Hunter-gatherers vs Westerners

24567…14

Replies

  • VegesaurusRex
    VegesaurusRex Posts: 1,018
    Are you exercising as much as they do?

    I do believe exercise can control weight, and I am somewhat suspicious about this study because the results are counter intuitive (doesn't make them wrong, of course.)

    I do not give any credence at all to the "Paleo" diet, but it stands to reason that a farmer who works all day in the field burns more calories than a typical sedentary American.

    You give no credence to the "paleo" diet (love the talking marks, makes me thing you're talking about someone's dirty socks...)? Interesting. Now I'll bet if I said I give no credence to the "vegetarian" diet you'd have something to say about that eh? Not that I do. My daughter is a staunch vegetarian in a paleo/primal family and if we're talking about hunter/gatherer's then there it is. Just what is it about my 'no grains/refined sugar/processed foods/limited dairy' diet that lacks credence?

    Ooohhh. I'm going to go get some popcorn. :)

    Hi, Mutt! Yeah, let's see what happens. I hope you give your point of view.
  • VegesaurusRex
    VegesaurusRex Posts: 1,018
    Are you exercising as much as they do?

    I do believe exercise can control weight, and I am somewhat suspicious about this study because the results are counter intuitive (doesn't make them wrong, of course.)

    I do not give any credence at all to the "Paleo" diet, but it stands to reason that a farmer who works all day in the field burns more calories than a typical sedentary American.

    You give no credence to the "paleo" diet (love the talking marks, makes me thing you're talking about someone's dirty socks...)? Interesting. Now I'll bet if I said I give no credence to the "vegetarian" diet you'd have something to say about that eh? Not that I do. My daughter is a staunch vegetarian in a paleo/primal family and if we're talking about hunter/gatherer's then there it is. Just what is it about my 'no grains/refined sugar/processed foods/limited dairy' diet that lacks credence?

    Ooohhh. I'm going to go get some popcorn. :)

    There are no scientific studies proving the long-term health of the Paleo diet because the average life in the Paleolithic era ended in the mid-30s.

    Because of the limitation on dairy, the diet is also low in calcium, though a lot of people take supplements, which when you think about it, it kind of defeats the purpose of eating like a caveman if you have to take a supplement. Or maybe they had something like GNC in Stone Age times? :)

    The diet is also based on the premise that grains are unhealthy (even whole grains) because human biology has not adapted to agriculture but studies prove otherwise. There is also evidence that Paleolithic societies were refining grain, so what's the point of the modern Paleo plan?
    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/10/08/1006993107

    Paleo people were supposed to be free from disease, but evidence has shown that is not the case:
    http://www.jonbarron.org/natural-health/tyrolean-iceman-common-health-problems-paleo-diet

    The diet may also be unsustainable, as the world cannot support 7 billion people all eating meat, which in any case differs from the meat fed in Paleolithic times because it contains growth hormones and antibiotics, but even if you can buy grass-fed beef for you and your family, we don't have enough land to do that for 7 billion.

    Sorry to break it to you, but you are on a fad diet. Like all fads, there is some truth to it--too much sugar and high-glycemic foods should be treated with caution, but not all grains are high glycemic and not all fruits are low glycemic.

    But like all fads, Paleo is based on about 10 percent truth and 90 percent bunk.

    Yup. I agree with everything you said.
  • VegesaurusRex
    VegesaurusRex Posts: 1,018
    I'm living in Tanzania right now, and what amazed me at first is how my neighbors stay fit given their diets. Lots of carbs, lots of fried foods... granted, many are farmers and do get a lot of exercise, but their portion sizes are huge!!! I'm always getting comments about how little I eat, and yet, I've gained weight on a Tanzanian diet, despite exercise. It's hard to account for the difference, unless we consider my previous eating habits (what my body is used to) and ancestry/genetics.

    That's really interesting! So, maybe the hunter-gatherers were underreporting their food intake. Another sad study comes to mind though, and that's the one from earlier this year that said that people who lose weight burn fewer calories than people who are the same weight, but have always been that weight.

    It doesn't sound like the people mfanyafujo is living around are hunter-gatherers.

    Yes, I think the region matters less than the lifestyle does. Farming in Africa is likely to be different than hunting and gathering in Africa.


    Actually, based on what I've seen, I think sometimes the farming lifestyle is harder than hunting and gathering. Even for simple sustenance farming, the required amount of land and crop output is pretty large. Now imagine that you have to plow up a several acres of a dry, hard, rocky field every year (by hand). For some of the crops, like the root crops, the harvesting process is even more difficult. What kills me is seeing five year olds walking several miles every morning at dawn with tools in hand, headed for the family farm.

    Farming is difficult. Gathering - not so much. Hunting - depends on what they are after. The people I live around do a little of everything.
    I'm not sure why you brought this up in the first place. The point was that the hunter-gatherers are not expending as much energy as one would expect, and you're like "but farming is hard!"

    Well, I suppose I was attempting to contribute to the discussion, starting with my experience in a quasi-hunter-gatherer community, and eventually that led to the differences between farming and hunting and gathering, but since YOU don't think it's valid to this discussion, I guess I'll ask everyone to kindly ignore my experiences in Africa. Thank you for your input which has enriched this thread.

    I think it is quite valid. You are probably the only one on this board who can approach this subject with first hand knowledge.

    Was this a true Hunter-Gatherer Society or did the population have access to modern medicine?
  • tidmutt
    tidmutt Posts: 317
    Are you exercising as much as they do?

    I do believe exercise can control weight, and I am somewhat suspicious about this study because the results are counter intuitive (doesn't make them wrong, of course.)

    I do not give any credence at all to the "Paleo" diet, but it stands to reason that a farmer who works all day in the field burns more calories than a typical sedentary American.

    You give no credence to the "paleo" diet (love the talking marks, makes me thing you're talking about someone's dirty socks...)? Interesting. Now I'll bet if I said I give no credence to the "vegetarian" diet you'd have something to say about that eh? Not that I do. My daughter is a staunch vegetarian in a paleo/primal family and if we're talking about hunter/gatherer's then there it is. Just what is it about my 'no grains/refined sugar/processed foods/limited dairy' diet that lacks credence?

    Ooohhh. I'm going to go get some popcorn. :)

    There are no scientific studies proving the long-term health of the Paleo diet because the average life in the Paleolithic era ended in the mid-30s.

    Because of the limitation on dairy, the diet is also low in calcium, though a lot of people take supplements, which when you think about it, it kind of defeats the purpose of eating like a caveman if you have to take a supplement. Or maybe they had something like GNC in Stone Age times? :)

    The diet is also based on the premise that grains are unhealthy (even whole grains) because human biology has not adapted to agriculture but studies prove otherwise. There is also evidence that Paleolithic societies were refining grain, so what's the point of the modern Paleo plan?
    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/10/08/1006993107

    Paleo people were supposed to be free from disease, but evidence has shown that is not the case:
    http://www.jonbarron.org/natural-health/tyrolean-iceman-common-health-problems-paleo-diet

    The diet may also be unsustainable, as the world cannot support 7 billion people all eating meat, which in any case differs from the meat fed in Paleolithic times because it contains growth hormones and antibiotics, but even if you can buy grass-fed beef for you and your family, we don't have enough land to do that for 7 billion.

    Sorry to break it to you, but you are on a fad diet. Like all fads, there is some truth to it--too much sugar and high-glycemic foods should be treated with caution, but not all grains are high glycemic and not all fruits are low glycemic.

    But like all fads, Paleo is based on about 10 percent truth and 90 percent bunk.

    Okay, you raise the typical arguments against ancestral diets but are a liitle misinformed. First not all "Paleo" diets exclude dairy some do on the basis that we couldn't possibly have consumed dairy for the majority of our evolution. This doesn't prove dairy is bad for you but proponents of ancestral diets tend to view this as a starting point, in other words, we should reexamine the current dietary recommendations for large amounts of dairy because if you look at it from an evolutionary perspective it seems very odd indeed. Saying that plenty of people follow Paleo style diets and still eat dairy. Check out the primal diet.

    As for all cavemen died at 30, we don't really know that, it's a guess based on a vey small sample, which actually IS one of the problems with Paleo diets in that it's difficult to determine empirically the micro and macro content of our diet 20k years ago. However, age of death was likely caused by infection, predators, infant mortality etc. There is nothing to say that if you avoided those that you wouldn't have lived to 60-70 years.

    Although there is some evidence that some cultures ate grain prior to modern agriculture it was impossible for them to consume in the quantities we do because grain requires so much processing so to eat large volumes requires mechanization.

    I've personally never believed that Paleo man was completely disease free.

    Your points on meat consumption; many people mistakenly believe Paleo diets are carnivorous diets, they are not. In fact they place an emphasis on large amounts of vegetables. If someone is doing Paleo and it looks like the first two weeks of Atkins then they are NOT doing Paleo. Secondly, on Paleo diets the meat consumed should be grass fed or wild game meat. This probably doesn't completely match the nutritional profile of the game Paleo man would have eaten but it's closer than your typical factory farmed stuff. Your point about grass fed beef farming being unable to feed the world is somewhat valid but honestly I'm not trying to save the world, just me. I do think if we worked on the problem we could find a way to raise livestock in a healthier way that is sustainable. That's a whole other debate.

    Your classification of Paleo diet as a fad diet is arbitrary and meaningless. Most diets are fad diets initially, Paleo diets don't quite fit current dietary recommendations from government institutions etc. especially those that encourage saturated fat consumption that doesn't make them wrong, but people will often classify them as fads because of that. Time will likely tell.

    My personal belief is that we have different nutritional needs based on our genetics, environment, upbringing and so on, so a little experimentation is called for. This is why I like primal, it encourages n=1, if you lose weight or feel healthy (your test show good health etc.) when eating dairy then by all means do it. It's a realistic, sustainable approach to eating, nothing faddish about it at all.
  • tidmutt
    tidmutt Posts: 317
    Are you exercising as much as they do?

    I do believe exercise can control weight, and I am somewhat suspicious about this study because the results are counter intuitive (doesn't make them wrong, of course.)

    I do not give any credence at all to the "Paleo" diet, but it stands to reason that a farmer who works all day in the field burns more calories than a typical sedentary American.

    You give no credence to the "paleo" diet (love the talking marks, makes me thing you're talking about someone's dirty socks...)? Interesting. Now I'll bet if I said I give no credence to the "vegetarian" diet you'd have something to say about that eh? Not that I do. My daughter is a staunch vegetarian in a paleo/primal family and if we're talking about hunter/gatherer's then there it is. Just what is it about my 'no grains/refined sugar/processed foods/limited dairy' diet that lacks credence?

    I give no credence to the Paleo diet for a number of reasons:

    1. Nobody knows what that diet really was. We have only a few spotty indications of what paleolithic man ate, and most Paleo references to sources for their diet that I have seen refer only to Ortzi, who was actually a NEOlithic human. Since he was frozen in a glacier, the contents of his stomach were also frozen. Most of the time at Paleolithc sites, antrhopologists have to examine what remains at the site to try to ascertain what the diet was.. These could be seeds, bones or even poop. Diet obviously varried from site to site, depending upon what was available. From what I know there was no "Paleolithic Diet" as such, just some meager information about what the diet may have been in a few places.

    2. Even if one knew what the Paleolithic Diet was, it probably could not be reproduced exactly, since both the plants and the animals may have been genetically different from what they were today. And most likely a large part of the Paleolitic diet may have been scavenging kills from sabre tooth tigers, and other carnivores, or eating plants that are genetically different from what we eat today.

    3. Since paleolithic man spent a large part of his waking life avoiding danger and trying to find food, I doubt you can compare his lifestyle with modern man. Lifestyle may have been a big part of the "success" of that diet.

    4. Most evidence indicates that the Paleolithic diet was not a success. Paleolithic man lived to be 35 - 40, and so never lived long enough to demonstrate that he had any advantage regarding the diseases of old age (cancer and heart disease) over us, since he died before these diseases normally present.

    5. The few studies I have seen on those attempting a Paleo diet indicate it is either neutral or harmful.

    6. There are obviously better choices. No study I have ever read indicates that any chronic disease is associated with vegetarian diets, for example.

    Thus my reasons for dismissing the Paleo diet are 1. no one knows what it really was, 2. even if we did we could not reproduce it, 3. it was the diet of a specific lifestyle which no longer exists, 4. there is no evidence that the paleolithic diet, which was a diet of necessity is any better than any other diet, 5. there is evidence that it is worse than other diets, and 6 there are a lot of studies which demonstrate fairly conclusively that diets with no meat are better for those who wish to live longer lives than diets with meat.

    Okay, veggiusmaximus, agreed that it's difficult to determine the components of the Paleo diet, although I think it's obvious it was highly varied based on local flora and fauna. I think it's safe to say that it didn't contain twinkles, wonder bread and processed corn products in just about everything. That is the major point behind ancestral diets. Ortzi is not the major piece of supporting evidence, read any of Cordain's work to see lots of other stuff.

    You paint a depressing picture of man as a hunter. Lol

    You mention studies, time to cough up the links!

    As I've pointed out to you before, you technically support the macro nutrient profile of the Paleo diet more than most other diets since it's closest to vegan, the only difference is the meat. So we're back to the meat vs veggie debate when you boil it down.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    My first reaction was that the hunters and gatherers have become more efficient at burning calories because I have to work so much harder now to burn the same amount of calories as I did when I first started losing weight.
    The issue highlighted in the study is that they are thinner and lighter than you, so they burn less calories on account of that - even accounting for greater activity levels.

    Doubly labelled water and respiratory gas analysis was used to determine energy consumption and expenditure, they also had GPS devices fitted and were measured for energy walking on a test track. It's all in the paper.

    The "paleo diet" is mentioned by Dr John Briffa's blog http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/07/27/hunter-gatherers-most-likely-to-be-leaner-than-us-due-to-differences-in-diet-not-activity/ where he points to papers that find the "Paleo diet" to be more satiating resulting in lower ad lib energy intake of ~1400 vs 1800 cals/day compared to a "Mediterranean" style diet.

    "Paleo diet" - http://www.springerlink.com/content/h7628r66r0552222/fulltext.pdf http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3009971 includes macro & micro nutrient profiles.

    I use "Paleo diet" in quotes to indicate what is currently eaten by those following such a diet, without any reference to ancient history ;-) There's a lot less carbs in the Paleo vs Mediterranean diet comparison.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    The main message of the study is that even though the hunter-gathers were more active than their western counter-parts, they did not burn any more energy.

    Indeed, mainly because their average BMI is 20 and the men weigh 115 lbs and the women 95 lbs.

    So their TDEE / RMR ratio is much higher, but TDEE still lower by about 400 calories/day.
  • VegesaurusRex
    VegesaurusRex Posts: 1,018
    Are you exercising as much as they do?

    I do believe exercise can control weight, and I am somewhat suspicious about this study because the results are counter intuitive (doesn't make them wrong, of course.)

    I do not give any credence at all to the "Paleo" diet, but it stands to reason that a farmer who works all day in the field burns more calories than a typical sedentary American.

    You give no credence to the "paleo" diet (love the talking marks, makes me thing you're talking about someone's dirty socks...)? Interesting. Now I'll bet if I said I give no credence to the "vegetarian" diet you'd have something to say about that eh? Not that I do. My daughter is a staunch vegetarian in a paleo/primal family and if we're talking about hunter/gatherer's then there it is. Just what is it about my 'no grains/refined sugar/processed foods/limited dairy' diet that lacks credence?

    I give no credence to the Paleo diet for a number of reasons:

    1. Nobody knows what that diet really was. We have only a few spotty indications of what paleolithic man ate, and most Paleo references to sources for their diet that I have seen refer only to Ortzi, who was actually a NEOlithic human. Since he was frozen in a glacier, the contents of his stomach were also frozen. Most of the time at Paleolithc sites, antrhopologists have to examine what remains at the site to try to ascertain what the diet was.. These could be seeds, bones or even poop. Diet obviously varried from site to site, depending upon what was available. From what I know there was no "Paleolithic Diet" as such, just some meager information about what the diet may have been in a few places.

    2. Even if one knew what the Paleolithic Diet was, it probably could not be reproduced exactly, since both the plants and the animals may have been genetically different from what they were today. And most likely a large part of the Paleolitic diet may have been scavenging kills from sabre tooth tigers, and other carnivores, or eating plants that are genetically different from what we eat today.

    3. Since paleolithic man spent a large part of his waking life avoiding danger and trying to find food, I doubt you can compare his lifestyle with modern man. Lifestyle may have been a big part of the "success" of that diet.

    4. Most evidence indicates that the Paleolithic diet was not a success. Paleolithic man lived to be 35 - 40, and so never lived long enough to demonstrate that he had any advantage regarding the diseases of old age (cancer and heart disease) over us, since he died before these diseases normally present.

    5. The few studies I have seen on those attempting a Paleo diet indicate it is either neutral or harmful.

    6. There are obviously better choices. No study I have ever read indicates that any chronic disease is associated with vegetarian diets, for example.

    Thus my reasons for dismissing the Paleo diet are 1. no one knows what it really was, 2. even if we did we could not reproduce it, 3. it was the diet of a specific lifestyle which no longer exists, 4. there is no evidence that the paleolithic diet, which was a diet of necessity is any better than any other diet, 5. there is evidence that it is worse than other diets, and 6 there are a lot of studies which demonstrate fairly conclusively that diets with no meat are better for those who wish to live longer lives than diets with meat.

    Okay, veggiusmaximus, agreed that it's difficult to determine the components of the Paleo diet, although I think it's obvious it was highly varied based on local flora and fauna. I think it's safe to say that it didn't contain twinkles, wonder bread and processed corn products in just about everything. That is the major point behind ancestral diets. Ortzi is not the major piece of supporting evidence, read any of Cordain's work to see lots of other stuff.

    **********
    True no twinkies, but it did probably contain insects, slugs, worms and whatever was slow enough for a human to catch, and that certainly leaves out cows and bulls, pigs, goats and most of the sources of meat today.

    And like I said why emulate a diet that you cannot determine, cannot copy, makes no sense to copy since it belonged to an extinct lifestyle, that has never been shown to be beneficial, and has been shown to be inferior to vegetarian diets? Makes no sense to me.

    *************


    You paint a depressing picture of man as a hunter. Lol

    You mention studies, time to cough up the links!

    As I've pointed out to you before, you technically support the macro nutrient profile of the Paleo diet more than most other diets since it's closest to vegan, the only difference is the meat. So we're back to the meat vs veggie debate when you boil it down.

    ***************

    Yeah, you got it. Why eat meat when you don't havet to and it is bad for you?

    ****************
  • VegesaurusRex
    VegesaurusRex Posts: 1,018
    My first reaction was that the hunters and gatherers have become more efficient at burning calories because I have to work so much harder now to burn the same amount of calories as I did when I first started losing weight.
    The issue highlighted in the study is that they are thinner and lighter than you, so they burn less calories on account of that - even accounting for greater activity levels.

    Doubly labelled water and respiratory gas analysis was used to determine energy consumption and expenditure, they also had GPS devices fitted and were measured for energy walking on a test track. It's all in the paper.

    The "paleo diet" is mentioned by Dr John Briffa's blog http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/07/27/hunter-gatherers-most-likely-to-be-leaner-than-us-due-to-differences-in-diet-not-activity/ where he points to papers that find the "Paleo diet" to be more satiating resulting in lower ad lib energy intake of ~1400 vs 1800 cals/day compared to a "Mediterranean" style diet.

    "Paleo diet" - http://www.springerlink.com/content/h7628r66r0552222/fulltext.pdf http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3009971 includes macro & micro nutrient profiles.

    I use "Paleo diet" in quotes to indicate what is currently eaten by those following such a diet, without any reference to ancient history ;-) There's a lot less carbs in the Paleo vs Mediterranean diet comparison.

    Why do you defend a diet that has never been shown to have anything going for it?
  • _VoV
    _VoV Posts: 1,494 Member
    The main message of the study is that even though the hunter-gathers were more active than their western counter-parts, they did not burn any more energy.

    Indeed, mainly because their average BMI is 20 and the men weigh 115 lbs and the women 95 lbs.

    So their TDEE / RMR ratio is much higher, but TDEE still lower by about 400 calories/day.

    Link to text quoted below:

    http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/26/modern-lazy-people-burn-as-many-calories-as-hunter-gatherers-so-what-makes-us-fat/

    "In fact, even though total energy expenditure did vary considerably by age, gender and by body size, as anticipated, when the researchers looked at men of the same age who each weighed, say, 130 lbs., there was no discernible difference by lifestyle group in total daily energy expenditure. On average, the Hadza were much smaller than the Westerners, both in height and in weight (130 lbs. was at the high end for Hadza males). But statistical analysis suggests that the basic relationship between energy spent and lean body mass — not including the Westerners’ extra fat pounds — was essentially the same across societies, and across people big and small.

    Those results are all the more surprising because the Hadza did appear to expend much more energy in physical activity, as they hunted and foraged. But activity differences did not translate into differences in total energy use. What’s more, even among members of the same society, Hadza people who walked a long way each day did not have measurably higher total expenditure than individuals who did not walk so much. It seems that people’s metabolisms may compensate somewhat for activity level.

    The new findings seem to contradict popular beliefs that weight management is simply a matter of balancing what we eat with enough purposeful physical activity.

    “The similarity in [total energy expenditure (TEE)] among Hadza hunter-gatherers and Westerners suggests that even dramatic differences in lifestyle may have a negligible effect on TEE,” the authors conclude in their study, which is published this week in the journal PLoS One."
  • tidmutt
    tidmutt Posts: 317
    The main message of the study is that even though the hunter-gathers were more active than their western counter-parts, they did not burn any more energy.

    Indeed, mainly because their average BMI is 20 and the men weigh 115 lbs and the women 95 lbs.

    So their TDEE / RMR ratio is much higher, but TDEE still lower by about 400 calories/day.

    Link to text quoted below:

    http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/26/modern-lazy-people-burn-as-many-calories-as-hunter-gatherers-so-what-makes-us-fat/

    "In fact, even though total energy expenditure did vary considerably by age, gender and by body size, as anticipated, when the researchers looked at men of the same age who each weighed, say, 130 lbs., there was no discernible difference by lifestyle group in total daily energy expenditure. On average, the Hadza were much smaller than the Westerners, both in height and in weight (130 lbs. was at the high end for Hadza males). But statistical analysis suggests that the basic relationship between energy spent and lean body mass — not including the Westerners’ extra fat pounds — was essentially the same across societies, and across people big and small.

    Those results are all the more surprising because the Hadza did appear to expend much more energy in physical activity, as they hunted and foraged. But activity differences did not translate into differences in total energy use. What’s more, even among members of the same society, Hadza people who walked a long way each day did not have measurably higher total expenditure than individuals who did not walk so much. It seems that people’s metabolisms may compensate somewhat for activity level.

    The new findings seem to contradict popular beliefs that weight management is simply a matter of balancing what we eat with enough purposeful physical activity.

    “The similarity in [total energy expenditure (TEE)] among Hadza hunter-gatherers and Westerners suggests that even dramatic differences in lifestyle may have a negligible effect on TEE,” the authors conclude in their study, which is published this week in the journal PLoS One."

    It's always nice to see yet another contradictory piece of information about weight loss. LOL

    Although I appreciate you posting it.

    I'm really struggling with the results of this study. How on earth does someone who walks miles every day have the same energy expenditure as someone who doesn't. I can only guess those not walking must expend energy in other ways. Sure, we are amazingly adaptive, but you cannot change the laws of physics. How does someone's metabolism explain this result?

    It all sort of gels with my belief that when it comes to the incredibly complex system that is the human body, we don't know *kitten*. Pardon the language. I do think it comes down to energy balance, but there is more to the story, variables that may explain why some are thin and other not so much.
  • tidmutt
    tidmutt Posts: 317
    My first reaction was that the hunters and gatherers have become more efficient at burning calories because I have to work so much harder now to burn the same amount of calories as I did when I first started losing weight.
    The issue highlighted in the study is that they are thinner and lighter than you, so they burn less calories on account of that - even accounting for greater activity levels.

    Doubly labelled water and respiratory gas analysis was used to determine energy consumption and expenditure, they also had GPS devices fitted and were measured for energy walking on a test track. It's all in the paper.

    The "paleo diet" is mentioned by Dr John Briffa's blog http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/07/27/hunter-gatherers-most-likely-to-be-leaner-than-us-due-to-differences-in-diet-not-activity/ where he points to papers that find the "Paleo diet" to be more satiating resulting in lower ad lib energy intake of ~1400 vs 1800 cals/day compared to a "Mediterranean" style diet.

    "Paleo diet" - http://www.springerlink.com/content/h7628r66r0552222/fulltext.pdf http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3009971 includes macro & micro nutrient profiles.

    I use "Paleo diet" in quotes to indicate what is currently eaten by those following such a diet, without any reference to ancient history ;-) There's a lot less carbs in the Paleo vs Mediterranean diet comparison.

    Why do you defend a diet that has never been shown to have anything going for it?

    You still haven't posted those links... :)
  • epmck11
    epmck11 Posts: 159 Member
    I've read this article -- and some different articles covering the study -- and I'm still somewhat suspicious and I'd advise nobody put too much value in the idea that active lifestyles don't burn more calories. The people conducting the study were anthropologists, not nutrition or even science experts. It was also only conducted over a 11 day period and the amount of people it was tested on was fairly small.

    We'd need a larger sample size and also I'd prefer to see a head-to-head comparison of active Westerns vs. non-active Westerners. I'd like to see the results if they monitored the TDEE of construction workers, warehouse workers, farmers, etc. vs. office workers vs. endurance athletes, and then we could maybe get a more accurate understanding. But don't let this study discourage you from the importance of an active lifestyle (still, don't let a somewhat moderately active lifestyle let you think you're allowed to consume more than you should).
  • _VoV
    _VoV Posts: 1,494 Member
    I've read this article -- and some different articles covering the study -- and I'm still somewhat suspicious and I'd advise nobody put too much value in the idea that active lifestyles don't burn more calories. The people conducting the study were anthropologists, not nutrition or even science experts. It was also only conducted over a 11 day period and the amount of people it was tested on was fairly small.

    We'd need a larger sample size and also I'd prefer to see a head-to-head comparison of active Westerns vs. non-active Westerners. I'd like to see the results if they monitored the TDEE of construction workers, warehouse workers, farmers, etc. vs. office workers vs. endurance athletes, and then we could maybe get a more accurate understanding. But don't let this study discourage you from the importance of an active lifestyle (still, don't let a somewhat moderately active lifestyle let you think you're allowed to consume more than you should).

    I think an active lifestyle has a host of benefits, even if it doesn't bump up your TDEE.

    Your ideas for further research would be fine if the observation wasn't obvious. I fear the Hawthorne effect would come into play, if people knew you were studying their activity levels. Then the results would not well represent actual lifestyles.
  • wackyfunster
    wackyfunster Posts: 944 Member
    I just read an interesting study on how hunter-gatherers burn about the same number of calories as Westerners do. You would think all that physically-demanding food gathering over the course of the day would burn tons of calories, but it apparently doesn't. What do you think? Are the laws of thermodynamics more complicated than we think?


    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120725200304.htm
    It has more to do with homeostasis and efficiency of motion than thermodynamics. It's already been shown that African tribeswomen carrying 50+ pounds of water on their heads consume approximately 40% (IDR the exact number, so I made that one up... it was substantially less than 100%) of the energy an average westerner does walking at the same pace. That has nothing to do with thermodynamics... anything you do a lot, your body will become more efficient at doing.

    This study suggests that the primary issue is not exercise-related (not that exercise isn't helpful to everyone), but dietary. I suspect it will not be very popular in the US, where we have very powerful corporations and industry lobbying organizations pushing very hard to ensure that nothing is done to impinge upon their ability to sell HFCS and soy/corn byproduct laden foods to the public.

    The study I would like to see is a study that correlates obesity rates with average caloric density in a population, as I suspect that would be much more revealing.

    Still, simply put, if you are not eating an excess of calories, you will not gain weight, regardless of your exercise levels. And regardless of exercise levels, if you do not eat at a caloric deficit, you will not lose weight.

    Edit: And before any low-carb fanatics agree with me, there is nothing wrong with carbs, or even sugar. The issue is very calorically dense foods that are not very filling, and people with a poor understanding of nutrition and/or poor self-control.
  • Silverkittycat
    Silverkittycat Posts: 1,997 Member
    The main message of the study is that even though the hunter-gathers were more active than their western counter-parts, they did not burn any more energy.

    Indeed, mainly because their average BMI is 20 and the men weigh 115 lbs and the women 95 lbs.

    So their TDEE / RMR ratio is much higher, but TDEE still lower by about 400 calories/day.

    Link to text quoted below:

    http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/26/modern-lazy-people-burn-as-many-calories-as-hunter-gatherers-so-what-makes-us-fat/

    "In fact, even though total energy expenditure did vary considerably by age, gender and by body size, as anticipated, when the researchers looked at men of the same age who each weighed, say, 130 lbs., there was no discernible difference by lifestyle group in total daily energy expenditure. On average, the Hadza were much smaller than the Westerners, both in height and in weight (130 lbs. was at the high end for Hadza males). But statistical analysis suggests that the basic relationship between energy spent and lean body mass — not including the Westerners’ extra fat pounds — was essentially the same across societies, and across people big and small.

    Those results are all the more surprising because the Hadza did appear to expend much more energy in physical activity, as they hunted and foraged. But activity differences did not translate into differences in total energy use. What’s more, even among members of the same society, Hadza people who walked a long way each day did not have measurably higher total expenditure than individuals who did not walk so much. It seems that people’s metabolisms may compensate somewhat for activity level.

    The new findings seem to contradict popular beliefs that weight management is simply a matter of balancing what we eat with enough purposeful physical activity.

    “The similarity in [total energy expenditure (TEE)] among Hadza hunter-gatherers and Westerners suggests that even dramatic differences in lifestyle may have a negligible effect on TEE,” the authors conclude in their study, which is published this week in the journal PLoS One."

    It's always nice to see yet another contradictory piece of information about weight loss. LOL

    Although I appreciate you posting it.

    I'm really struggling with the results of this study. How on earth does someone who walks miles every day have the same energy expenditure as someone who doesn't. I can only guess those not walking must expend energy in other ways. Sure, we are amazingly adaptive, but you cannot change the laws of physics. How does someone's metabolism explain this result?

    It all sort of gels with my belief that when it comes to the incredibly complex system that is the human body, we don't know *kitten*. Pardon the language. I do think it comes down to energy balance, but there is more to the story, variables that may explain why some are thin and other not so much.

    You are correct. ;)
  • wackyfunster
    wackyfunster Posts: 944 Member
    RE: Paleo, main issues:
    1) Everything about inflammatory foods is pure BS, and easily scientifically refutable (there are tests that measure inflammatory responses to foods in individuals... ever wonder why they haven't been used to show widespread inflammatory responses to specific classes of foods such as gluten and solanine? You guessed it: they don't exist. I personally have been tested, and my worst responses were to paleo-endorsed foods such as sweet potatoes and green vegetables *gasp* ...no response to gluten or solanine, not that ingesting large quantities of solanine is a good idea)
    2) From what we know of ancestral diets, they consisted of 60-80% carbohydrates. This science does not jibe with what the paleo fad diet preaches.
    3) Complete lack of focus on intermittent fasting, which was almost certainly the normal dietary pattern in hunter-gatherer societies, and HAS been shown to provide a large number of health benefits. I suspect that many of the health problems we are seeing now are more a symptom of meal frequency (resulting in constantly elevated insulin levels) than of specific macro intakes.

    Good things about paleo:
    Eating whole foods is certainly going to be better for your overall health than eating processed quasi-food crap.

    Basically, it really is a fad diet. It is probably one of the least unhealthy ones out there, but still far from ideal. OTOH, for most people it would definitely be an improvement over their current diet, so despite whatever issues I have with it, it is still almost certainly better than the SAD.
  • Silverkittycat
    Silverkittycat Posts: 1,997 Member
    Might be that the micronutrients in a woman’s diet influence how the DNA functions, and this interaction determines, at least in part, whether you are going to be more prone to being overweight as an adult. So this early ‘in-utero’ stage can be rather important in your adult health. An imbalance of micronutrients affects how energy is handled by cells.

    Sorry, but I'm keen on genetics lately.... I think it's determined quite early whether you'll be overweight or not.
  • wackyfunster
    wackyfunster Posts: 944 Member
    Might be that the micronutrients in a woman’s diet influence how the DNA functions, and this interaction determines, at least in part, whether you are going to be more prone to being overweight as an adult. So this early ‘in-utero’ stage can be rather important in your adult health. An imbalance of micronutrients affects how energy is handled by cells.

    Sorry, but I'm keen on genetics lately.... I think it's determined quite early whether you'll be overweight or not.
    I honestly don't think genetics plays as big a role as people tend to think... I think it is definitely a factor, but I have yet to meet someone who did not lose weight if they start (accurately) tracking caloric intake and exercising (and this includes folks with thyroid problems, etc.). The biggest problem for most people (women especially since they are more prone to it for hormonal reasons) is mistaking water retention for lack of weight loss, and then giving up.

    Also, a lot of key genetic factors can be modified by dietary habits, e.g. FOXO transcription is stimulated in response to fasting (along with HGH production, and a variety of other beneficial responses).
  • Silverkittycat
    Silverkittycat Posts: 1,997 Member
    I agree with this, somewhat....
    Also, a lot of key genetic factors can be modified by dietary habits, e.g. FOXO transcription is stimulated in response to fasting (along with HGH production, and a variety of other beneficial responses).

    Stil think genetics has a bigger part in it than most know. :)
  • Silverkittycat
    Silverkittycat Posts: 1,997 Member
    Also, a lot of key genetic factors can be modified by dietary habits, e.g. FOXO transcription is stimulated in response to fasting (along with HGH production, and a variety of other beneficial responses).

    You'd be quite surprised with my results when lab ratting at USF, it didn't quite work the way they thought it would, especially in the production of HGH.

    Don't you agree though that the maternal inheritance matters?The egg you developed from , with half of your chromosomes, was created in your mother's ovaries while she was still in your grandmother's womb. New research shows that that when our grandmothers passed those epigenetic signals to your mother she was also passing those signals to the egg that would provide half of your DNA.

    You don't think that the early nutrition influenced the establishing of epigenetic marks?

    I'm curious, not arguing. :)
  • AlabasterVerve
    AlabasterVerve Posts: 3,171 Member
    @wackyfunster
    Edit: And before any low-carb fanatics agree with me, there is nothing wrong with carbs, or even sugar. The issue is very calorically dense foods that are not very filling, and people with a poor understanding of nutrition and/or poor self-control.

    Is it really poor self control if the foods you're eating (or not eating) cause you to eat more? Of course not.

    Call it a fad until you're blue in the face but that doesn't change the fact that study after study shows low carb diets -- with out any calorie restrictions, so all those people with poor self control can eat as much as they like -- to be at least as effective as calorie restricted diets and often do better. And that's not even touching upon the health benefits and the fact doctors prescribe low carb diets to their patients for a whole host of reasons--fads aren't used to treat disease.

    @SilverkittycatNot quite the same thing but I thought this was video was pretty interesting. Basically, they're saying that obesity prevention needs to start before conception.

    The Skinny on Obesity (Ep. 5): Generation XL
    http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=23719

    Halton, T.L., Hu F.B. (2004). The Effects of High Protein Diets on Thermogenesis, Satiety and Weight Loss: A Critical Review.

    Comments: Authors concluded by stating that “there is convincing evidence that protein exerts an increased thermic effect when compared to fat and carbohydrate.” For satiety, the evidence is also convincing “that higher protein diets increase satiety when compared to lower protein diets. This may enhance a dieter’s ability to ‘stick with’ a hypocaloric diet over the long term.”

    Weigle DS. et al. (2005). A high-protein diet induces sustained reductions in appetite. Ad libitum caloric intake, and body weight despite compensatory changes in diurnal plasma leptin and ghrelin concentrations.

    Comments: Authors conclude that an increase in protein from 15% – 30% of energy at constant carbohydrate intake produces large decrease in ad libitum caloric intake, and stated that “the anorexic effect of protein may contribute to the weight loss produced by low-carbohydrate diets.”

    Ludwig DS, et al. (1999). High glycemic index foods, overeating and obesity.

    Comments: All the diets were essentially equal in calories. Researchers conclude, saying “consumption of high-GI foods incudes hormonal and etabolic changes that limit availability of metabolic fuels and lead to overeating in obese subjects

    http://www.awlr.org/carb-restricted-diets.html

    http://www.dietdoctor.com/science
  • wackyfunster
    wackyfunster Posts: 944 Member
    Wrong. Studies show that HIGH PROTEIN diets are correlated with weight loss. When caloric and protein intake are controlled for, there is no difference between high carb and low carb.

    Low carb is pointless for most people on this site. If you like it, then great, go for it, but don't delude yourself and mislead others.
  • Silverkittycat
    Silverkittycat Posts: 1,997 Member
    You're not talking to me are you? I agree there.
  • wackyfunster
    wackyfunster Posts: 944 Member
    Also, a lot of key genetic factors can be modified by dietary habits, e.g. FOXO transcription is stimulated in response to fasting (along with HGH production, and a variety of other beneficial responses).

    You'd be quite surprised with my results when lab ratting at USF, it didn't quite work the way they thought it would, especially in the production of HGH.

    Don't you agree though that the maternal inheritance matters?The egg you developed from , with half of your chromosomes, was created in your mother's ovaries while she was still in your grandmother's womb. New research shows that that when our grandmothers passed those epigenetic signals to your mother she was also passing those signals to the egg that would provide half of your DNA.

    You don't think that the early nutrition influenced the establishing of epigenetic marks?

    I'm curious, not arguing. :)
    I think that genetics is very relevant when talking about partitioning, which will determine how easy it is for someone to put on muscle/fat, but for people inside 2 standard deviations of normal, diet and exerise will be a bigger factor in overall fitness levels. Some people are naturally larger frame-wise, but when your primary measurements are body fat and skeletal muscle, I think that those differences mostly vanish as well.
  • AlabasterVerve
    AlabasterVerve Posts: 3,171 Member
    Wrong. Studies show that HIGH PROTEIN diets are correlated with weight loss. When caloric and protein intake are controlled for, there is no difference between high carb and low carb.

    Low carb is pointless for most people on this site. If you like it, then great, go for it, but don't delude yourself and mislead others.
    I'm glad you have it all figured out -- makes everything much easier when you know all the answers and everything fits neatly into your world view. But the researchers conducting the studies think additional research is warranted and while a low carb approach might not be required for everyone, for a whole lot of people having control of their appetite is a pretty big deal -- duluded and mislead though they might be.

    Conclusions. The rapid absorption of glucose after consumption of high-GI meals induces a sequence of hormonal and metabolic changes that promote excessive food intake in obese subjects. Additional studies are needed to examine the relationship between dietary GI and long-term body weight regulation. glycemic index, obesity, dietary carbohydrate, diets, insulin.
  • VegesaurusRex
    VegesaurusRex Posts: 1,018
    My first reaction was that the hunters and gatherers have become more efficient at burning calories because I have to work so much harder now to burn the same amount of calories as I did when I first started losing weight.
    The issue highlighted in the study is that they are thinner and lighter than you, so they burn less calories on account of that - even accounting for greater activity levels.

    Doubly labelled water and respiratory gas analysis was used to determine energy consumption and expenditure, they also had GPS devices fitted and were measured for energy walking on a test track. It's all in the paper.

    The "paleo diet" is mentioned by Dr John Briffa's blog http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/07/27/hunter-gatherers-most-likely-to-be-leaner-than-us-due-to-differences-in-diet-not-activity/ where he points to papers that find the "Paleo diet" to be more satiating resulting in lower ad lib energy intake of ~1400 vs 1800 cals/day compared to a "Mediterranean" style diet.

    "Paleo diet" - http://www.springerlink.com/content/h7628r66r0552222/fulltext.pdf http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3009971 includes macro & micro nutrient profiles.

    I use "Paleo diet" in quotes to indicate what is currently eaten by those following such a diet, without any reference to ancient history ;-) There's a lot less carbs in the Paleo vs Mediterranean diet comparison.

    Why do you defend a diet that has never been shown to have anything going for it?

    You still haven't posted those links... :)

    What links? Surely you are not asking me to repost links to the China Study, the German Study, the Framingham Study or any of the dozens of others that we have argued about in the past? If you are asking me to do that, why?

    In case you are intersted, however, I will give you this link:

    http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/slideshows/top-rated-diets-overall

    I am not at all defending this "study," or its conclusions, or for that matter anything else it says. The US News College Report is about as accurate and scientific as this, but I did find it interesting that of all the diets mentioned (of which I am unaware of most) the Vegetarian diet, the Vegan diet, the Ornish diet , and virtually all of the veggie diets finished on top in just about every category, while the Paleo diet finished last. Any comments?
  • wackyfunster
    wackyfunster Posts: 944 Member
    Wrong. Studies show that HIGH PROTEIN diets are correlated with weight loss. When caloric and protein intake are controlled for, there is no difference between high carb and low carb.

    Low carb is pointless for most people on this site. If you like it, then great, go for it, but don't delude yourself and mislead others.
    I'm glad you have it all figured out -- makes everything much easier when you know all the answers and everything fits neatly into your world view. But the researchers conducting the studies think additional research is warranted and while a low carb approach might not be required for everyone, for a whole lot of people having control of their appetite is a pretty big deal -- duluded and mislead though they might be.

    Conclusions. The rapid absorption of glucose after consumption of high-GI meals induces a sequence of hormonal and metabolic changes that promote excessive food intake in obese subjects. Additional studies are needed to examine the relationship between dietary GI and long-term body weight regulation. glycemic index, obesity, dietary carbohydrate, diets, insulin.
    It's not an issue with appetite, or leptin supplementation would be effective or weight loss (it's not). It's an issue with poor eating habits and lack of self-control. I eat 200ish g of sugar on workout days pretty regularly, and would be willing to bet that if we compare our relative health, body composition, strength, and endurance that I would come out ahead on all counts (I would be happy to be proven wrong here, but I have only ever met a handful of low carbers in better shape than myself, while the number of people who regularly eat 500-2000g of carb in a day who are in better shape is fairly large). If insulin is the devil, you need to avoid meat as well, since e. g. fatty cuts of beef produce as much of an insulin response as grains. Even Lyle McDonald (who literally wrote the book on ketogenic diets) isn't sold on them any more.
  • AlabasterVerve
    AlabasterVerve Posts: 3,171 Member
    It's not an issue with appetite, or leptin supplementation would be effective or weight loss (it's not). It's an issue with poor eating habits and lack of self-control.
    You believe that obesity is caused by "poor eating habits and lack of self-control" and that the science supports your theory? I can understand that, I used to think the same thing.

    What I now believe is that some sort of disordered hormone reactions or imbalances are the cause of poor eating habits and an increase in appetite (i.e. lack of self control) and that results, of course, in obesity. It's absolutely heart breaking to hear dieter after dieter struggling with binging and insatiable appetites -- all the while desperately trying to figure out why they can't just "eat less and move more" -- when adopting a low carb lifestyle might be the exact thing they need to be successful but they don't even consider it because they think of it as a fad diet that's harmful to their health. .

    I know that that is a really hard concept to wrap your head around -- especially if you've never experienced it yourself -- but coincidentally today's blog from Mark's Daily Apple addresses this and might offer some insight or be of interest to some:

    http://www.marksdailyapple.com/when-listening-to-your-body-doesnt-work/#axzz22GtiCWAz

    Fortunately, the research and medical communities are finally acknowledging that there's something more going on in regards to weight loss and the research is reflecting that. Low carb diets have been shown time and time again to be an effective and healthful way to lose weight - they are not a fad.
  • wackyfunster
    wackyfunster Posts: 944 Member
    It's not an issue with appetite, or leptin supplementation would be effective or weight loss (it's not). It's an issue with poor eating habits and lack of self-control.
    You believe that obesity is caused by "poor eating habits and lack of self-control" and that the science supports your theory? I can understand that, I used to think the same thing.

    What I now believe is that some sort of disordered hormone reactions or imbalances are the cause of poor eating habits and an increase in appetite (i.e. lack of self control) and that results, of course, in obesity. It's absolutely heart breaking to hear dieter after dieter struggling with binging and insatiable appetites -- all the while desperately trying to figure out why they can't just "eat less and move more" -- when adopting a low carb lifestyle might be the exact thing they need to be successful but they don't even consider it because they think of it as a fad diet that's harmful to their health. .

    I know that that is a really hard concept to wrap your head around -- especially if you've never experienced it yourself -- but coincidentally today's blog from Mark's Daily Apple addresses this and might offer some insight or be of interest to some:

    http://www.marksdailyapple.com/when-listening-to-your-body-doesnt-work/#axzz22GtiCWAz

    Fortunately, the research and medical communities are finally acknowledging that there's something more going on in regards to weight loss and the research is reflecting that. Low carb diets have been shown time and time again to be an effective and healthful way to lose weight - they are not a fad.
    I honestly haven't seen any evidence to support that... supplementing leptin in the obese shows NO CHANGE in eating behavior, so even completely suppressing any appetite does not change eating patterns. This indicates that the issue is not one of appetite disregulation, of but developing eating behaviors that are independent of the biological need for food.

    Our bodies have evolved to experience salty, fatty, and sweet foods as physically pleasurable, and this reinforcement can create patterns of addictive behavior the same way that any other enjoyable substance can. The studies in suppressing dopamine pathways (associated with addiction) show remarkable effects in terms of weight loss, suggesting that obesity is more of an addiction problem than an appetite/hormonal problem. Most of the hormonal issues associated with obesity are adaptive mechanisms of the body to prevent further weight gain (e.g. insulin resistance prevents fat gain, which is why many bodybuilders stack clenbuterol+ephedrine, as this induces insulin resistance and allows gaining muscle mass with less fat gain, and a greater fat:muscle loss ratio when cutting).

    The weight loss associated with low-carb diets have been shown to be the result two factors:
    1) Reduced caloric intake
    2) Increased protein intake

    There are some serious downsides to low-carb:
    1) Muscle loss
    2) Much more difficult to gain muscle

    This is why you almost never see extremely fit low-carbers, and one of many reasons why virtually every bodybuilder and endurance athlete consumes hundreds of grams of carbs daily.

    There IS a good place for low-carb in the weight loss toolkit, but it's not relevant for most people on this site (it's handy when you are already extremely lean and trying to cut more body fat... personally I prefer intermittent fasting+carb cycling, which also results in ketosis, but low carb works ok as well... I personally find that it really compromises the quality of my workouts and recovery, but for short periods can see how it could be helpful to some people). For people over 10% body fat (men) and 18% (women) there is no advantage to a low-carb/high-protein diet vs.an isocaloric high-carb/high-protein diet. In fact, the high carb diet will have a small to moderate advantage, depending on quality of carb sources, due to the higher TEF of carbs vs. fats.

    Since adherence is the most important factor in the success of any regimen, I think the more complex and restricted people make their diets, the more likely they are to fail to adhere, which is why I typically recommend setting a reasonable caloric deficit, eating ~1.5g protein/lb. LBM (assuming caloric restriction+weight training, 1g is only one of those are in play), and then not worrying about anything else. That is all that is required to achieve any weight loss goal. Once can certainly make it more complicated, and once body fat is low enough that FFA stop being readily available for metabolism it generally behoves one to do so, there is really not much point for people who are not already in great shape, unless they are willing to add a substantial amount of complexity to their diet/exercise regimen in exchange for perhaps 10-20% faster results.

    Just my 2c.

Categories