longest living cultures + optimal diet discussion
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...
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...
No.huntress wrote:Lifestyle, family surroundings, STRESS!
Are you implying that people fail a certain diet due to the facts stated above?
That other factors of health, not just diet, can contribute to a healthy lifestyle regardless of eating the healthiest diet in the world.
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.I'm particularly interested in that you mentioned stress. Please elaborate on why you think stress can cause one to fail in a diet.
Diet is the foundation for a healthy life, but there are other factors that can lead to cracks in it.
That is true too.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.
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.
Yes, this belongs in the discussion of what is harmful to us or not.Guest wrote:Let's not forget the concept of raw versus cooked.
I guess because it's quite difficult to base it on the archeological findings. Food doesn't keep that long either...Guest wrote:Wai never explains what we really ate in those earlier times as she comes from the viewpoint of 'perfect' health.
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.
No problems, it was funny in itself, and I wasn't offended.huntress wrote:And yeah...I'm sorry giving such a haughty laugh too...incase you're offended by it Oscar ma dearie.
Oscar,
They taste good
Easy to come by- ehh, maybe... everywhere a fruit tree?
And Beef. Or, Horse or Dog depending on where you live
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.I guess because it's quite difficult to base it on the archeological findings.
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.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.
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.Since we cannot digest plants, eating plants is not logical.
Fruits eaten- seeds spread IS 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).
They taste good
Easy to come by- ehh, maybe... everywhere a fruit tree?
You forgot Table Sugar.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.
And Beef. Or, Horse or Dog depending on where you live
Well, post some undeniable proof about Homo Erectus diet findings then.avalon wrote:Oscar,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.I guess because it's quite difficult to base it on the archeological findings.
Okay, so tell me, how did/do we digest the raw cellulose?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.
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.
Oscar:
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.
I'll get right on thatWell, post some undeniable proof about Homo Erectus diet findings then.
First for levity:avalon wrote:Okay, so tell me, how did/do we digest the raw cellulose?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.
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.
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.johndela1 wrote:How do you know this for sure? It might be, or it might not be. Or is there proof?...the fruit we see today is not the same as the fruit of the paleo times.
http://www.chooseorganics.com/organicar ... rition.htm
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.
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.
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.Oscar wrote:How do you know this for sure? It might be, or it might not be. Or is there proof?johndela1 wrote:...the fruit we see today is not the same as the fruit of the paleo times.
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.
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.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
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?
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?