History – The theory that optimal-diet is related to evolutionary biology gets a start in 1870 with Banting…this is really before the theory of evolution is hammered out, so Banting doesn’t know WHY it works, he just says IT DOES. Then again in the 1930s with Weston Price, this time with observations on hunter/gatherers from around the world, getting better, but failure to tie it in with the paleolithic. In the 1980s the theory is first stated in rough form in the “Stone agers in the fast lane” paper, synthesizing both h/g and paleolithic data. Also Atkins in the 80s, who is basically Banting 100yr later, except a heart doctor this time, and thus a better understanding out negative outcomes from high-delta foods (risk of MetS diseases). Then finally “modern paleo” which really starts nailing things down (Cordain, Sisson, Taubes, etc).
What I did – My only assets are that I have 1) an abnormal lack of bias and pre-existing beliefs, 2) abnoral attention span/dilligence, 3) better macro/synthesis skills than almost anybody on the planet, and 4) not a specialist (biologist, archaeologist) and so I synthesized EVERYONE’S observations. I simply reviewed ALL the data points, showed more/stronger connections, and thus better showed why what they thought was the correct answer, is the correct answer! Oh, and I stated the formula better; a simple sentence that says a lot.
Sadly, the level of game in “nutrition science” is so low, that even an analyst from finance can make a lot of progress. But it’s pro bono thankless work!
is pa ever going to acknowledge fried and processed foods? nobody here is advocating a pop tart diet. we agree with you pa that a pop tart diet is not ideal. what we disagree on is your whale blubber diet for sedentary beings.
Why do the nutrition zealots sound so much like the religious and agw zealots? Is it a desire for things to be black and white instead of grey? Does the average mind find discomfort with uncertainty? Hell, you have even gotten mla and I on the same side. That’s impressive zealotry. http://chriskresser.com/the-acid-alkaline-myth-part-2/ “Evolutionary Data There are a few studies where researchers attempted to approximate the net acid load of Paleolithic diets. One estimated that 87% of pre-agricultural people ate net-alkaline diets, and proposed this discrepancy with our modern diets as a possible reason for our declining health. (24) However, a more recent study estimated that only half of the world’s hunter-gatherer societies eat net-alkaline diets, while the other half are net acid-forming. (25) They reason that the other estimate is likely accurate for our earlier ancestors, because their tropical habitat would’ve provided ample fruits and vegetables. This idea is confirmed by another analysis that showed increasing acid load with increasing latitude. (26) Even without the study, it stands to reason that as humans moved into less hospitable environments, the animal content (and acid load) of their diet increased. Given the subpar clinical science on this topic, I think the evolutionary argument is far more convincing. If half of the world’s hunter-gatherer populations avoid the ‘diseases of civilization’ on an acid-forming diet, it would seem that acid load has little to no bearing on overall health. For some case studies, we can always look to Weston Price’s work to see quite clearly that acid-forming diets are not detrimental to health. Based on Price’s descriptions, many of the traditional diets he studied would have been primarily acid-forming, including the Swiss, the Masai, and the Inuit. Yet despite their high intake of animal foods or grains and their comparatively low intake of fruits and vegetables, they maintained excellent health. Conclusion I don’t deny that many people have seen significant health improvements when switching to an alkaline diet, but there are many possible reasons for this not having to do with pH balance. Eating more fresh produce is rarely a bad idea, especially when it displaces nutrient poor processed foods. A person switching to an alkaline diet would significantly reduce their consumption of grains, which could cause dramatic health improvements for somebody with a leaky gut or gluten sensitivity. Dairy would also be minimized, which would help those with dairy sensitivities. And although pure sugar isn’t an acid-forming nutrient, many laypeople claim that it is, so alkaline diets tend to contain far less sugar than a standard Western diet. Between the scientific evidence (or lack thereof) and the anthropological research, I think we can be confident that the acid load of our diets doesn’t negatively impact healthy people. For those with renal failure or similar conditions that affect kidney function, it’s a different story—there’s certainly room for manipulation of urine pH in the treatment of those conditions. But for someone with functioning kidneys, there should be no concern that an acid-forming diet will harm health.”
^this is a false dichotomy. There is no denying that acidity causes inflammation and is detrimental in and of itself. There is also no denying that certain foods that are otherwise healthy are acid forming. Acidity is part of the cost side of the equation. The problem with grains is that they are otherwise detrimental in addition to their acidity while healthy fats are otherwise extremely beneficial.
the authors discussion is incomplete. Talk about clinging to your “guns and religion”. You just can’t let go of your outdated beliefs that have been proven incomplete.
^Got it. Turd says incomplete and “no denying.” Case closed. So what came first, the chicken or the egg? Might as well settle that as well while we have your ear. Anybody else have something for turd? His word is gospel. Nothing further needed.
^I’m starting to understand. The optimal diet is the one where we can eat as much as we want and still be healthy. I only eat enough to fuel me regardless of the composition. Maybe that’s why my results contradict so many experts. Having self control is not considered. Now off to have a rueben and fries. Different article, same study. Similar impression, but slightly different takeaway. Link is embedded in the business insider article. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-07/gsoa-ybd071116.php
But anyone smart would work macro-level and figure out species genetics FIRST, then individual genetics second. The American nutrition guidelines “eat lots of healthy grains and not much red meat and animal fat” are wrong for the species (and so wrong for every individual). Pointless to go micro-level until they get the broad strokes right (which they never will, because it would require admitting they were wrong, and changing the food supply back to 1950s makeup, or better yet 1900s…which they can’t do).
The nutritional guidelines are not about science/health, they are about selling the available food supply"dear public, what is available, is healthy".
apparently if you eat that rueben with no bread, your 8lb meal of greasy meat, cheese, pickled cabbage, salad dressing and fried potatoes is incredibly healthy. sarcasm fail, apparently.
What everyone misses, is that “choices” are irrelevant at the population level. It’s called the food supply, not the food demand. The reason everyone keeps missing this is cultural bias – “but we Americans believe your results come from personal choices, they are not driven by the environment, so blame the individual”. That thinking is incorrect.
Given an unhealthy food supply, yes – the smarter rats in the cage will opt to eat the better food. But someone has to eat the rest.
^ I actually agree with PA a bit on that, but the food supply is somewhat demand driven as well. If everyone demanded more soy, prices would rise and soy would be planted instead of maize. Or if more beef was demanded, more beef would be raised and consume more maize and other feed. There is probably some puts and takes in reality. But there are definitely lobby groups that have huge power over what is recommended food. Dairy is one in Canada, that cartel owns the government. Maybe true elsewhere.
Dairy and farmers in general in the US wield a crazy amount of influence. Here is a title of a good WSJ article from a couple months ago, just goodle it if you don’t have a WSJ sub “A Cheese Glut Is Overtaking America”
Also why the F are we wasting corn, to create into ethanol, to blend into perfect gasoline? Because of political lobbies. That corn would be better off being corn, our cars would be better off without diluted gasoline, etc.
It’s certainly a seductive idea that everyone (except me) believes, but the data doesn’t support demand being a material driver of food supply.
If we zoom out and look at the USDA 100yr Food Supply Report, there has never been a material demand-driven change. All large changes to the food supply have been supply-driven.
Example 1: in the 1970s the government told producers to “grow more grains”, and told consumers to “eat more healthy grains”, and that’s what happened. Food supply changed, people ate the new food supply.
Example 2: around 1900 grain oil was invented, consumers were told “vegetable oil is healthy” and they should eat it, and so that’s what happened.
Example 3: Even the largest fad diet of all time (Atkins) didn’t move meat consumption up, it has always been 15% of daily calories. When a consumer fad happens, all supply does is “shit shift”. So right now the masses are saying they don’t want soda, so supply-side will take that corn syrup, and do something else with it, sneak it into the food as corn oil instead. The population WILL eat that corn in the end, because that’s what’s there.
Example 4: We can zoom out further, look at modern hunter/gatherer tribes. Hundreds of examples over the last 100 years, in EVERY case, when traders arrived bringing flour/sugar, the locals ate that new diet. They didn’t choose for a ship to arrive bearing foods they did not know existed. The food supply simply changed one day, and the population always eats the food supply.
Example 5: We can even zoom out further! Purealpha demands grass-fed mammoth steaks, tough shit, nature does not listen to my request. North America is about grains, has been for 15K years (the food supply changed with large extinctions due to climate change).
And so “vote with your wallet” is really just propaganda to make people feel like they have a choice, and for the corporations to shrug off externalities “you did it to yourself”. You can’t change food supply bottom-up, it requires government planning, coordination with industry, etc. But it’s very expensive to “retool” and industry doesn’t want to do it.
