RoR: Forum

Ed,
I'm not sure what to make of this exactly. I'm aware that your highly interested in evolution and diet, but is this for our amusement or for our benefit? If the former, please disregard this post.

This sort of evolutionary dietary premise seems to wreak of naturalistic fallacy or the "if it ain't broke..." fallacy.

If it is true that our genome evolved with this sort of diet "in mind", it seems we'd want to take into account the longevity and quality of life that this diet provided our ancestors. Both of which seem dismal. It seems we also evolved to gorge on fats and sweets when lucky enough to find such rich sources of energy, but it's those hard-wired tendencies which seem to have caused a problem. And while this is certainly a very healthy and scrumptious diet, there is no reason to think that what we evolved for is resolutely what is best for us. A plant which evolved in the desert may still fare better in the tropics.

Also, the one size fits all type diets doesn't jive well with the evolutionary perspective. The slogan, "we are all mutants" comes to mind. Sure, it dilutes the concept of mutant, but it hints at the complexity of life and the difficulty biology has in even quantifying a species by traits. (most biologist gave up on this idea anyway). Now I'm rambling.

Anyway, this sort of diet seems to stem from the idea that Nature is wise or compassionate. And boy, Nature is a reckless beast.

What are your thoughts?

Post 1

Thursday, March 6, 2008 - 7:19pm

Decaf is BAD for you, according to what I've read. In fact, people who drink 2~5 cups of real brewed coffee live longer and have a much lower incidence of several major diseases and delayed senility to boot. Decaf, on the other hand, for whatever reason appears to actually do all the bad things incorrectly attributed to the real stuff. Did our ancestors actually somehow decaffinate their coffee?

Post 2

Thursday, March 6, 2008 - 9:29pm

Thanks for the feedback, Doug.

You're definitely not the first to note that it seems that evolution shouldn't be playing a major role in planning the diet of man. There are several criticisms -- and you hit on most of the big ones -- with that idea. Let me give you relatively-brief answers first, and let you decide whether they deserve a more extensive hearing.

=========
If it is true that our genome evolved with this sort of diet "in mind", it seems we'd want to take into account the longevity and quality of life that this diet provided our ancestors. Both of which seem dismal.
=========

While you're right that our ancestors didn't live long, high-quality lives -- you seem to be giving too much credit (or blame) to their diet for this. But there are other, more plausible, reasons for their short lives -- infectious disease from poor hygiene being one of the most important ones.

And even if they didn't get a chance to live long, high-quality lives -- there are other lines of evidence suggesting that they were eating the "best of all possible [foods]." 3 broad lines of such evidence suggest that ancestral diets work better for humans, even though our ancestors were riddled with infectious disease from poor hygiene.

1) human physiology runs relatively poorly under the recent dietary acid load which became dominant only after the introduction (about 10,000 years ago) of dairy, grains, and legumes

2) human physiology runs relatively poorly under the recently reversed sodium-to-potassium ratio of modern diets

3) human physiology runs relatively poorly under the recently disproportionate intakes of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids

=============
It seems we also evolved to gorge on fats and sweets when lucky enough to find such rich sources of energy, but it's those hard-wired tendencies which seem to have caused a problem.
=============

Though these hard-wired tendencies are required for the problem that we have today, they are not "to blame" so to speak -- at least not any more to blame than our evolved lungs are, in those cases when folks drown under water (another environment that -- due to human physiology -- doesn't allow us to thrive). Lungs are great for the environment we evolved in, but not necessarily for other environments (and that limitation is not the lungs' "fault").

============
... there is no reason to think that what we evolved for is resolutely what is best for us. A plant which evolved in the desert may still fare better in the tropics.
============

I don't disagree with what is stated here, but I would question the use of it as any kind of good grounding for the concept of "nutritional-relativity." While arousing one's curiosities, it is wholly uninformative and uninstructive.

============
Also, the one size fits all type diets doesn't jive well with the evolutionary perspective. The slogan, "we are all mutants" comes to mind.
============

There's definitely genetic diversity within our species, and examples abound about some folks who tolerate some foods and other folks who don't (e.g., the higher rate of lactose intolerance in "minorities"). That said, when there are different dietary sensitivities, they tend to involve the evolutionarily-new foods: dairy, wheat, and legumes. Here is empirical evidence of this:

=============
"Milk, peanut and wheat were the key food allergens amongst those with positive challenges."

Prevalence of sensitization reported and objectively assessed food hypersensitivity amongst six-year-old children: a population-based study. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2006 Aug;17(5):356-63.
=============

The upshot to this is that, while there are differences in tolerances and sensitivities, there is a certain sameness in these differences (they tend to involve the "new" foods). This makes a case for old v new food -- not a case against it.

Also, as a relevant aside to this point, the idea that evolution should inform diet planning is indispensable to zoo keepers. If you didn't know about the evolutionary diet of Koalas, for example -- who exist solely on leaves of the Eucalyptus tree -- then you couldn't even keep them alive, let alone in any kind of measure of health.

=============
Anyway, this sort of diet seems to stem from the idea that Nature is wise or compassionate. And boy, Nature is a reckless beast.

What are your thoughts?
=============

Nature's definitely a beast to be tamed. That sums up my thoughts on that matter.

;-)

Ed

Post 3

Thursday, March 6, 2008 - 9:59pm

Phil,

You're half-right about decaf coffee.

While I don't think that our ancestors even HAD coffee (and this should be easily revealed upon a cursory Google search on the history of coffee) -- evidence on decaf is disease-specific. Here's some empirical evidence noting some cases of superiorities of decaf, for example ...

================
"CONCLUSION: Coffee intake, especially decaffeinated, was inversely associated with risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus in this cohort of postmenopausal women."

Coffee consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus: an 11-year prospective study of 28 812 postmenopausal women. Arch Intern Med. 2006 Jun 26;166(12):1311-6.
================

================
"We conclude that in normotensive adults replacement of regular by decaffeinated coffee leads to a real but small fall in blood pressure. However, it remains to be established whether a mass switch from regular to decaffeinated coffee would significantly reduce the total incidence of hypertension-related disorders."

Effect of decaffeinated versus regular coffee on blood pressure. A 12-week, double-blind trial. Hypertension. 1989 Nov;14(5):563-9.
================

A quite worrisome downside to decaf coffee, however, is an increased chance of potentially-carcinogenic Aspergillus toxins -- which are not an issue with the high-octane brews.

Ed

Post 4

Friday, March 7, 2008 - 9:13am

Ed,

As we've discussed before, the meat that our paleolithic ancestors ate was wild game, and therefore much leaner than the meats that we typically get at our local grocery store. All those meats that you list are much too high in saturated fat to be comparable to what our hunter-gatherer ancestors consumed, and it doesn't much help to "trim all visible fat" from them. You still have far too much saturated fat left in the meat itself to make a difference.

Also, you mentioned nuts. Our paleolithic ancestors didn't get their nuts shelled and packaged for easy, voluminous consumption, nor did they consume them in a processed form such as peanut butter, nor did they consume extracted vegetable oils in the quantity that people do today.

Our ancestors ate nuts and seeds, to be sure, but they had to find and pick them one by one and then shell them by hand, and that took a lot of work. I guarantee you that you would eat far fewer nuts, if you had to go through this laborious process than if you could buy them preshelled in a package at your local grocery store. I sometimes buy almonds, and boy, I can go through a package of those things pretty quickly by popping them in my mouth one after the other, something that our hunter-gatherer ancestors didn't have the luxury of doing.

My point is that, although they ate these foods, their total consumption of fat was considerably less than what the average person consumes today, eating these same foods.

Also, if you're going to eat organ meats, you should probably eat them sparingly, as they are very high in cholesterol. This is especially true of liver, which is the organ that produces cholesterol.

As you know, I think you eat too much meat. You said that you consumed a pound a day and that your total cholesterol was 291, and, although your HDL was very high (109, if I remember correctly), I wouldn't rely on that for protection. The runner, Jim Fixx, had a very high HDL as well -- 87 -- but his total cholesterol was 253. Not surprisingly, he died of a heart attack.

Also, there's the issue of colon cancer which afflicts people on high meat diets. Doesn't that concern you? You're a relatively young guy, but if you continue to eat this way the rest of your life, you'll be putting yourself at undue risk.

I definitely don't think that the diet you recommend is good for the average person, and people on this list who read your recommendations should be aware that the medical consensus today would not support the level of fat and cholesterol that you believe in consuming.

- Bill

Post 5

Friday, March 7, 2008 - 11:29am

My understanding from the recent completion of a cultural anthropology course is that the daily diet was one based on gathered fruits and vegetables (including seeds and roots), which was then punctuated with meat from occasional kills.

But I generally agree with the paleolithic thing.

Ever have ostrich?

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 3/07, 11:30am)

Post 6

Friday, March 7, 2008 - 1:28pm

Bill, thanks for the instructive comments. You bring up good points.

Instead of defending what I've written, please allow me to defer all critics (including you) to the 3 sources of information which dispell every available criticism to date. Those interested in adopting some of the wisdom here in my blog are hereby recommended to obtain copies of these 3 items before making any personal changes.

(1) Book: "The Paleo Diet" by Loren Cordain

(2) Medical Journal: Evolutionary health promotion: a consideration of common counterarguments. Prev Med. 2002 Feb;34(2):119-23.

(3) Medical Journal: The ancestral human diet: what was it and should it be a paradigm for contemporary nutrition? Proc Nutr Soc. 2006 Feb;65(1):1-6.

The highlights of this last of the 3 necessary (according to Ed) primers are listed below. Diets to which humans are genetically adapted have:

--macronutrient profiles similar to the Mediterranean diet; about 30-40% fat, about 30-40% carbohydrate (from fruits & veggies), and about 25-35% protein

--Saturated fats at less than 10% of total energy

--neglible trans fatty acids

--an omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acid ratio of about 2:1 (instead of 10-16:1)

--daily cholesterol intake of about 500 mg

--base-yielding properties (from lots of fruits & veggies) rather than acid-yielding ones (from lots of dairy and grains)

--about 2-3% added sugar; rather than the 15% that we have today

--about 50-100 grams of low-phytate fiber

--about 1.5 - 8 times as much micronutrients as diets do now

--at least 3 times as much potassium as sodium (instead of the reverse-ratio in diets today)

Ed

Post 7

Friday, March 7, 2008 - 7:11pm

Another thing too: The fact that our ancestors ate a certain diet doesn't necessarily mean that it's the best diet for the purpose of individual longevity. It may mean only that it is the best diet for reproductive purposes. Their diets may have enabled them to survive bouts of famine, if they were able to store fat easily, but people who are able to store fat easily are also prone to adult-onset diabetes and heart disease. All that is necessary for reproductive purposes, however, is to live long enough to reproduce. And if primitive man had children by the age of puberty, which is likely, he could have raised them to adulthood no later than the age of 35 or 40. If he died of a heart attack or other degenerative disease beyond that age, it wouldn't matter.

- Bill

Post 8

Saturday, March 8, 2008 - 6:47am

Our diet should correspond to our mode of living.

Our long ago hunting gathering ancestors lead a busy life. The worked hard for 20 hours a week to bring home the meat. They had a protein rich diet. Even when not hunting or gathering they did not sit on their asses like we do.

We tend to work 60 sedentary high stress hours a week. We should not eat like hunting gathering folk. The average American male burns 2500 calories a day (a little less when older). That should limit our intake. We also should exercise a bit more than we do (on average).

I ride my bike every day that weather permits. A day without a twenty mile ride is a day without joy. When I cannot ride, I walk or resort to the ever so boring treadmill. An hour to two hours a day of exercise will keep the cardio-pulmanary system in trim.

Post 9

Saturday, March 8, 2008 - 1:08pm

Bill,

===============
Another thing too: The fact that our ancestors ate a certain diet doesn't necessarily mean that it's the best diet for the purpose of individual longevity. It may mean only that it is the best diet for reproductive purposes.
===============

I can tell that you haven't yet taken my advice to retrieve copies of the 3 indispensable sources of information.

Will you be attempting to do this at some time in the future, or will you be continuing to argue the basic points without the more-than-basic understanding that is available to individuals who follow this good advice of mine?

;-)

Ed

Post 10

Saturday, March 8, 2008 - 1:13pm

Bob, from what little you have already shared here, I can tell that you, also, have not taken my good advice.

;-)

What is this world coming to nowadays, when it doesn't seem like everyone is jumping up to take my advice as if it was a cherished gift of saving grace? I really think that people should have more rationality than that.

Ed

Post 11

Saturday, March 8, 2008 - 6:19pm

Ed,

Maybe you need a testimonial or two? "One testimonial worth a thousand words" or something to that effect. I went paleo a little more than a year ago, stopped the refined foods, cut back on carbs, started eating almonds and walnuts for snacks instead of snickers bars. I had a total cholesterol of around 240 and HDL of 30 and was feeling generally low energy. Finding those blood results frankly scared me. A few months ago my total cholesterol was under 148, HDL was 45. My blood pressure previously was normal, 120/70. My blood pressure now is 108/64 average. My pulse has gone from in the 80's to mid 60's resting. A lot of credit goes to my local crossfit gym however. They kick my ass very thoroughly and often. They name their workouts. This week I did a workout called "Cindy" which is as many rounds in twenty minutes of 5 pull-ups, 10 push-ups and 15 squats. I did 14 rounds. The last time I tried it a couple of months ago I only managed 11. Today's workout was "Fran", rounds of 21-15-9 repetitions of thrusters and pull-ups. I used a 75 lb bar for the thrusters and finished in 11 min 33 sec. These are poor results for experienced crossfit males but I still consider myself a beginner and I am 59 1/2 years old. I attribute the energy I need to do these workouts to the paleo diet. If I hadn't changed my diet a two mile walk would still be kicking my ass.

Post 12

Saturday, March 8, 2008 - 8:32pm

Thanks, Mike!

I went to ...

http://rebirthofreason.com/Fitness/Links.shtml

... and clicked the last link in order to bring up the risk calculator. I put in your numbers and it turns out that -- over the next 10 years of your life -- that you have a 95% chance of remaining heart-attack free! Few your age have that good of numbers.

More power to you!

Ed

Post 13

Saturday, March 8, 2008 - 10:26pm

Bill and Bob,

Will you both please kindly point your browsers to the printable PDF files for items 32, 29, 26, 25, 21, and 17 at ...

http://www.thepaleodiet.com/published_research/

... and then get back to me?

Thank you for your consideration.

Ed

==============
Reference:

32. Abuissa H, O�Keefe JH, Cordain, L. Realigning our 21st century diet and lifestyle with our hunter-gatherer genetic identity. Directions Psych 2005;25: SR1-SR10.

29. Loren Cordain, S. Boyd Eaton, Anthony Sebastian, Neil Mann, Staffan Lindeberg, Bruce A. Watkins, James H. O�Keefe, Janette Brand Miller. Origins and evolution of the western diet: Health implications for the 21st century. Am J Clin Nutr 2005;81:341-54.

26. O'Keefe JH Jr, Cordain L. Cardiovascular disease resulting from a diet and lifestyle at odds with our Paleolithic genome: how to become a 21st-century hunter-gatherer. Mayo Clin Proc 2004 Jan;79(1):101-8.

25. Lindeberg S, Cordain L, and Eaton SB. Biological and clinical potential of a Paleolithic diet. J Nutri Environ Med 2003; 13(3):149-160.

21. Cordain L, Eaton SB, Brand Miller J, Mann N, Hill K. The paradoxical nature of hunter-gatherer diets: Meat based, yet non-atherogenic. Eur J Clin Nutr 2002; 56 (suppl 1):S42-S52.

17. Eaton SB, Cordain L. Evolutionary Health Promotion. A consideration of common counter-arguments. Prev Med 2002; 34:119-123.

Post 14

Sunday, March 9, 2008 - 5:48am

I had Ostrich once.

It does NOT taste like chicken.

Bob Kolker

Post 15

Sunday, March 9, 2008 - 10:08am

Ed,

Thanks for the references. They look very interesting, and I'll peruse them when I get more time. I have checked out a couple of them already, and I'll let you know what I think.

By the way, people here should know that Mike Erickson is one strong dude -- especially for someone his age. I'd be very surprised if anyone on this list could match his strength. Ed may be an exception, but he's a whole lot younger. But Mike, in his younger years, could do 5 one-arm pullups -- that's one-arm without holding on with the other arm, just hanging by one arm and doing five pullups. How many people on this list can do five TWO-arm pullups. I'm sure there are some, but I'll bet there are lot of young men here who can't.

Mike, I'm awed by your progress and by the change in your cardiovascular-risk profile. High fives!

While I disagree to some extent with Ed's overall dietary approach, I do agree with a substantial portion of it -- with its emphasis on fruits and vegetables and omega-3-fatty acids, with the increase in the potassium-sodium ratio, with the elimination of refined carbs, sugars and sodas and with the emphasis on drinking more water.

I have nothing against meat, but the meat we get today is too high in saturated fat and too low in omega-3-fats. It is not comparable to what our hunter-gatherer ancestors ate. It therefore behooves us to go easy on our consumption of domesticated meat. Fish is preferable as a protein source. And nuts aren't so bad, as long as they're raw. but I wouldn't eat too many. I would also avoid the ones that are roasted and salted.

Again, congratulations, Mike! You rock! More people should take their cue from Mike Erickson and get on the fitness bandwagon! They may not be able to achieve his level, but they can definitely make some serious improvement.

- Bill

Post 16

Monday, March 10, 2008 - 9:30am

Ed,

In Post #6, you recommend consuming saturated fats at less than 10% of total energy, but from one of the articles you cited, the author says that the paleolithic hunter-gathers consumed saturated fats between 10% and 13% of total energy.

Also, you can correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be arguing that because our remote ancestors ate a certain way, it follows that we should eat that way. Why? Because we evolved on such a diet? But the fact that we evolved on it does not mean that every component of it is necessarily consistent with optimal health and longevity.

We are able to live and reproduce quite satisfactorily on the standard American diet, which as you know is not the best diet for us. Does that mean that our descendants living millennia from now should adhere to such a diet? No? Then why does it follow, based on your evolutionary rationale, that the best diet for human beings living today is a hunter-gatherer diet? The fact that our remote ancestors survived and reproduced on that diet does not mean that we should follow it -- at least not in all of its particulars. We should follow a diet that gives us optimal health and longevity, even if our remote ancestors didn't follow it.

- Bill

Post 17

Monday, March 10, 2008 - 9:48am

Precisely.

We do not live like or hunting gathering forbears. There is no reason to expect that our mode of living and their mode of eating are optimally matched.

At peak loads, we burn calories at a much slower rate than they did and we almost certainly require fewer calories per day than they did.

There is not reason why our diets should match.

Bob Kolker

(Edited by Robert J. Kolker on 3/10, 9:48am)

Post 18

Monday, March 10, 2008 - 12:48pm

Bill and Bob,

I am concerned to find out how many of the 6 articles that I had advised (in post 13) you had each read before making your latest statements (post 16 & 17). You may number or name them, but you must number or name them -- in order for me to begin to start taking you seriously on this matter. Here, again, are the numbers and names of the articles ...

32. Abuissa H, O�Keefe JH, Cordain, L. Realigning our 21st century diet and lifestyle with our hunter-gatherer genetic identity. Directions Psych 2005;25: SR1-SR10.

29. Loren Cordain, S. Boyd Eaton, Anthony Sebastian, Neil Mann, Staffan Lindeberg, Bruce A. Watkins, James H. O�Keefe, Janette Brand Miller. Origins and evolution of the western diet: Health implications for the 21st century. Am J Clin Nutr 2005;81:341-54.

26. O'Keefe JH Jr, Cordain L. Cardiovascular disease resulting from a diet and lifestyle at odds with our Paleolithic genome: how to become a 21st-century hunter-gatherer. Mayo Clin Proc 2004 Jan;79(1):101-8.

25. Lindeberg S, Cordain L, and Eaton SB. Biological and clinical potential of a Paleolithic diet. J Nutri Environ Med 2003; 13(3):149-160.

21. Cordain L, Eaton SB, Brand Miller J, Mann N, Hill K. The paradoxical nature of hunter-gatherer diets: Meat based, yet non-atherogenic. Eur J Clin Nutr 2002; 56 (suppl 1):S42-S52.

17. Eaton SB, Cordain L. Evolutionary Health Promotion. A consideration of common counter-arguments. Prev Med 2002; 34:119-123.

You may decide not to read any of them, in which case it would be a moral decision of mine to decide not to take either of you seriously. We can engage in a debate about the philosophy of science (I'd be thrilled to), but not when one side refuses to examine and comment on the particular science of the debate.

Do either of you "get" this latest point of mine (or does it seem to either of you that I have been making unjustifiable requests)?

Ed

Post 19

Monday, March 10, 2008 - 5:20pm