure dioxinlike chemicals and evaluate herbal products”?
Campbell is also a member of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), whose president, Neal Barnard tells Discover, “It would be hard to imagine a worse vehicle [than milk] for delivering calcium to the human body.” Of course, the same article quotes Gregory Miller of the National Dairy Council noting that PCRM is “essentially an animal rights organization” — one that has been repeatedly denounced by the American Medical Association, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, the American Council on Science and Health, and others.
“People might think we’re nuts,” Campbell concedes. “But nondairy beverages and foods are pretty good once you adjust to the taste.”
and yeah, from Berman's site, but it's not hard to google to follow the $.
I have been a member of PCRM practically since its inception. I can tell you Campbell had nothing to do with the founding of the organization or the running of it in the early years. Neal Barnard founded and ran the organization. As for drinking milk, there is not another species on the planet that drinks the milk of another species. Cow milk was not designed for humans, it was designed for young cattle.0 -
I am totally missing the point about why you think T. Colin Campbell is all about the money. I just wrote to him a couple weeks ago on a technical point on protein and weight-restricted vegans. He was gracious and spent a lot of time emailing me back and forth. And he wasn't selling me anything, unlike the dairy council. There were no pictures of celebrities wearing green mustaches from drinking spinach smoothies. No banners saying 'Kale. It's a natural.' And he didn't even mention digoxin testing. Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
I would really appreciate less quoting about why you think Campbell is all about the money, and more clarity in your own point of view on the subject.
Hear! Hear!0 -
lol"Hunter Gatherers?" Do you live in the year 10,000BC?
Campbell is in it for the $, same old...Activists In It For The Money?
Much like the Natural Law Party’s John Fagan rants against genetically improved foods to drive business to his food testing company, Dr. T. Colin Campbell, of the anti-meat Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and friends warn of the supposed dangers of dioxin in food (especially in meat) to drive business to Campbell’s dioxin testing company.October 9, 2001
Udder Nonsense
T. Colin Campbell grew up on a Virginia dairy farm, and came to consider milk “the nectar of life.” But after becoming a nutritional researcher, he changed his tune, and now says “it’s unnatural to drink milk.” Could this be because Campbell, who spread his anti-dairy views in a recent writeup in Discover, is president and CEO of Paracelsian — “a company that promotes holistic health and sells assays to measure dioxinlike chemicals and evaluate herbal products”?
Campbell is also a member of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), whose president, Neal Barnard tells Discover, “It would be hard to imagine a worse vehicle [than milk] for delivering calcium to the human body.” Of course, the same article quotes Gregory Miller of the National Dairy Council noting that PCRM is “essentially an animal rights organization” — one that has been repeatedly denounced by the American Medical Association, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, the American Council on Science and Health, and others.
“People might think we’re nuts,” Campbell concedes. “But nondairy beverages and foods are pretty good once you adjust to the taste.”
and yeah, from Berman's site, but it's not hard to google to follow the $.
+1
Just about everyone is in it for the money to a certain extent. Sisson, Robb Wolf etc. on the Paleo side, Ornish and so on. I should rephrase that, they all stand to gain financially from the success. I don't know what their motives are, they may be altruistic, but they probably don't mind the money too.
Campbell is no more immune to this, and this illustrates that point for those who may point the finger at the Paleo guys saying they are "just in it for the money". I've seen that one plenty of times... Snore, I like money too...
In the case of Campbell, Bernard, etc., to Howard Lyman, the vegan ex-cattle rancher, all had established careers before they devoted themselves to promoting vegetarianism. Overall, I would say they probably lost money by doing what they did.0 -
I would go eve further and say all studies are false. Unless you accurately test each person on the planet for whatever you are testing, the results are going to be an estimate, and not 100%.
Which is why a single study is never used to create nutritional recommendations. This article is a nice summary of what makes a research claim more likely to be accurate- large number of studies, narrow focus, large number of subjects, ect. These studies often state their own limitations and make suggestions for future research that could lead to more conclusive results.0 -
This is exactly what I keep pointing out to people. Paleo is mainly just like vegan just with meat. So why is so much of the vegan communities wrath pointed at paleo instead of the main American diet on these forums?Hi! I'm VegesaurusRex's wife and the OP of this thread, which I might point out is about the mystery of why TDEE isn't higher in active hunter-gatherer populations as compared to typical Westerns working office jobs.
But, okay, I get it--tangents happen. I just want to say that I agree with anyone who avoids buying packaged food. Give me the produce aisle any day of the week. But, I also 'forage' the bulk food aisles in the natural food store for nuts, seeds, grains and beans. Right now, I'm setting up some rejuvalac to make some 'cheese' out of raw cashews. So, I agree with the idea of natural, whole foods, that are minimally processed. It seems to me that the paleos and the veg*ns here have much more in common than people eating the standard American diet. Can't this clashing of swords at least stop long enough to acknowledge that?
I don't have anything more against Paleo than I do against other meat centered diets. In fact Mutt and others like yourself have convinced me that, like you say, Paleo is probably the least offensive diet to vegetarian sensibilities. However, even though it had some good components, eating natural, avoiding factory farmed meat, and despite having some strange dogma, like avoiding grains and legumes, it still keeps the door open for meat. The reality is that Paleolithic man when considered in all environments, probably was 99% vegetarian. This is shown by our dentition, having molars to grind, which carnivores do not have, and not having fangs to rip meat, as carnivores do have. We also can move our jaws sideways to grind, which carnivores cannot do. Physiologically we are herbivores. (Omnivores is a recent term made up, I believe, by meat eaters because clearly we are not carnivores, and they did not want only that choice or vegetarian.) Omnivore refers not to physiology, but to choice of diet. Look it up. Herbivores and carnivores are physiological definitions.
Since Paleo seems to suggest that physiologically we should have a diet similar to our ancestors, why even include meat. Most of our Australopithicene ancestors only ate veggies (A. robustus, for example) Most humans today eat little or no meat (outside of the USA and other "civilized areas, of course)
Vegetarianism was my choice for ethical reasons. Other benefits include health. But I really like that I can eat vegetarian and feel that I am getting good karma and helping the world.0 -
Also I respect people who abstain from meat for ethical reasons but to be honest it looks to me like that's the main reasons people and cultures that have practiced it do and only sense the fat paranoia has it been health.
Most poor people in the world, which is by far the majority of people in the world are vegetarian because that is their only choice. Ironically, in rich Western countries, the wealthiest and best educated people are vegetarian, and the poor eat the most meat. Go figure,0 -
Everything I have ever read about Paleo from a non-Paleo source, including US News, says the diet is awful.
As for what I said about the genome, that is standard genetics and epigenetics. It is in any textbook.
Please, of scientific one, please provide the exact quote of any "expert" saying the paleo diet is "awful"
I have already posted several articles. Read them,
Oh no, I want the exact quote, "paleo diet is awful" Yoiu are so good at demanding exact links, poney up.
Okay, then try reading what I linked to. Oh, wait. Since asking you to do that might be challenging and difficult for you, I will reprint it for you:
"Experts took issue with the diet on every measure. Regardless of the goal—weight loss, heart health, or finding a diet that’s easy to follow—most experts concluded that it would be better for dieters to look elsewhere. “A true Paleo diet might be a great option: very lean, pure meats, lots of wild plants,” said one expert—quickly adding, however, that duplicating such a regimen in modern times would be difficult."
Nope don't see the word awful in that quote. So you were lying when you said that?
Look, I've agreed to play nice, If you want to be an idiot, go ahead, but you sure are not doing your cause any good, If you can argue rationally, which I haven't seen yet, then join in. Otherwise just continue playing the fool and we can all have a good laugh,0 -
So in your opinion, anyone who has actually seriously studied a subject, has done novel high impact work in the field, and who has established credentials is a "peter pan?" Is this part of another Paleo fairy tale?
Nope you set the bar so high that it's impossible to provide you with what you want. How about these three guys, you think the're "experts"? Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Thomas Edison. After all none of them had PHD's hell they never even graduated from College.
Nor are any of them known as experts on diet, nutrition and diabetes/obesity research. If you want an informed opinion on an ACADEMIC subject, then you need someone with academic credentials,0 -
This is exactly what I keep pointing out to people. Paleo is mainly just like vegan just with meat. So why is so much of the vegan communities wrath pointed at paleo instead of the main American diet on these forums?
[/quote]
Not really,
1 you will never find a Paleo trying to legeslate their diet on others
2 you will never find a Paleo doing it for Missplaced moral or ethical reasons
3 other that popking fun at their missplace moral superiority complex you will never find a paleo calling somone a torturer, killer, or throwing blood on them at fasion shows.
[/quote]
Karma's a bi**h isn't it.0 -
So in your opinion, anyone who has actually seriously studied a subject, has done novel high impact work in the field, and who has established credentials is a "peter pan?" Is this part of another Paleo fairy tale?
Nope you set the bar so high that it's impossible to provide you with what you want. How about these three guys, you think the're "experts"? Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Thomas Edison. After all none of them had PHD's hell they never even graduated from College.
Not sure if you're trolling, but I'll bite. To do effective studies on nutrition, you need to have multiple trials in a controlled environment with many participants in which all factors can be accounted for. That would be hard to do outside of a research university.
Hear! Hear!0 -
*******************
Then why are you always asking for studies?
*****************
Well, the studies are hopefully more than just a PhD's opinion. They are peer reviewed (hopefully) and thus subject to the brains of many, reducing the impact of bias, but never eliminating it.
It's not that I place no value on the PhD/credentials, I just don't automatically assume their opinion is correct. I think it's perfectly valid for an undergraduate to question a PhD. It's those 18-30 year olds who are the engine of science after all.
Any scientist worth his salt will question. That is what science is,0 -
Just read an article from the famous "DR OZ" and it asked where your weight lied In you stomach or your hips. the stomach one was called a hunters diet, the hips was a farmers diet. the Hunters diet called for less grains and starch (sugar content) more protein and the farmer was the opposite, more grains and less fat/protein. it went on to say that people with larger middle weight tend to have higher blood sugar and breads and grains can set off the sugar, causing the insulin to rise which made them hold or gain weight. Those people were to eat larger 3 meals and no snacks. the hip weight people was said to have lower blood sugar and need the grains to keep their blood sugar from dropping and they were to "graze" their meals with small portions and snacks to keep the level up as not to get too hungry and over eat. I know this doesn't have much to do with the thermo thing, but saw the "hunter" phrase and it remined me of this.
It said Hunters had to have enough on the meal to last till the next meal. Farmers, or gatherershad pleanty so need to spread it out over the day as not to eat too much in one sitting. I thought it interesting. At any rate it claimed if you ate right for your body type you could lose like 40 pounds in a month. LOL don't they ALL claim that? I thought it worth a shot and am going to adjust my diet accordingly just to see if it works. I, by the way have a hunters body.0 -
I would go eve further and say all studies are false. Unless you accurately test each person on the planet for whatever you are testing, the results are going to be an estimate, and not 100%.
Which is why a single study is never used to create nutritional recommendations. This article is a nice summary of what makes a research claim more likely to be accurate- large number of studies, narrow focus, large number of subjects, ect. These studies often state their own limitations and make suggestions for future research that could lead to more conclusive results.
Yes, that is why I feel vegetarianism has been vindicated over time. One of the earliest studies I am aware of is the Framingham Study, which I believed was in the 1940's. Campbell's study was in the '80's, and there have been a host of studies since then. One problem with some recent studies is that funding was from the Meat and Dairy industry. Practically every study I have ever seen about the Inuit and Lapplanders' diet was funded by some meat or dairy interest group. These ethnics are (or were) environmentally isolated, and developed an ability to eat meat without suffering the consequences, i.e., heart disease or cancer. I attribute that possibly to genetics, and almost certainly to epigenetic influences,
Just curious: are you involved in any scientific studies? You seem to have more than average knowledge about how studies are conducted,0 -
Paleo is not based on grains being unhealthy, it's based on eliminating processed foods and sugar. How is turning to whole foods a fad? Nuts, fruit, veggies, meats, and so on.... Not exactly unhealthy to me. Some pales dieters incorporate some diary and grains too if they can handle it and stil meet their goal, especially marathoners who need the extra carbs.
I'd rather eat like his and count on it for health than to buy bars, cereal, etc... That have ingredients that I can barely pronounce,0 -
Paleo is not based on grains being unhealthy, it's based on eliminating processed foods and sugar. How is turning to whole foods a fad? Nuts, fruit, veggies, meats, and so on.... Not exactly unhealthy to me. Some pales dieters incorporate some diary and grains too if they can handle it and stil meet their goal, especially marathoners who need the extra carbs.
I'd rather eat like his and count on it for health than to buy bars, cereal, etc... That have ingredients that I can barely pronounce,0 -
And just saying... Who cares what some lab says? You know what works for you, even if science says it won't. So why argue diets when they are so individualized? I know paleo works, at least this more modern version. I don't care if there is a "study" it doesn't change my results. Yeah cavemen died at 30-40...of course they did! Living in the wild, with beasts and no proper shelters, and no doctors and no stoves, and changing weather conditions.... Yeah, they struggled to stay alive. This is mimicked in tribal and impoverished areas now if you want to do a study since everyone is all about it.0
-
The whole point of Paleo is that it is supposed to be based on what our ancestors ate. The Paleo founders relied mostly on data from MODERN "hunter gatherers." Not only did they ignore most anthropological evidence, but they misinterpreted the data they did have:
http://www.ajcn.org/content/71/3/665.long
A recent article in Nature (not available free) was reviewed by the New York Times):
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/science/australopithecus-sediba-preferred-forest-foods-fossil-teeth-suggest.html?_r=1
There is overwhelming evidence that early man was primarily vegetarian.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20019285
My biggest problem with Paleo is that what they do seems to ignore what they say. Humans are physiologically herbivores, and our diet for millions of years has been primarily plant based. Even Neanderthals relied mostly on plants:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21187393
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20956317
Okay, I agree with the concept that we evolved to eat a certain diet, and that we would probably have better health eating that diet. The Problem is that Paleos don't. It is doubtful that meat was more than 1% of early man's diet. If Paleos practiced what they preached, that would be their diet as well.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions