My wife objected when she saw me feeding a bit (one slice to three dogs) of stale bread to our dogs. “I don’t want my dogs eating garbage!”
I rolled my eyes and said, “Garbage is the Paleo Diet for dogs. It’s what they ate while they evolved. It’s in their DNA to eat garbage, and you are denying them their natural diet.” Fortunately, she had the TV on too loud to hear me.
The vast majority of people who are alive today are descended from people who have practiced an agricultural diet for four to ten thousand years. For them the paleolithic diet is too low in complex carbohydrates, and too high in protein. Also, the paleolithic diet features large amounts of lean meat. This is expensive.
For most people I recommend what I will call “the peasant diet.” Traditional peasant diets have been largely vegetarian, with some animal protein because vitamin B 12 is only found in animal protein.
The peasant diet is high in whole grains, moderate in legumes, and low in animal protein. It is high is fruits and vegetables. There is some beer and wine.
Unless you are lactose intolerant there is no reason to avoid dairy products, but you should favor skim milk and skim milk products. Unless you are allergic to gluten there is no reason to avoid whole wheat bread, whole wheat cereal, and whole wheat pasta.
You should consume olive oil, rather than butter or lard. Flax seed oil raises the good cholesterol, of HDL.
Refined sugar and flour, and milled rice are recent in human culinary history and pre history. These should be avoided in favor of natural sugar in fruit, whole wheat flour, and brown rice.
Also, unless you are an athlete who trains outside in hot weather, or someone who does physical work outside in hot weather, you should avoid adding salt to food.
Do you have any evidence for these claims? Either just studies of dietary optimum, or any real evidence of evolved genetic adaptation to agricultural diets?
I’ll grant the adult lactose-tolerance mutation is probably an adaptation to a herding lifestyle; I’m not sure it is evidence of adaptation to a grain-farming lifestyle. If there is other such evidence, please share!
It is well known that populations that have been recently exposed to an agricultural diet are more likely to suffer type 2 diabetes, and that populations that have practiced an agricultural diet for a long time can suffer from a diet that is too high in protein.
Citations for both claims? It’s not that I don’t believe you, it’s just SOP here.
The problem you see is that many things that are “well known” are still incorrect, or incompletely correct.
So for example, while it is true that “First Nation” peoples typically have higher rates of diabetes than general populations in the same countries, the Arabic population has practiced an agricultural lifestyle for as long as any population around and has a high incidence of Type 2 diabetes, with the top 7 most Type 2 diabetes prevalences being in Arab counties, and with 4 for them having a prevalence of 20% or greater. Asian populations at each BMI level have a higher risk of diabetes than do White Western ones, and have been eating an agricultural rice based diet for a very long time. So a consistent pattern based on that one issue alone just does not exist, despite its being “well known.”
OTOH, I know of no kernel of truth to support the latter claim, any more than any other population. It is pretty consistent that going much over 30 to 35% of daily calories from protein will lead to significant adverse impacts across populations.
One point that is cogent: the biggest adverse nutritional impact of agriculture’s introduction was less what it introduced (grains, legumes) but what it eliminated, essentially a huge variety of foods. It produced enough calories to support a large population on a very narrow base. Someone who avoids a diet consisting of what the industrial food complex markets as food can, at reasonable cost, eat a diet today with huge variety, greater than most individual Paleolithic groups were able to obtain (even though in aggregate they ate very varied diets).
American Diabetes Association
Consider these sobering statistics from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Indian Health Service:
2.2 times higher— Likelihood of American Indians and Alaska Natives to have diabetes compared with non-Hispanic whites
68%— Percent increase in diabetes from 1994 to 2004 in American Indian and Alaska Native youth aged 15-19 years
95%— Percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives with diabetes who have type 2 diabetes (as opposed to type 1 diabetes)
30% — Estimated percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives who have pre-diabetes
Type 2 Diabetes in Indigenous Communities: A
Multifactorial Approach
Aajuli Shukla
*
The prevalence1
of diabetes in the Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander people is five to ten times greater than that of other
Australians, with some communities reporting a prevalence of 21% and
35%.5,6
This is compared to a prevalence of approximately 8% in the
general Australian population. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander peoples also have a much earlier age for onset of diabetes with
the prevalence of diabetes in the 25-34 year age group in one central
Australian community being 13% compared to 0.3% in the general
Australian population.6
American Heart Association
Most Americans already eat more protein than their bodies need. And eating too much protein can increase health risks. High-protein animal foods are usually also high in saturated fat. Eating large amounts of high-fat foods for a sustained period raises the risk of coronary heart disease, diabetes, stroke and several types of cancer. People who can’t use excess protein effectively may be at higher risk of kidney and liver disorders, and osteoporosis.
I acknowledge that the post from the American Heart Association does not compare the risk of a high protein diet for aboriginal peoples.
Of course neither cite supports your claims all that well.
Again, populations that have had an agricultural based diet for extremely long times have as high or higher rates of T2DM as aboriginal populations and citation you link to, like most, attribute the differences to a host of risk factors compared to the general population in those countries, poorer diet, less exercise, SES, smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, so on.
As to the protein claim - indeed no difference noted between risk in different populations (the claim made), AND the AHA’s point is NOT so much the more than needed protein is harmful per se but the fact that high-protein animal foods are often also high in saturated fat. The “may be at risk of …” is also accurately stated as “some very particular people with underlaying problems may be at risk of …” The evidence that moderately high protein diets, up to 30% of calories, are harmful for the typical population is pretty close to (albeit not) nil and offset by evidence that suggests health benefits.
Oh, but they do too.
I was asked to document my claims. I did with two credible authorities. Where is your documentation?
Actually, not really. Your original claim #1 is:
And claim #2:
Your evidence in support of Claim #1:
Remember that correlation does not imply causation and note that most of the people studied, particularly the American Indians, have not led a hunter/gatherer existence for generations, long before 1994. And, for many Indians, they did not before the 16th century, instead living as agriculturalists and thriving on a healthy mix of plant products (corn, beans, and squash), with meat as a treat. The most interesting statistic, to me, is the rise among Native youths. What changed in their lives starting around 1994? It would seem their diet–chips and Coke–didn’t change much, but what did? A more sedentary lifestyle? That must be it–the Super Nintendo was released in 1991 and kids’ health went straight into the shitter.
But what those statistics do not show is that diet alone is the causative factor. As for Claim #2, your evidence is:
The American Heart Association and our good doctor are in full agreement on the “more protein usually means more saturated fat” statement, and there are lots of ways that excess protein can mess you up. What it does not say is “populations that have practiced an agricultural diet for a long time can suffer from a diet that is too high in protein.” It says that everybody does. That’s why Dseid, MD said, “Of course neither cite supports your claims all that well.” (emphasis mine)
Most people cannot achieve that by diet alone. The body makes cholesterol, and strives to maintain a natural cholesterol level determined by the individual’s genetics. Have any of your patients with high cholesterol managed to reduce their total cholesterol by more than 20 points with diet alone?
Please note - I make no argument from authority. I provide citations (my previous post) and point out how the citations provided do not support the claims made.
There are certain populations that have a higher rate of T2DM than others even when controlling for BMI. They include Arabs, Asians, and the groups often referred to as “First Peoples” or aboriginal.
What they do NOT have in common is relatively recent adaptation to agricultual based nutrition. What is NOT seen is a correlation of increased rates with the adoption of agricultural based nutrition. Instead the rates have skyrocketed with the adoption of industrial food production and a more sedentary lifestyle. Clearly there are genetic risk factors at work as well but those factors do not in any way correlate with timing of taking on an agricultural based nutrition life-style.
The Pima tribe is often held as having the highest incidence of T2DM in the world (although Bahrain might actually be higher). The Pimas have practiced agriculture (farming wheat, maize, beans, and squash) for a long time, at least 500 to 1000 years, yet T2DM was virtually nonexistant among them until very recently. The traditional, agricultural based, diet was “—70-80% carbohydrate, 8-12% fat, and 12-18% protein” was not asociated with high T2DM rates, but as modern industrial high fat high refined carbohydrate foods became their norm, diabetes rates exploded.
Grain and legumes, decreased protein, were/are not the cause.
More on the Pima Indians (this is interesting stuff!)
In brief, a natural experiment: a pretty homogenous group divided such that some continue an agricultural based diet with lots of whole grains, legumes, a modest amount of lean meats, vegetables and some fruits, coupled with moderate physical activity, and some were placed on a diet much higher in manufactured food, high in refined carbs, sugar, and fat, low in fiber, and more sedentary. Result in a genetically predisposed population? The agricultural based diet group continues to have low rates of T2DM while the manufactured food diet group becomes obese and develops extreme levels of T2DM incidence. In a fairly short time period. Conclusion: agricultural based diets do not seem to lead to increased incidence of T2DM; manufactured food diets and sedentary lifestyles do.
Don’t get me wrong JEngelman, your preferred “peasant diet” is a fine nutrition plan … pretty much the traditional Pima agricultural diet plan, and clearly diets high in whole grains, legumes, vegetables and fruits, low to moderate in animal protein (even absent in), and with a modest amount of alcohol intake, are associated with excellent health outcomes in various combinations across cultures. Probably hitting the high fiber without whole grains (a variety of vegetables and fruits in decent volume albeit still modest total calories given the low calorie count of most of them), avoiding legumes, and having more animal protein (pushing on sources higher in MUFAs and PUFAs especially omega 3s and not exceeding 35% of daily calorie intake) … a reasonable Paleolithic diet plan … will also be associated with excellent long term outcomes, although the evidence for such is currently sparse.
I think Scylla will agree: just stay away from the processed shit and exercise some. Whatever “plan” you glom onto that does that is fine.
What you have said is the refuge of those who reject an inductive argument that for some reason they do not want to believe, on the grounds that inductive logic lacks the certainty of deductive logic.
Correlation may not always prove causation. It usually indicates it.
A deductive argument would be: States north of the Potomac River supported the Union during the Civil War. Pennsylvania was a state during the Civil War, and is north of the Potomac River. Therefore Pennsylvania supported the Union during the Civil War.
An inductive argument would be: Northern states usually have colder climates than Southern states. Pennsylvania is to the north of Virginia. Therefore on any given day the temperature in Pennsylvania in likely to be warmer than in Virginia.
This cite really doesn’t say anything bad about a high protein diet. In a nutshell it says we either convert excess protein or excrete it. The supposition that such a diet might cause kidney stones is in need of a citation, and I guess the other issue is that it might cause problems for people with bad kidneys, but the argument that people with bad kidneys might need a special diet isn’t much of an argument against protein.
Anyway, it is likely a moot point as a hunter gatherer would tend to consume the whole of the edible parts of the animal, the bone marrow, organs, etcis going to give him all kinds of fats, vitamins and what have you. That kind of diet with nuts, fruits, and vegetables would likely preclude any fears of excess protein consumption.
I would agree that somebody who’s idea of a paleo diet is eating lean protein while excluding all carbs and fats is both deluded and not doing themselves any favors health wise.
(Longer post to address other points should be forthcoming)
Okay, now you go into the realm of seriously misguided.
Correlation can suggest causation. It can generate hypotheses and it can be used to provide some level of support for a hypothesis. Sometimes these correlations are the best we have to go on and in such cases we go with the evidence we got, not the evidence we want. It does not however usually indicate causation and those who think it does have come some horribly misguided conclusions in the past. OTOH the lack of correlation is pretty solid evidence to falsify a hypothesis.
Again, in this case we have a strong lack of correlation between introduction to agricultural based lifestyles and onset of increased T2DM incidence in population groups. Pima Indians did not develop high rates of T2DM with the onset of agricultal based nutrition. Groups with high rates of T2DM include those whose heritage include the earliest agriculturalists and those who were fairly recently (from an evolutionary timescale) introduced to an agricultural based diet. Diets high in whole grains have low incidence of T2DM and dietary whole grain intake increases are associated with increased insulin sensitivity. That’s a strong falsification argument against agricultural based nutrition, grains and legumes, as causative of T2DM increases.
In terms of protein … again, there is little evidence that protein intake up to 35% of daily calories is harmful, but over that long term over that is likely toxic. HGs were commonly 19 to 35% protein and HGs went to extreme measures if needed to get calories from other sources as well be they fat or carb preventing going over that 35% mark regularly. The typical American diet and the traditional Pima diet are both about 15% protein. The official recommended range is pretty broad, 10 to 35%.
When evaluating a diet one should use a certain amount of common sense.
I see little reason to doubt that the fast food diet that is high in calories, saturated fat, sodium, and low in fiber and certain vitamins is harmful.
Sweets of all kinds are calorie rich and nutrient poor.
When it comes to nutrition discussions there is often little as uncommon as common sense.
Note: manufactured food (a.k.a highly processed food; industrial food; etc.) is not exclusively “fast food”; it is the backbone of most Americans’ diets. Foods created and marketed by Big Food Inc are consistently high in refined carbs, added sugars, added fats, salt, and a variety of preservatives including nitrates and nitrites. The typical American eats 22 teaspoons (!) of added sugar (not sugar naturally occurring in the food) each day and most of it was added before they bought the product and not just in foods thought of as “sweets.” Why are they there? Because in addition to being cheap to add they trigger our brain pleasure centers and make us consume more. (More profit and of course, more calories.) And those brain centers get changed by the exposure (in particular the high fats, and more in particular, NOT omega 3 and 9 unsaturated fats such as are found in olive and flax seed oils), needing bigger and bigger hits per fix and changing behaviors. (Those links can easily get into the weeds but it really is worth the slog; this is very interesting stuff.) The result is that in the last three decades of the last century average American calorie intake went up about 25% (and exercise/calorie output certainly did not increase). Mind you the last decade has seen some modest average daily caloric intake decrease. But modest; still 20% over the 1970 baseline.
How do some respond to those facts? (Not in this thread.) With a dumbass anecdotal n of 1 experiment in which some doofus carefully controlled his calorie intake while eating junk (including Twinkies) with protein shakes and vitamin supplements and managed to lose weight. Completely missing the point.
Common sense is that dogmatic debates over low carb or Paleo (whatever it means to a particular acolyte) or vegan or how grain is teh evil or whatever is the media darling of the day are pretty silly. Eat lots of veggies and fruits; one way or the other get adequate quality protein somewhere in that 10 to 35% of total calorie intake range; one way or the other eat enough real foods to keep your fiber intake (insoluble and soluble both) high be that with whole grains or otherwise; make sure your fat sources are such that you get plenty of MUFAs and omega 3; don’t eat processed shit; and avoid a sedentary lifestyle preferably exercising at least moderately most days. Beyond that is arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. IMHO.
If someone needs to embrace a movement to do those things, then so be it. If someone needs to call their lifestyle some label, fine. If those guidelines are too complex and messaging it even more simply works for you, be it Scylla’s “Don’t eat anything that your distant ancestors would not have recognized as food. Don’t eat anything that they couldn’t have eaten or prepared.” Or Pollan’s “Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.” … whatever floats your boat.