Post: #1

So if you have read much about anthropology/human genetics, perhaps you will know that human evolution has not "stopped" or "slowed down" in recent times. In fact, in the last 10,000 years, since the Neolithic Revolution, human evolution has accelerated dramatically.

Prior to the neolithic revolution, human evolution was much slower overall, because our environment was much more static. Once we began agriculture, began living in cities, villages, and states, our environment completely changed. The attributes that helped you survive as a hunter-gatherer no longer helped you survive as a farmer, or as a city-dweller. Our situation changed dramatically and human evolution sped up as a result.

For this reason, the paleo idea that we are "evolved" to eat a pre-agricultural diet doesn't seem to really jive with the evidence.

Certainly sugars, processed junk, artificial shit, etc. is all bad for you.

But if you're truly eating a diet of natural foods, I see no reason why grains can't be a part of that. And in fact, most people who are healthy do include whole grains in their diet. Someone eating meat, vegetables and brown rice/quinoa/whole wheat bread probably is not going to be fat or whatever.

You may feel great eating Paleo, and maybe it's right for you. But the fervor with which people will tell you whole-grains are evil seems a bit misplaced and really based on a non-scientific idea of evolution "stopping" after we became hunter-gatherers.

I doubt people here who eat meat and veggies with rice and beans feel bad afterwards.

Just my thoughts, just something to consider. If you want to never eat rice or quinoa or bread, ok.

Post: #2

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't this the 2nd or 3rd thread you've started for the implicit purpose of bashing Paleo diets? And on top of that, providing no solid evidence or sources of information, just your speculation. You seem to really want to dwell on other people's choices for a healthy lifestyle, is there a reason why?

Post: #3

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't this the 2nd or 3rd thread you've started for the implicit purpose of bashing Paleo diets? And on top of that, providing no solid evidence or sources of information, just your speculation. You seem to really want to dwell on other people's choices for a healthy lifestyle, is there a reason why?

Post: #4

I dont mean to bash anyone. I myself eat mostly paleoish. Paleo people would largely be comfortable eating meals of mine. I just also believe in looking for the truth abd have an interest in genetics and anthropology.

Here is the study where the evidence for accelerated human evolution post-neolithic revolutiob comes from http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/evolu..._2007.html

I am only interested in discussing ideas, whatever you want to eat is fine I mean no hate.

Post: #5

I heard the next big diet is the mesozoic diet. You only eat pine cones and pterodactyls. It's supposedly great for weight loss.

Post: #6

(07-26-2014 11:03 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  But if you're truly eating a diet of natural foods, I see no reason why grains can't be a part of that. And in fact, most people who are healthy do include whole grains in their diet. Someone eating meat, vegetables and brown rice/quinoa/whole wheat bread probably is not going to be fat or whatever.

You may feel great eating Paleo, and maybe it's right for you. But the fervor with which people will tell you whole-grains are evil seems a bit misplaced and really based on a non-scientific idea of evolution "stopping" after we became hunter-gatherers.

You're correct in that human evolution didn't "stop" at any particular time in the past. Natural selection is always ongoing; it's the rate of genetic change that varies, not genetic change itself.

I also agree with you that many paleo/primal advocates go too far in their proselytizing and insist on starkly black-and-white rules for grains, dairy, carbs, etc. While there are generalities that can be applied to the human race as a whole, recent evolutionary changes have conferred specific adaptations to local populations, such as the ability to digest milk in adulthood.

A person of Dutch descent, whose ancestors were pastoralists who domesticated sheep and cattle thousands of years ago, likely carries the gene(s) enabling him to digest milk. People of sub-Saharan Africa or Chinese ancestry generally lack those genes, and would not fare so easily on a GOMAD diet.

As far as grains go, some populations have historically consumed more grains than others, and it makes sense that they would over time become better adapted to eating those types of food. This study, for example, shows that individuals from populations eating a high-starch diet contain more copies of the gene that promotes starch digestion in saliva than those from populations eating low-starch diets.

That being said, there is a growing body of evidence showing that the anti-nutrients in grains are substantial enough to warrant elimination of them from a healthy diet:

-Lectins bind to human intestinal lining and create a variety of allergic reactions, particularly in those already weakened by disease or infection.
-Gluten can be debilitating for those with celiac disease (about 1% of the population), and can cause microscopic inflammation even for those without it. Mice that switched to gluten-free diets, for example, saw reduced adiposity, inflammation, and insulin resistance.
-Phytates can reduce the absorption of minerals, such as calcium, magnesium, and zinc.

Even if you could easily tolerate grains, there's simply not much to them. As carbohydrates, the insulin release they stimulate stops your body from burning fat (and in fact, causes it to store fat instead). They don't increase satiety like fat and protein do, and they lack the extensive antioxidant and phytonutrient profiles of fruits and vegetables. In any situation where you'd want additional carbs, you'd be hard pressed to show that bread and rice would be a healthier choice than, say, a sweet potato or a bowl of blueberries.

Again, though, to each his own. If you like bread and rice and can tolerate them, all the more power to you. The main point here is to do your homework and experiment personally. When it comes to optimizing your diet, understanding your genetic history can be the key to knowing what you should and should not be eating.

Post: #7

(07-27-2014 02:25 PM)Isaac Jordan Wrote:  That being said, there is a growing body of evidence showing that the anti-nutrients in grains are substantial enough to warrant elimination of them from a healthy diet.

As carbohydrates, the insulin release they stimulate stops your body from burning fat (and in fact, causes it to store fat instead).

Just wanted to address these 2 points. For the first one, anti-nutrients in grains are largely negated by both cooking and/or processing. White bread, white rice, white flour, etc., will have little to no anti-nutrients in them. And if you're concerned about a spike in blood sugar, then combine processed grain with a protein and/or fat source.

As for your second statement above, protein also causes an increase in insulin. The only food group that does not stimulate an increase in insulin is pure fat.