A very interesting read on low carb historical diet arguments

[Subby]

Judging by the amount of times the "common sense" of meat based prehistoric diets is appealed to as a justification of low carb diets, it increasingly seems to be treated as simply accepted around here. While I personally wouldn't refute there might be something to the theory, maybe a LOT to the theory, I do find it a little disturbing that repetition of a simplistic theory about what a very complex and in many ways obtuse subject, seems to breed legitimacy. I think that's a side of human nature and information sharing that is best to be wary of.

That, and that people simply don't know enough to refute it or question it with authority. It's often the case: come up with an argument beyond most people's ken that you should probably not be making in such simplistic terms, and sit back and enjoy the deafening silence as anyone who considers that it may well be simplistic or not the whole story, turns over to the mickey mouse channel instead of spend hours of their hard earned free time dealing with argument and disagreement of actually raising a query or objection.

With all this in mind, I found this a very interesting and valuable article to read and consider when it comes to the automatic "clear as day/it makes sense" kind of one or two line arguments you hear about the evolution of diet and how it supports low carb.

Just, as they say, "food for thought".

Diabetes Update: Let's Not Twist History To Support Our Beliefs (http://diabetesupdate.blogspot.com/2009/09/lets-not-twist-history-to-support-our.html)

I consider this article a very interesting and thoughtful contribution to an important issue, it is not something intended to spark controversy with, although the topic has been shown to be problematic in the past. I do not wish the thread to become the usual bloody battleground between diet extremists on both sides of the fence.

[fgummett]

Thanks for posting this Subby... an interesting read indeed.

I agree that we need to keep this idea in perspective. When the question of the Paleo diet was recently raised in an other thread I had this response which contains another well-balanced and scholarly perspective (A brief review of...) regarding this topic...It is discussed semi-frequently here on DF and the truth is we don't really know what our ancestors ate... we do know it wasn't Twinkies and Go-Gurt tubes. I'm a big proponent of "real whole foods" as I trust in the fact that we -- as a species -- have had more time to adapt to these foods than anything which comes from a factory or chemical process. In my World this includes -- for example -- butter which is readily made by churning milk but excludes corn-oil which is not the result of simply squeezing corn/maize.

Here is something I read recently Palaeolithic diet (‘‘stone age’’ diet)... (http://journals.sfu.ca/coaction/index.php/fnr/article/viewFile/1526/1394) and another A brief review of the archaeological evidence for Palaeolithic and Neolithic subsistence... (http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v56/n12/full/1601646a.html)

Michaal Pollan also has some sensible words on this topic: NYTimes - Unhappy Meals... (http://www.michaelpollan.com/article.php?id=87)

And in no way trying to start debate or to knock the Jenny Rhul (?) blog I do note that she quite correctly statesMost of our beliefs about "paleo" peoples derive from study of isolated groups of early 20th century hunter/gatherers. How similar their habits were were to paleo people of 20,000 years ago is impossible to know. and then she uses examples from the study of isolated groups of early 20th century hunter-gatherers as the basis for her further discussion of what it was really like in the PaleolithicThe reason for this is obvious to anyone who has studied the experience modern hunter/gatherer peoples... That said, she makes several valid points and we should certainly not romanticize the distant past.

[davef]

Thanks for the link Subby, a very interesting read.

PS: The link on the Blog to The Last Gentleman Adventurer: Coming of Age in the Arctic (Paperback) was great, the subject of Arctic and especially Antarctic exploration fascinates me and the Amazon page listed some books I have not read.

[xMenace]

Yes it's a very logical set of arguments, but there are at least a couple of facts that cannot be argued:

1. Refined grains and sugars are newly introduced dietary components. These have mostly appeared during the last couple hundred years as a result (or even driving force) of the industrial revolution.

2. Genetic adaptation of dietary changes takes a long time. We're not talking decades or centuries. We're taling millenia and longer.

4. Quantity of dietary meat and fat is in doubt, but there's no doubt that when they ate a rabbit or deer or mammoth, they ate practically the whole thing. They did not throw out the grissle or the gooey parts. They ate it all!

5. There are many groups around the world still eating "traditional" diets. There's no reason to believe these diets have changed significantly over the millenia. People eat what's available, and that's what these people do. Are these people healthier? I don't know. But I do know that infalliably when they adopt western diets, they get sick. When they revert back, they get better.

From an anthropological perspective, it should be considered very risky to eat refined sugars. I should seem safe to eat saturated animal fats, at least in some quantity. It is anthropologically clear that transferring from native diets to modern sugar-based diets is bad.

The body of evidence still points to sugar as bad.

[jer.lawrence]

That was an interesting read, thanks for the link.

[foxl]

I liked this paragraph near the end ... it sums up what I think, too:

"Let's do what we can to improve what we eat. Let's avoid foods that obviously harm us, but let's not resort to fantasy and nostalgia to back up our dietary arguments. There is plenty of good data in the present to do so."

[jps]

From an anthropological perspective, it should be considered very risky to eat refined sugars. I should seem safe to eat saturated animal fats, at least in some quantity. It is anthropologically clear that transferring from native diets to modern sugar-based diets is bad.

The body of evidence still points to sugar as bad.

To me, that pretty much sums it up.

[foxl]

Yes, I like that too, John!

[Subby]

Here is something I read recently Palaeolithic diet (‘‘stone age’’ diet)... and another A brief review of the archaeological evidence for Palaeolithic and Neolithic subsistence...

Thanks for those links, Frank, there were interesting too. I found a couple of passages quite relevant to this topic, that certainly suggest aspects of complexity to these diets that don't lend themselves neatly to simplistic analogy to modern day low carbing.

I'll post them here, not to necessarily promote debate as I think in this thread at least, most people are pretty much in the same chapter if not on the same page, but because I find them a genuinely different perspective from the quotes I usually see on the subject within low-carb discussions.

From Palaeolithic diet (‘‘stone age’’ diet) (http://journals.sfu.ca/coaction/index.php/fnr/article/viewFile/1526/1394)

This is not a low-carb diet
A palaeolithic diet is often high in protein, typically
15/35% of energy (E%), but not necessarily low in
carbohydrate (3). It should not be confused with the
Atkins diet or similar programmes based on the
assumption that a high intake of carbohydrates
promotes insulin resistance and dyslipidaemia. Our
primate ancestors are considered to have been
specialized fruit-eaters for more than 40 million
years (21), and it is unlikely that our metabolism has
lost the capacity to handle high amounts of
carbohydrates in the relatively short periods as
palaeolithic hunters. In Kitava, carbohydrates provided
nearly 70 E%, but overweight was apparently
absent and insulin sensitivity was markedly higher
than in a randomly selected Swedish population

From A brief review of the archaeological evidence for Palaeolithic and Neolithic subsistence (http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v56/n12/full/1601646a.html)


To conclude, it is difficult to accurately determine the nature of past hominid diets, or define the 'Palaeolithic' diet, due to the limitations of the archaeological record, a problem which is amplified in the Palaeolithic period where survival of organic materials is very rare.

We can infer, based on changes in cranial morphology, such as increased gracilisation of the mandible and increase in brain size through time, that there is evidence for an increase in meat consumption in the Homo line through time. However, as this conclusion is based on analogies with living primates it is ambiguous, and the same data has been interpreted as being evidence of increasing use of energy-rich plant foods through time. Other lines of evidence are needed to address this debate, but perhaps the best interpretation of the morphological data is that hominids, and especially modern humans, have been very successful as highly adaptable omnivores, that probably had a significant input of animal products into their diets.

I don't have time to plow through the Pollan properly right now, (bookmarked for later) but in skimming over I notice in his list of "advice" eat in moderation, eat whole foods, and eat like an omnivore, amongst others. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

I find it interesting that in the more balanced and informed views I have seen around, environmental and dietary adaptability and the omnivore nature of humankind through history, does tends to get emphasized as a key attribute.

[fgummett]

I find it interesting that in the more balanced and informed views I have seen around, environmental and dietary adaptability and the omnivore nature of humankind through history, does tends to get emphasized as a key attribute.I agree that humans are well adapted as opportunistic hunter gatherers eating a wide variety of foods including carbohydrates... but that does not necessarily mean that we are well adapted to eat the refined and concentrated carbohydrates found in so much of our processed and packaged foods these days.

As John reminded us, when a wild, naturally fed, animal was hunted, pretty much the entire thing was eaten... I'm not sure that equates to a boneless skinless chicken breast cooked in corn-oil, from a bird that has been bred for such rapid growth its legs go from under it, raised indoors, and fed exclusively on [GMO] soy and/or corn most likely laced with antibiotics.

By the same token what we today call "fruit and vegetables" bears little resemblance to its wild kin... which was only available in season and was invariably much smaller and much less sweet/starchy.

So I will stick by my personal recommendation which is to eat a variety of real whole foods, preferably local and in season, grown/reared on nutrient rich land. This kind of food contains a natural [unadulterated] balance of all the macro and micro nutrients including carbohydrates.

[lorilei]

thanks Subby,
i really enjoyed the perspective of this article...it's some of the things i have said/thought in the past re: interpretation of historical events...things like dementia and cancer..have they really grown or is it we live longer to expereince them...the same with many of the kids i worked with...preemies or even ppl with tbi that never would have survived before, now are medically capable of living....so we see a greater variety of challenges then previously..

[notme]

Great read Subby. I loved the entire article. We can all pick out bits and pieces that support our own belief but, I think that it really supports moderation.

Your right, that this particular discussion does come up on the boards constantly. I think this articulates what many were trying to say, but does it more eloquently.

Thank you.

[fgummett]

Apologies for seeming to take a contrary view because, as I've already stated, I also found the article interesting and appreciate the discussion points that were raised BUT I feel the need to point out that this article is a "blog"... a personal interpretation... not a scientific paper.

Yes it articulates some ideas which come up often here on DF but as I already mentioned, after the author quite correctly points out the reasons why we cannot make assumptions about our ancestors, she then proceeds to do exactly that... in great detail.

Her arguments seem to make sense -- just the thing that the OP pointed out we need to be wary of. But also as pointed out by Subby, that does not automatically mean that what she writes is correct. The Inuit, so beloved of Paleo fantasists, lived a life of such extreme deprivation that it is hard to understand why anyone would make them the poster child of any diet. While most Native American peoples developed agriculture thousands of years before--the Inuit lived isolated in an environment where it is impossible to grow anything. They did what they could to survive but their numbers were small and their health and that of their children not anything you would envy--their real diet included the stomach contents of their prey--the semi digested vegetable matter now digested since the cellulose had been broken down--and entirely raw meat and fat. No Inuit survived to age 7 who was not metabolically able to cope with that diet. Natural selection works that way.my bold emphasis on a questionable absolute statement

I'll agree that the Inuit life may not seem as comfortable to us civilised Southerners, and I doubt it was easy... although almost every one of them that I have met was ready to break into a wide smile at the drop of a hat. And yes it may be attractive to romanticize their life. But the fact remains that they lived up there and survived for at least 5,000 years. Why didn't they move South to "greener pastures". It doesn't snow all year round and early B&W film I have seen shows a life of plenty at times... literally catching 1,000's of fish in stone weirs on a river. And now, as John quite correctly pointed out, since they started eating the way we do, they have some of the highest incidences of obesity, Type 2 D, dental caries, CVD etc...

[Subby]

Apologies for seeming to take a contrary view because, as I've already stated, I also found the article interesting and appreciate the discussion points that were raised BUT I feel the need to point out that this article is a "blog"... a personal interpretation... not a scientific paper.


You already pointed out it is a blog in your first reply on the thread. So what? Your posts are just "posts on a forum", but we're not going to be so pedantic as to keep pointing the obvious out. Nobody said this was a "scientific paper".

That said, she seems a lot more knowledgable about some things than anyone here. Does that mean I would trust everything she says? No. Then again, I don't trust everything ANYONE says, so it's just second nature to me.


Yes it articulates some ideas which come up often here on DF but as I already mentioned, after the author quite correctly points out the reasons why we cannot make assumptions about our ancestors, she then proceeds to do exactly that... in great detail.

Not sure about that. I'd typify it as more making some intelligent observations as to why it was unlikely to be a utopia - in answer to the kinds of arguments she is responding to - arguments along the lines of an idyllic existence of exclusive meat eating. It's worth noting those particular arguments MAY WELL NOT be yours. I have no idea why you seem to be taking it so personally.


Her arguments seem to make sense -- just the thing that the OP pointed out we need to be wary of. But also as pointed out by Subby, that does not automatically mean that what she writes is correct.

No, I didn't point out we need to be wary of arguments that "make sense", there was a very specific context as to what arguments and how they were carried out. I'll thank you not to twist my words.

my bold emphasis on a questionable absolute statement

Actually, it's just a non-referenced statement, it may well have backing and evidence. It might be worth asking.

It seems you can't stand not having the last word on any of these threads. It seems unfortunate that you are ramping up into what seems like a tirade of argument, after seeming to be reasonable and rational in your conduct to this point.

As your post appears to be a major reaction to a simple statement or two of someone who has a slightly different opinion to you, I'll thank you not to continue to be overbearing and argumentative here, and please respect my initial wishes to some degree:


it is not something intended to spark controversy with, although the topic has been shown to be problematic in the past. I do not wish the thread to become the usual bloody battleground between diet extremists on both sides of the fence.

[Grunch]

It's often the case: come up with an argument beyond most people's ken that you should probably not be making in such simplistic terms, and sit back and enjoy the deafening silence

So, who do you think does this on these forums? I know you won't answer or you will give a diplomatic answer, but hope dies last. :D It would be nice if people who can't see through this technique could know whose posts they should be wary of.

[foxl]

You guys .... CHILL.

Jenny Ruhl is a very knowledgeable and insightful diabetic non-medical-professional.

I agree it IS A BLOG and does not merit being picked apart, but has many meritorious ideas.

[PERKDOUG]

Jenny is entitled to her opinion as are we to ours.

Many blogs on the Web state this idea that primitive peoples die out at ages so young that the "diseases of civilization" don't have time to show up. I look at it as a Web Myth. It doesn't jive with stuff that I read. My opinion differs with Jenny's and can be summerized by this link:

Whole Health Source: Mortality and Lifespan of the Inuit (http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/mortality-and-lifespan-of-inuit.html)

There are many written accounts by medical doctors attending the many primitive cultures around the world. They are referenced by Taubes, Cleave and others. None of them, that I have read make note of a lack of "old people". If you can find one, please post it for our inspection.

Sorry to be in disagreement with a figure as Popular as Jenny.

By the way, enjoy Stephans Blog, I do!

[REDLAN]

from Whole Health Source

Excluding infant mortality, about 25% of their population lived past 60. Based on these data, the approximate life expectancy (excluding infant mortality) of this Inuit population was 43.5 years

including infant mortality the average life expectancy of a person in the US in 1901 was 49 years.

in 2000 the average life expectancy (including infant mortality) was around 77 years.

proving Jenny's point that hunter gatherer populations did not live long enough to experience the diseases of old age.

Annoyingly life expectancy data includes infant mortality making direct comparisons rather difficult.

[PERKDOUG]

from Whole Health Source

including infant mortality the average life expectancy of a person in the US in 1901 was 49 years.

in 2000 the average life expectancy (including infant mortality) was around 77 years.

proving Jenny's point that hunter gatherer populations did not live long enough to experience the diseases of old age.

Annoyingly life expectancy data includes infant mortality making direct comparisons rather difficult.

This is not about "average life expectancy" being low. Jenny argues that there are to few "old people" to study to draw conclusions about "old age diseases". We have here the death dates of 1170 people and approximately 100 of them died in their 60's 70's 80's 90's 100 bodies out of 1170 bodies seems like enough to study and learn quite a bit. They did not all die at 43.5 years old which is the "average life expectancy".

[REDLAN]

This is not about "average life expectancy" being low. Jenny argues that there are to few "old people" to study to draw conclusions about "old age diseases". We have here the death dates of 1170 people and approximately 100 of them died in their 60's 70's 80's 90's 100 bodies out of 1170 bodies seems like enough to study and learn quite a bit. They did not all die at 43.5 years old which is the "average life expectancy".

Yes quite...

And what did these 100 long lived inuit die of exactly?

[PERKDOUG]

Yes quite...

And what did these 100 long lived inuit die of exactly?

That is a separate question entirely. I presented the data to simply show that at least in one Inuit case we have some robust data showing that enough of these guys lived to be old enough to study nicely.

As to the cause of death of this sample group, I do not have a clue. But the Inuit have been cared for by many trained Canadian physicians for over a hundred years and they troubled themselves to leave quite nice records of the types of disease and cause of death of the “wild living” Inuits as well as the Inuits that “moved to town” so to speak. Sketches of this are best read in Cleave’s “The Saccharine Disease” and Taubes’ “Good Calorie Bad Calorie” wherein you will find references.

The most interesting conclusions regarding cause of death and their health in general is what diseases they generally did NOT die or suffer from, that is until they “moved to town”.

Just to chronicle a few of the diseases rarely among the “wild living” Inuit I submit this list.

1. Cancer
2. Cardio Vascular disease (except for a high incidence of hemorrhagic stroke).
3. Type 2 diabetes

I will stop there. This does not exhaust the list, just my memory of it.

As an interesting note: The Canadian Physicians published a journal of their work to share ideas. Cancer was so rear among the “wild living” Inuits, that when a case came up it was nearly always written up because it was so unusual that it warranted publication.

You find this pattern from the Arctic to the Tropics.
Primitive Culture = very, very low incidence of the “diseases of civilization”.


Thanks for the discussion!


QUITE AN INTERESTING SUBJECT INDEED!!!

[REDLAN]

I presented the data to simply show that at least in one Inuit case we have some robust data showing that enough of these guys lived to be old enough to study nicely.

I don't agree with your notion of robust. The sample size is actually very small - a couple of hundred individuals is far too small a sample to be able to draw any serious conclusions about cause of death in this group. The second major problem is one of disease classification. The data was collected in the early to mid 19th Century - reconciling 19th C disease classification with modern disease classification is problematic to say the least. A point which Jenny makes in her blog.

One of the issues of the proponents low-carbing is the heavy reliance on anthropological and historical data. Cleaves you mention above completed his paper in 1956 and from what I have read relies entirely on anthropological data.

Controlled clinical trials on modern westernised humans looking at dietary interventions in type 2, could detect no difference between low-carb and low-fat diets. This was the conclusion of the latest Cochrane review, and they were rather surprised by it. Their conclusion was that low-carb diets should be better than low-fat ones, and they cite a study cited by the ADA which showed an improvement in A1c in a mixed study group (therefore could not be included in the review).

The simple fact is that the 2 lifestyle interventions proven to improve symptoms in type 2 are...

1) weight loss
2) exercise

Neither low-fat or low-carb diets are any better than the other in achieving long term weight loss.

If your only proof that low-carb diets are superior is historical anthropological data then it would seem that what you in fact have is a pile of iron pyrite.

[ShottleBop]

The simple facts are:

1. I have lost over 60 pounds.
2. I exercise nearly daily.
3. I have eaten low fat, and I have eaten low carb, and I know how my blood sugars react to carbs.

That's all I need to know.

And Jenny's point is that we don't need to rely on sketchy anthropological reasons to support the assertion that lowering carb intake benefits type 2s, because there is better evidence than that: There is no question that cutting down on carbohydrates makes a huge difference in the health of people with diabetes and pre-diabetes. . . .
. . .

Making inflated arguments, or imposing "truths" that are true only for those of us with disrupted glucose metabolisms on everyone blows up in our face. The main reason so many studies of the effectiveness of the low carbohydrate diet come up with tepid (though positive) results is that they involve groups of people that do not have blood sugar problems, for whom the low carb diet is not any more effective than other diets. Were researchers to evaluate the low carb diet as a treatment only for people with abnormal glucose, not as a panacea for all humans including the majority whose glucose metabolism is normal, we'd end up with much more compelling data.

[PERKDOUG]

REDLAN, In my post, I am making no claims about diet or disease of the Inuit. My argument is narrow and straightforward. My argument is that there was ample "old people" to study. Thats all. This data regarding 1170 deaths shows there were quite a number of individuals that lived into old age among the Inuit at least in this village containing several thousand Inuits. Some nice hard data, not opinion based on theory. The likleyhood that this was true throughout the Arctic is bolstered by the many reports by the Canadian doctors, explorers, and others who have written of these people. I am only trying to debunk this idea that they were all mostly dead by age 50.

How these people died is not the purpose of my post.

[conguitos]

@ShottleBop

Thanks for posting, some time ago, on another forum, a fellow female poster wrote that she wouldn't drink wine because it caused breast cancer.

The study referred by her was one of those studies, where they give a questionnaire to thousands of people, collect the answers and interpret the data.

I only had to look at the statistical data about the incidence of breast cancer in Spain or France, to see that the mentioned study was, in my opinion, rubbish. Spain has one of the lowest incidences of breast cancer in Europe.

BTW, the french, with their fatty, unhealthy diet, are one of the healthiest folks around, according to the WHO statistics. They also smoke a lot, it seems...

Again, thanks for sharing.

[Grunch]

On the Michael Moore interview the other day on Jay Leno, Moore said that the food in Italy was almost all carbs and almost everybody was thin,
so he didn't understand how that was possible. To which Leno replied: "maybe we're eating twice as many carbs?".