longest living cultures + optimal diet discussion

moved from 1 up by mods, once they've proved to contain interesting discussions
Guest
https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw

Post by Guest »

Let's not forget the concept of raw versus cooked.
I would definitely agree that raw protein is better than cooked.
Perhaps high raw protein diets are good and they are ancestors did eat them.
In that case acne and cellulite would be a natural result from such high protein levels. Maybe that is a natural way of life.
Wai never explains what we really ate in those earlier times as she comes from the viewpoint of 'perfect' health.
We have used our intelligence to understand what is optimal for us and accordingly we can follow a diet that is healthy.

Also, we need to make a distinction between what are ancestors ate and all the different diets that they ate due to traveling to new lands and such.
If humans came from one common line of descent then their diet would be what is best for them.
I would think so...
Guest

Post by Guest »

huntress wrote:
Lifestyle, family surroundings, STRESS!

Are you implying that people fail a certain diet due to the facts stated above?
No.
That other factors of health, not just diet, can contribute to a healthy lifestyle regardless of eating the healthiest diet in the world.
I'm particularly interested in that you mentioned stress. Please elaborate on why you think stress can cause one to fail in a diet.
I meant it terms of that even if you eat super healthy, stress and other lifestyle factors can still be a burden to a healthy life.
Diet is the foundation for a healthy life, but there are other factors that can lead to cracks in it.
Because to my understanding, stress is a result of poor chemical imbalance in a brain and depleted nutrients in the body. Therefore, if we do feed ourselves with foods that are high in nutritional quality, there is an unlikely possibility that we will get stressed out.
That is true too.
But external forces can always have an affect.
I stayed up late studying for exams and didn't get the best nights sleep, and I felt it too and my face got some spots.
I also noticed how amazing my focus ability was. I studied and studied and studied with so much energy.
I was also stressing over other things such as situations with people and so on.
I still felt good but stress did have an affect on me.
Ask any mom about stress. It is a factor that is all about control and when you get good at it, how to decrease it in the future.
But this is part of life too.
huntress
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue 13 Dec 2005 01:01

Post by huntress »

Thanks uh...Guest. nick is that you?


And yeah...I'm sorry giving such a haughty laugh too...incase you're offended by it Oscar ma dearie. I'm currently stressed,feeling hopeless and hormonal. I needed a release. Please understand.
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

Guest wrote:Let's not forget the concept of raw versus cooked.
Yes, this belongs in the discussion of what is harmful to us or not.
Guest wrote:Wai never explains what we really ate in those earlier times as she comes from the viewpoint of 'perfect' health.
I guess because it's quite difficult to base it on the archeological findings. Food doesn't keep that long either... ;)
We can theorize however, like everyone else writing about this subject.

The first difficulty is to determine how far back in time we want to go, to find the natural diet. Then we need to find our natural habitat, to be able to know which kind of food was available to us. Third, morphology, resulting in certain food preferences.

Currently it is believed, that Homo Erectus was the direct ancestor of Homo Sapiens, and that the Neanderthals were not. Homo Erectus, their subspecies/cousins Homo Ergaster, and their ancestors Homo Habilis, started out living mainly in Africa, which suggests a (sub-)tropical habitat.

What would have been easily available in such a habitat? Plants, insects, small animals. Hunting big animals would require weapons and a group effort, which isn't that easy, not to mention dangerous.

Looking at the human morphology, our digestive system isn't purely carnivore, nor herbivore. Since we cannot digest plants, eating plants is not logical. Fruits however, are meant to be eaten by mammals, to spread the seeds. They taste good, are easy to come by, and are easily digested. Our fats and protein would've come from insects and small animals (eg rodents).

Everything raw, of course.

This could be the natural diet. I'm not saying this is definitely true, it is a theory.

Now, if we would want to convert this natural diet to a possible optimal diet in present times, we just replace the insects and small animals with olive oil, egg yolks, and fish.
huntress wrote:And yeah...I'm sorry giving such a haughty laugh too...incase you're offended by it Oscar ma dearie.
No problems, it was funny in itself, and I wasn't offended. ;)
avalon
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu 23 Feb 2006 17:51

Post by avalon »

Oscar,
I guess because it's quite difficult to base it on the archeological findings.
I don't think this is so. It seems clear to me that there have and continue to be ample studys on Man's Paleo beginings. Such as examing ancient bones and teeth usining chemical and sophisticated microscopic tests.
What would have been easily available in such a habitat? Plants, insects, small animals. Hunting big animals would require weapons and a group effort, which isn't that easy, not to mention dangerous.
This could sound official if it also wasn't funny. I'm sorry- isn't easy and dangerous is funny. It's funny. Cute funny. You're so cute, Oscar.
Since we cannot digest plants, eating plants is not logical.
Spock, This is untrue. We can and do digest plants. Okay, maybe not 'all' of the plant- there's the fiber to consider, but plants are still eaten today raw and cooked. Whether we should or not is the real story.
Fruits however, are meant to be eaten by mammals, to spread the seeds. They taste good, are easy to come by, and are easily digested. Our fats and protein would've come from insects and small animals (eg rodents).
Fruits eaten- seeds spread IS logical.
They taste good :D
Easy to come by- ehh, maybe... everywhere a fruit tree?
Now, if we would want to convert this natural diet to a possible optimal diet in present times, we just replace the insects and small animals with olive oil, egg yolks, and fish.
You forgot Table Sugar.
And Beef. Or, Horse or Dog depending on where you live :)
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

avalon wrote:Oscar,
I guess because it's quite difficult to base it on the archeological findings.
I don't think this is so. It seems clear to me that there have and continue to be ample studys on Man's Paleo beginings. Such as examing ancient bones and teeth usining chemical and sophisticated microscopic tests.
Well, post some undeniable proof about Homo Erectus diet findings then. :)
avalon wrote:We can and do digest plants. Okay, maybe not 'all' of the plant- there's the fiber to consider, but plants are still eaten today raw and cooked.
Okay, so tell me, how did/do we digest the raw cellulose?
johndela1
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by johndela1 »

Keep in mind that even if is determined that our original diet was fruit based, the fruit we see today is not the same as the fruit of the paleo times. I can see how far we have changed dogs for example. From wolf to chiwawa to great dane, etc. I think that it is possilbe that the fuit of today has gone through just as extreme changes to be like candy.
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

johndela1 wrote:...the fruit we see today is not the same as the fruit of the paleo times.
How do you know this for sure? It might be, or it might not be. Or is there proof?
avalon
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu 23 Feb 2006 17:51

Post by avalon »

Oscar:
Well, post some undeniable proof about Homo Erectus diet findings then.
I'll get right on that :)
avalon wrote:
We can and do digest plants. Okay, maybe not 'all' of the plant- there's the fiber to consider, but plants are still eaten today raw and cooked.
Okay, so tell me, how did/do we digest the raw cellulose?
First for levity:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A673508

There are too many to list, in favor of Vegetable fiber:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fruits.html
http://www.vegetarian-nutrition.info/vn ... ancer.html
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09333.html

Your comment, "since we cannot digest plants" is incorrect. If you had written 'we cannot digest cellulose in plants' as I even mentioned above I wouldn't have called you on this. There are many nutrients in plants (which plants did you mean, by the way) besides that which get passed through the body.

When eating plants or vegetables- let's even say in paleo times-raw- nutrients are absorbed and the remaining fiber is sent out into the merry world. Wais argument and I believe a valid one is we are not 'cows' not built to eat vegetables. With that take in mind, I believe they may not be necessary as she states. So I may, be in agreement to a certain degree, because I am still learning. Perhaps we don't break down the plants nearly as well as cows do, but there is too much evidence to support their place on the table. Maybe not your table, or even mine- unless I'm munching.

However, this doesn't mean plants cannot be digested.
avalon
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu 23 Feb 2006 17:51

Post by avalon »

johndela1 wrote:
...the fruit we see today is not the same as the fruit of the paleo times.
How do you know this for sure? It might be, or it might not be. Or is there proof?
From what I've read John is right. I've seen countless articles as the one below on how things have changed in just 50 years. Fruits are sweeter but less nutritious. Unless of course we're talking organic, which also depends on soil quality.

http://www.chooseorganics.com/organicar ... rition.htm
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

The nutrients in plants are in their cells, which are surrounded by cellulose. As you agree, we cannot digest cellulose, ergo, we cannot use the nutrients. I think we can actually digest a small part of the fiber, but we don't need that anyway. So what is left to digest? Nothing. My remark that we cannot digest plants might not technically be 100% correct, but I'll settle for 99%. ;)

About the fruit, it seems that, if anything, fruit used to be more nutritious than it is now (aside from vitamin C in oranges). But as long as we're getting enough nutrients (as per nutrient calculator), it's doesn't change anything, I'd say.
johndela1
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by johndela1 »

Oscar wrote:
johndela1 wrote:...the fruit we see today is not the same as the fruit of the paleo times.
How do you know this for sure? It might be, or it might not be. Or is there proof?
Have you ever seen wild apples? They are like crab apples. Not very sweet at all. My friend is really into growing fruits. he has many trees. I trust him when he tells me this. Pick a fruit and look into it. There is no natural Fugi Apple. It was breed for certain criteria.

Almonds used to be extremely bitter, like the seed from a appricot. An almond is very much like an apricot and/or peach. But the modern seeds are not bitter at all, they where selectevly bred to be not bitter.


I'll look into it some more, though.
johndela1
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by johndela1 »

avalon wrote:Fruits are sweeter but less nutritious. Unless of course we're talking organic, which also depends on soil quality.

http://www.chooseorganics.com/organicar ... rition.htm
Even organic are in this boat. If a specifc fruit is bred for sweetness and the seeds are collected, they will grow sweet fruit trees, even if they are grown organically.
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

But what is your point, John? Since we know what fruits nowadays contain, we can take that into account.
avalon
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu 23 Feb 2006 17:51

Post by avalon »

How about he was saying ( see if I get this right John) that it's a shame- that even if we try to live true to our natural heritage/potential- that it won't be easy or even possible because the food source has been altered.

It's a sad and somewhat scarey commentary.

Oscar,
Wnat do you mean, rather what is your definition of a 'plant'? What do you include in your definition? Vegetables? Carrots? Spinach? Romaine? Green Beans?
Post Reply