Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Porridge is bad for you

  • 24-06-2011 9:24am
    #1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,144 ✭✭✭


    I just found out that porridge is bad for you after learning about the Paleo aka caveman diet. All this time I thought I was being healthy.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet

    Apparently all grains are bad for you as they are a result of the agricultural revolution. So that means porridge, pasta, rice, bread, beans and dairy is bad for you. This makes meal planning quite tricky.


«1

Comments

  • Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 35,943 Mod ✭✭✭✭dr.bollocko


    Moved from AH.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,462 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=252

    you can ask about it here OP

    I wouldn't say it's bad for you, just that excessive carbs: porridge + bread+ pasta etc all in a day is not fantastic

    Irish government food advice is bad for you though, great thread over on that forum about it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,262 ✭✭✭✭jester77


    My mum gave me a pyrex dish of porridge (bowl not big enough) before school every morning and I'm still alive. If you believe everything you read you'll die hungry!


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,027 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Not necessarily S. For a couple of reasons. 1) The Paleo diet isn't very well researched IMH. 2)"cavemen" ate grains. Even Neandertals did. They didn't eat as many as today, that's true, but it was on the menu. 3)(and most important) You're no longer a Paleolithic human. You're not even a mesolithic human and you're barely a neolithic human. We've evolved more in the last 10,000 years than we did in the previous 40,000 as far as gene changes in the population(most look different too. Smaller, more delicate). Most of those changes are in response to novel diets.

    IMHO I would avoid certain foods depending on that genetic heritage though. EG if you're european I'd not touch soya. It's a new protein easily handled by Asians as they've been exposed to it for 2000 years plus. Europeans haven't. I'd avoid gluten if you're Irish. We've one of the highest rates of coeliac disease in Europe. One theory being we relied on potato starch for a few 100 years and many lost the ability to process gluten. If you're Indian avoid milk and milk based products etc. Not hard and fast rules mind, but just a thought.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,952 ✭✭✭rocky


    We had another thread around here (now deleted I believe), entitled "Poridge is fattening!!!1". Draw your own conclusions.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭metamorphosis


    if you're worried about anti nutrient content of the grain, why not ferment them overnight to make them less bad???


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 37,485 Mod ✭✭✭✭Khannie


    "The oldest man in Ireland has died at the age of 106".....

    "attributed his longevity to “porridge and hard work” according to the paper and had continued cycling until the age of 100."

    link

    Ah sure you'll be grand. :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭eco2live


    I think this is true that porridge is not a natural food for humans. Not necessarily bad for you but I am coming more and more around to that way of thinking.

    When you think about it anything that needs to be processed is not a natural food for Humans. That's not to say that we don't get some benefit from these foods. I know I love all kinds of food but I do wonder if it is bad for you? I was in the supermarket this morning and 95% of what was in there is processed.

    Scientists say that they estimate that we only understand 10% of all the vitamins, nutrients and minerals that we get from food. By only eating processed food and taking vitamins we are limiting our exposure to a lot of health benefits. The processing and cooking of food removes important benefits.

    I was reading a book on this recently called the 80/10/10 diet and basically it is a raw fruit with some plants diet. It makes complete sense from an evolutionary perspective. Who would look at an dead animal and think that I would love to munch on that raw. Who would look at a field of grain and say that they would love to tuck into that. We are the only mammals in the world that drink the bodily fluids of other animals and cultivate bacteria in the form of dairy products.

    We need to cook meat to make it palatable. We need to process grains to eat them. Look at the amount to fruit flavors and sugar we add to foods for taste, emulating our natural desire for fruit. We feed animals grains to grow fat quick.

    I know there are a lot of people who will argue that there is too much sugar in a fruit only diet but if you remove all of the processed food it is perfectly healthy.

    Why are we different? I am thinking of giving this a go for health reasons. I am overweight and suffering with depression at the moment and will try anything to give me a boost. Most of the reasons we live longer is that we live in civilization/captivity. Animals in Zoos live up to 30% longer then they do in the wild. Genetics, warmth, modern medicine and healthcare makes a huge difference but you combine good nutrition and all of these things we could really benefit.

    look at this quick vid for example. This girl eats 97% fruit:



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,692 ✭✭✭Jarren


    Everything in moderation OP.and don't believe in everything Internet is telling you,draw you own conclusion, very active people would need some form of carbs to fuel their workouts,for the sedantary people the Carb intake should be minimal IMHO
    The oats are great and it should not be victimized


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,027 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    eco2live wrote: »
    When you think about it anything that needs to be processed is not a natural food for Humans.
    Untrue. Humans have been "processing" food for literally millions of years. Yes TV dinners are utter muck, but it isn't a case that all food processing is bad. Processed tomatoes for example release significantly higher amounts of lycopene than raw. Try eating soya without processing. Ring your friendly neighbourhood GP first though
    cooking of food removes important benefits.
    Incorrect. Overall cooking releases more nutrients that it destroys.
    I was reading a book on this recently called the 80/10/10 diet and basically it is a raw fruit with some plants diet. It makes complete sense from an evolutionary perspective.
    No. It really really doesn't. Not when you actually look at human evolution. We've not been an exclusively(nor anything like it) raw fruit with some plants eating species for millions of years.
    Who would look at an dead animal and think that I would love to munch on that raw.
    Quite a few cultures did and still do. Sushi is one example. Ever eat parma ham/Prosciutto? That's essentially uncooked meat.
    We are the only mammals in the world that drink the bodily fluids of other animals and cultivate bacteria in the form of dairy products.
    Because we can, because we're adaptable and brainy and are very good at discovering novel food sources.
    We need to cook meat to make it palatable.
    No we cook meat to break down said meat and release more nutrients. We have the gut length of an omnivore with a carnivore leaning, but we've lost the strong stomach acids of the carnivore. Cooking does what the acid did. In the same way that stone tools gave us external "teeth". It's a form of predigestion. There's nothing "unnatural" about it. We've also lost the longer gut of the near herbivore. Next time you see a gorilla on the telly have a look at their body shape. They've got big bellies. Basically a very long gut is usually required to break down plant material and get the benefit from it. Even then gorillas often eat their own poop to fire it through the digestor again. :eek::D Chimps are similar though it's harder to see their bellies(and they eat far more meat)
    Look at the amount to fruit flavors and sugar we add to foods for taste, emulating our natural desire for fruit.
    Our natural desire for a sugar hit. A rarity in our wild state in the past, so now in a time of plenty we still seek it out. It's got little to do with any natural desire for fruit. For a start outside of very very few environments on earth we couldnt be year round fruit eaters. Simply because there wouldnt be enough in season.
    We feed animals grains to grow fat quick.
    This I agree with you 100%. It is daft. You have people convinced that "corn fed" is a byword for health. I've heard even qualified nutritionists come out with this. It really isn't. Cattle don't eat corn by choice. Neither do chickens. The corn industry in the US would feed it to fish if they could.
    I know there are a lot of people who will argue that there is too much sugar in a fruit only diet but if you remove all of the processed food it is perfectly healthy.
    Still too much sugar and the worst sugar of all fructose(depending on the fruit). Still a can of coke etc has a lot more fructose.
    look at this quick vid for example. This girl eats 97% fruit:
    Oh yea one reason she would lose weight. Plus how crap was her diet beforehand? Even these oddball diets can be better than a maccydees diet.

    jarecki1976 sums it up IMHO everything in moderation.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Cavemen lived on average to their 20's, 30's max. Our average lifespan is 70-80. Porridge is good for you. It fills you up in the morning, and gives you enough energy to make it to lunch.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,027 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Cavemen lived on average to their 20's, 30's max.
    Again not quite true D, if a very common misconception. Modern hunter gatherers are observed to live to their 70's. Yes they have significantly more childhood mortality, but if they hit 20, their chances of seeing into their 60's and beyond is very close to ours in the west. They're a lot healthier too by all the markers at each life stage. "Cavemen" of the past varied. Neandertals were elderly, toothless and arthritic by 40, if they lived that long. Our species started to live longer than that for no obvious reason around 40,000 years BP. They like their modern counterparts were more likely to die of trauma and/or infection. Certainly not lifestyle driven conditions like today, but even so judging by the modern ones 60's and beyond wouldn't have been that rare(and the fossil record does show this. Most young ones are trauma related deaths).

    Closer to today? 2000 years ago in the christian gospels Jesus is quoted as saying 3 score and ten(70 years of age) is the average span of a life(and goes on to say 4 score(80)for stronger people). His audience didn't think this so odd, which they would have if this misconception had them dropping like flies in their 20's. And his audience were dirt poor, half starved peasant farmers at the very bottom of the social heap where medicine was herbs and a poultice if you were lucky.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Oh come on, the Bible also stated that Noah lived until he was 950, and that there was a talking snake. It hardly constitutes as a scientific text. Show me evidence that anyone 2000 years ago lived up to their 70s and 80s.

    People get on just fine with porridge. To suggest that it's bad for you in some way is pure paranoia. The human body evolves, like anything else and adjusts itself to cope with varied diets. I'm all for eating healthy - but this is pure and utter poppycock.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭eco2live


    You do make some valid points Wibbs.

    I enjoy a peppered steak with garlic potatoes and veg followed by a chocolate desert with freshly prepared ice cream as much as the next person(and more then most). I suppose that balance is the key. A little bit of everything?? It does seem that this is a bit of a cop out.

    We deffo did not start out as natural carnivores but I agree that cooking meat removes most of the problems with eating meat and is a method of predigestion. That is a fair point. The increasing import of meat and the ways they are processed is starting to turn me off it the more I look into it.

    Fruit, veg, fish and unprocessed foods everyone agrees are good for you. Most of what the average Irish person consumes is processed to death. Just look at the supermarket.

    I agree that cooking food has its benefits when eating other food rather then fruit but that is my point. Cooking veg really helps you to consume it and get great nutrition from it that you otherwise would not get. Anyone fancy a raw turnip?

    If you eat what is natural for humans then there is no need to process it to make it consumable or palatable. I am addicted to processed food so I am looking for a change and this might be the way for me. I might try it for a bit and see how I get on. Can't be worse then my diet at the mo and the book makes a lot of sense.

    It makes no sense that we require foods that are not natural to humans. Enjoyable as they are


  • Registered Users Posts: 243 ✭✭Ouchette


    eco2live wrote: »

    If you eat what is natural for humans then there is no need to process it to make it consumable or palatable [...]
    It makes no sense that we require foods that are not natural to humans. Enjoyable as they are

    Processing foods to some degree (cooking, drying, fermenting etc.) IS natural to humans. We've been using tools and making fires since before we were even modern homosapiens iirc, so we have evolved to eat these foods. Or been able to evolve the way we have because of eating them, perhaps.

    To argue that using fire to cook things isn't natural and must be bad for you makes no more sense than saying that wearing clothes and using fires or heating to keep warm in the winter must be bad for you.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,027 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Oh come on, the Bible also stated that Noah lived until he was 950, and that there was a talking snake. It hardly constitutes as a scientific text. Show me evidence that anyone 2000 years ago lived up to their 70s and 80s.
    It doesn't have to establish itself as a scientific text. The close to contemporary Greeks and Romans who read the text didn't take issue with the ages given. Which they would have if he had suggested people living to 500. OK famous examples around the time? Claudius a sickly roman lived to his mid 60's. Augustus was 75, Tiberius was 78. Romans didn't think 70 particularly old. Further back? Aristotle was mid 60s, Plato was 80 and Socrates was 71 and he was poisoned. Closer in time? Michelangelo was 88, as was Titian, Tintoretto was late 70's. Basically before the industrial revolution and outside of successive European plagues people who survived growing up were not dying in their 20's. It's an incorrect if very common misconception.
    People get on just fine with porridge. To suggest that it's bad for you in some way is pure paranoia. The human body evolves, like anything else and adjusts itself to cope with varied diets. I'm all for eating healthy - but this is pure and utter poppycock.
    I agree. Even more so with the evolve part. Porridge is fine, probably one of the healthiest grains. Unless you're a ceoliac, which is common enough in Ireland.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Wibbs wrote: »
    It doesn't have to establish itself as a scientific text. The close to contemporary Greeks and Romans who read the text didn't take issue with the ages given. Which they would have if he had suggested people living to 500. OK famous examples around the time? Claudius a sickly roman lived to his mid 60's. Augustus was 75, Tiberius was 78. Romans didn't think 70 particularly old. Further back? Aristotle was mid 60s, Plato was 80 and Socrates was 71 and he was poisoned. Closer in time? Michelangelo was 88, as was Titian, Tintoretto was late 70's. Basically before the industrial revolution and outside of successive European plagues people who survived growing up were not dying in their 20's. It's an incorrect if very common misconception.

    Fair enough, I stand corrected - RE: Socrates and the lads. But I still would never use the bible as a reference. Your examples however are perfectly fine.
    Wibbs wrote: »
    I agree. Even more so with the evolve part. Porridge is fine, probably one of the healthiest grains. Unless you're a ceoliac, which is common enough in Ireland.

    Well, I'm intolerant to gluten (not coeliac though) - But I believe that people should be looking at the cause of intolerances to certain grains, rather than blaming the grains themselves. Antibiotics for example.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 33 curlywurly26


    Still better than coco pops, ricicles, special k, lucky charms, wheetos, ........


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭eco2live


    Ouchette wrote: »
    Processing foods to some degree (cooking, drying, fermenting etc.) IS natural to humans. We've been using tools and making fires since before we were even modern homosapiens iirc, so we have evolved to eat these foods. Or been able to evolve the way we have because of eating them, perhaps.

    To argue that using fire to cook things isn't natural and must be bad for you makes no more sense than saying that wearing clothes and using fires or heating to keep warm in the winter must be bad for you.

    That's a fair point.

    I know what you are saying as for example people in northern Europe have adapted to drink milk when southern Europe and other parts of the world have problems digesting animal milk. Humans have adapted and evolved to eating all sorts of stuff safely with the correct preparation. That is not to say that in the long run they would not be better off eating natural unprocessed foods more suitable for their own digestion.

    Don't get me wrong, I am not convinced that diets that are too exclusive are good for you. We are so successful as a species because of this diversity and our ability to adapt to eating whatever is available in our local environment. There are parts of the world where people do not have a choice in what they eat.

    There is merit in cutting out processed foods and difficult to digest foods as much as possible but I concede that I would be better off eating a variety of healthy foods that are prepared in the correct way rather then restricting my diet to one food group.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,571 ✭✭✭newmug


    Totally agree with milk not being good for you;)


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyyZqCl8kXQ


  • Advertisement
  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    newmug wrote: »
    Totally agree with milk not being good for you;)


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyyZqCl8kXQ

    Milk is not bad for you, milk from poorly treated cows that are overdosed with antibiotics is bad for you.

    Porridge is fine, ferment it or soak it though. That's what your grandparents did and for very good reason, it makes it so much more nutritious.

    I agree with Wibbs, although IMO I think the paleo diet (whatever that is anymore - my definition would be no grains, vegetable oil, processed sugar or soy) is a good starting point to figure out what is best for you, you can add in more foods and see how you tolerate them.

    We're learning a lot about how epigenetics can influence our diet. We don't have all the answers yet, but Wibbs' run down is a good starting point.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭Ice.


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Processed tomatoes for example release significantly higher amounts of lycopene than raw.

    Lycopene does indeed become more bioavailable when cooked, but it's often ignored that for every nutrient that becomes more available, dozens are being degraded. Also, there's currently no way to confirm these extra available nutrients are actually doing us any good once they've been cooked.
    Wibbs wrote: »
    Overall cooking releases more nutrients that it destroys.

    This is untrue. Cooking denatures food and changes its nutrient value and we have yet to discover all the nutrients in food. Many vitamins are water-soluble, and a significant percent can be lost with cooking, especially overcooking.
    Wibbs wrote: »
    Because we can, because we're adaptable and brainy and are very good at discovering novel food sources.

    Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. Humans can choose anything they want to eat but they can't choose the consequences of doing so. Unfortunately, not many people understand this.

    Wibbs wrote: »
    No we cook meat to break down said meat and release more nutrients.

    No. Meat is cooked to make it more palatable. Anything else is a side effect.

    Wibbs wrote: »
    Even then gorillas often eat their own poop to fire it through the digestor again. :eek::D

    As do quite a number of raw paleos :D:D

    Wibbs wrote: »
    Still too much sugar and the worst sugar of all fructose(depending on the fruit). Still a can of coke etc has a lot more fructose.

    What qualifies as too much sugar?

    Wibbs wrote: »
    jarecki1976 sums it up IMHO everything in moderation.

    That may be acceptable to you but I don't want moderate health, I want excellent health.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,027 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Ice. wrote: »
    Lycopene does indeed become more bioavailable when cooked, but it's often ignored that for every nutrient that becomes more available, dozens are being degraded. Also, there's currently no way to confirm these extra available nutrients are actually doing us any good once they've been cooked./This is untrue. Cooking denatures food and changes its nutrient value and we have yet to discover all the nutrients in food. Many vitamins are water-soluble, and a significant percent can be lost with cooking, especially overcooking.
    Nope, 'fraid not. Cooking reduces toxins, kills parasites, breaks open cell walls, both plant and animal and predigests the food in a way our bodies can no longer do. I am NOT suggesting that all foods should be cooked, nor as you point out overcooked(especially overcooked). I am suggesting that this notion that humans evolved/do better on 100% raw food diets is scientifically incorrect and more based on personal preference and outlook. Nothing wrong with that at all BTW Ice. It just grinds my gears when I see the incorrect attribution of our evolution as examples and confirmation of that.

    Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. Humans can choose anything they want to eat but they can't choose the consequences of doing so. Unfortunately, not many people understand this.
    I agree to some degree. However if we hadn't done those somethings, we'd still be a small brained big bellied proto hominid hanging out in the horn of Africa barely seeing 20 years old. The difference was cooking. Probably the biggest single early influence on our species becoming what it is today. Walking upright? Nope we and others had been doing that for millions of years. Bigger brains? Yes, but others had similar sized brains at the time. Big brains are expensive and require protein and lots of it. Especially when growing. Lots more than scavenging raw meat and veggie sources could ever provide. We are the only animal that externalised it's own evolution. We needed more protein, but had evolved as veggie based great apes with a small meat sideplate. Our guts and teeth weren't designed as carnivores. No worries sez we. We'll make carnivore teeth in the form of tools. Our guts weren't designed as pure carnivores. Again no worries we'll predigest externally with fire and cooking(and sterilise the meat too). The result was that our teeth got smaller and smaller, as did our gut length and strength of stomach acid(as did our herbivore adaptations like the appendix). It also gave us one of the biggest gifts of all. Time. Finding and eating enough raw food takes time. Look at gorillas. Foraging and chewing from dawn to dusk.

    No. Meat is cooked to make it more palatable. Anything else is a side effect.
    Again incorrect, or moreso coming from a subjective angle. Ask why does cooking make meat more palatable? Why do we eat raw fish as sushi, but not raw beef before it is processed in some way? Why do the Masai happily drink blood, but will cook meat they've hunted? Palatable doesn't come into it. What does come into it is how easily digested and bioavailable the nutrients are in a food item for the human digestion system. Palatable is the side effect. Raw fish is soft. The tissues are generally less tough and require less chewing and slicing and digestion. Blood a la the Masai is again highly bioavailable(ask Dracula:D) A side of beef or antelope isn't. Cooking renders it so. Look at tubers. One of the biggest dietary components of humans world wide. Most tubers are tough going, many are poisonous and give up their food value with a struggle. Take the humble carrot. Sure you can eat them raw. Like them myself, but light cooking makes them softer and also breaks down the cell walls releasing more nutrients(especially carotenoids). Juicing, so fash with healthy types today does the same. Makes the nutrients more bioavailable(and doesn't destroy the water soluable goodies as much as cooking). If our ancestors could have juiced meat I'm sure they would have.

    What qualifies as too much sugar?
    It would depend on ones physical output. Even so most modern humans in a modern society have pretty low physical outputs. Including gym bunnies. The average hunter gatherer has a much higher daily physical output. Their bones reflect this. Higher density with a tendency to very strong muscle attachments. Paleo and mesolithic Europeans have bone values approaching modern olympic athletes. Now although we have evolved more in the last 10,000 years than previously as far as food adaptations go, high sugar/carb intake is still relatively "new" to us as a species and we've yet to evolve to catch up(we will). Hunter gatherers diets tend to be very low in simple carbs. Their environment is low in them. Honey and fruit are seasonal treats. It's why simple carbs are so "addictive" and tasty for us today. We sought them out because they were so rare and gave "cheap" energy. Climb into a time machine and go back 40,000 years and open a sweet shop and you'll be a cowrie shell billionaire overnight. :D Even early (and later) farmers had less access to basic carbs and had a high physical output than the majority today. Now these sugars are everywhere. Ally that to a far more sedentary lifestyle even compared to a 100 years ago and that mix is dangerous. Even healthy foods like fruits can be unhealthy if you up your intake. The majority would agree that a can of coke is very unhealthy, yet some will happily juice high fructose fruits a few times a day and chug em back. Yes there is a magnitude more nutrients and value in the fruit, but the fructose dose may be high.

    That may be acceptable to you but I don't want moderate health, I want excellent health.
    Then high value superfoods(including some cooked) with calorie restriction is the way to go.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭Ice.


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Nope, 'fraid not. Cooking reduces toxins, kills parasites, breaks open cell walls, both plant and animal and predigests the food in a way our bodies can no longer do.

    When you cook food proteins coagulate, causing the denaturing of the protein molecular structure leading to deficiency of some essential amino acids, carbohydrates caramelize, overly heated fats generate numerous carcinogens including acrolein, nitrosamines, hydrocarbons, and benzopyrene, natural fibres break down and countless vitamins and minerals are destroyed.

    Wibbs wrote: »
    The difference was cooking. Probably the biggest single early influence on our species becoming what it is today.

    Not quite. It was the availability of a dense source of calories that made the difference.

    Wibbs wrote: »
    Big brains are expensive and require protein and lots of it. Especially when growing.

    Big brains require sugar to fuel them. The primary source of energy in the human brain is Glucose. Sugar burns cleaner and much more efficiently than any other fuel source.

    Wibbs wrote: »
    Our guts and teeth weren't designed as carnivores.

    Correct. The only thing our canine teeth are good for is tearing through the cellophane wrap on the chicken breasts hunted down in the local supermarket! :D:D

    Wibbs wrote: »
    No worries sez we. We'll make carnivore teeth in the form of tools. Our guts weren't designed as pure carnivores. Again no worries we'll predigest externally with fire and cooking(and sterilise the meat too).

    So what you're saying is that we're faux carnivores?
    Wibbs wrote: »
    It also gave us one of the biggest gifts of all. Time. Finding and eating enough raw food takes time. Look at gorillas. Foraging and chewing from dawn to dusk.

    Yes, because hunting an animal is not time consuming at all. Man was often the hunted and not the hunter in those days. Last time I checked you didn't have to sneak up on a strawberry. :D

    Wibbs wrote: »
    Ask why does cooking make meat more palatable?

    Because it's not part of our biological diet so therefore we have to season it, spice it, cook it, cover it in sauces and eat it with vegetables in order to disguise the taste.
    Wibbs wrote: »
    Why do we eat raw fish as sushi, but not raw beef before it is processed in some way?

    Tradition. Like a lot of things.

    Wibbs wrote: »
    Why do the Masai happily drink blood, but will cook meat they've hunted? Palatable doesn't come into it. What does come into it is how easily digested and bioavailable the nutrients are in a food item for the human digestion system. Palatable is the side effect. Raw fish is soft. The tissues are generally less tough and require less chewing and slicing and digestion. Blood a la the Masai is again highly bioavailable(ask Dracula:D) A side of beef or antelope isn't.

    Why do the Massai have such short life spans? Could it perhaps be the result of an unatural diet?

    Wibbs wrote: »
    Juicing, so fash with healthy types today does the same. Makes the nutrients more bioavailable(and doesn't destroy the water soluable goodies as much as cooking). If our ancestors could have juiced meat I'm sure they would have.

    Juicing also usually removes the fibre from fruits and vegetables. This can cause its own problems.

    Wibbs wrote: »
    It would depend on ones physical output. Even so most modern humans in a modern society have pretty low physical outputs. Including gym bunnies. The average hunter gatherer has a much higher daily physical output. Their bones reflect this. Higher density with a tendency to very strong muscle attachments. Paleo and mesolithic Europeans have bone values approaching modern olympic athletes. Now although we have evolved more in the last 10,000 years than previously as far as food adaptations go, high sugar/carb intake is still relatively "new" to us as a species and we've yet to evolve to catch up(we will). Hunter gatherers diets tend to be very low in simple carbs. Their environment is low in them. Honey and fruit are seasonal treats. It's why simple carbs are so "addictive" and tasty for us today. We sought them out because they were so rare and gave "cheap" energy. Climb into a time machine and go back 40,000 years and open a sweet shop and you'll be a cowrie shell billionaire overnight. :D Even early (and later) farmers had less access to basic carbs and had a high physical output than the majority today. Now these sugars are everywhere. Ally that to a far more sedentary lifestyle even compared to a 100 years ago and that mix is dangerous. Even healthy foods like fruits can be unhealthy if you up your intake. The majority would agree that a can of coke is very unhealthy, yet some will happily juice high fructose fruits a few times a day and chug em back. Yes there is a magnitude more nutrients and value in the fruit, but the fructose dose may be high.

    You still didn't answer my question. How much sugar is too much?

    Wibbs wrote: »
    Then high value superfoods(including some cooked) with calorie restriction is the way to go.

    Calorie restriction is a disordered eating mindset.


  • Hosted Moderators Posts: 11,362 ✭✭✭✭Scarinae


    Ice. wrote: »
    Why do the Massai have such short life spans? Could it perhaps be the result of an unatural diet?

    I'd put their shorter life spans down to lack of sanitation, and poor access to clean water and medical care, and diseases like malaria and syphilis. A lot of their children die before the age of five, which pulls the average down. Calculating the life span among tribal people is not an exact science anyway, many of the older Masai do not know their age and do not have birth certificates. So, it is too simplistic to correlate life span with diet.

    In fact, they have a very low incidence of heart disease, which you might expect from their milk and meat diet (though this is probably more to do with their exercise levels, though the low salt may help too)


  • Registered Users Posts: 125 ✭✭Frei


    Basically, people in the Western world obsess too much about what they eat. Instead of trying to eat more fruit and veg, along with whole grains and fibre, they have to come up with elaborate diets that claim to make you "live longer" or "eat the way the caveman did" We exist in a world of extremes. Some people eat too much processed foodstuffs, whilst others swear by not cooking anything and eating everything raw. It's ridiculous. Eating fairly healthily is simple and you do not need to buy books to tell you how.

    Saying something like "porridge is bad for you" is along the same lines as every other contradictory findings that come out every few months about food. People break it down to the most simplistic words and then put people in to a panic, that they are not "eating right" or they have to cut this or that out.

    It's obvious what is wrong with our diet, it's not that complicated. I will continue to eat porridge, as it fills me up, keeps me going, has plenty of fibre and is made in Ireland. If it was good enough for my grandparents, it's good enough for me.


    And seriously those raw food people are just ridiculous. Only in the Western world would you come across such neurosis about diet. In a far flung place, some people can't even get enough protein to keep themselves going, whilst others are wondering where they can find organic quinoa.


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    The multi-quoting, my eyes!

    It's making the thread impossible to read.


  • Registered Users Posts: 480 ✭✭not even wrong


    Ice. wrote: »
    When you cook food proteins coagulate, causing the denaturing of the protein molecular structure leading to deficiency of some essential amino acids, carbohydrates caramelize, overly heated fats generate numerous carcinogens including acrolein, nitrosamines, hydrocarbons, and benzopyrene, natural fibres break down and countless vitamins and minerals are destroyed.
    This statement intrigues me. Please explain how cooking destroys dietary minerals (chemical elements).

    (You must have one hell of an oven!)


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,027 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    The multi-quoting, my eyes!

    It's making the thread impossible to read.
    Sorry :o last time I swear..
    Ice. wrote: »
    When you cook food proteins coagulate, causing the denaturing of the protein molecular structure leading to deficiency of some essential amino acids, carbohydrates caramelize, overly heated fats generate numerous carcinogens including acrolein, nitrosamines, hydrocarbons, and benzopyrene, natural fibres break down and countless vitamins and minerals are destroyed.
    As not even wrong correctly points out, how do you break down a mineral in an oven or over a fire? Answer. You don't. Unless you cook a steak in the core of Vesuvius. Even then. This is a common notion oft trotted out as fact when it's clearly nonsense. Vit K, B6 and B12 riboflavin, folic acid and niacin are not heat sensitive. A C D and E are somewhat heat sensitive, but aren't destroyed, merely reduced and dependent on length of cooking time. Even B1 which is very sensitive to heating is still not destroyed in cooking, but reduced. I dunno about you but I'm not in the habit of eating burnt food. BTW research what happens to meat in the gut processes of a pure carnivore. You'll find quite a number of parallels to the first part of what you describe. Like I said external predigestion.
    Not quite. It was the availability of a dense source of calories that made the difference.
    You're not really getting this. How did we make those calories available? Eating raw fruit and veg? Nope. First it was from animal sources. Marrow, likely from scavenged kills. The very first clearly hominid tool, the Olduvai chopper tool is specifically designed to break open bone for the calorie and nutrient dense marrow. Then it was cooked animal sources. The increase in brain size only really got going with the taming of fire and cooking. Add in cooking of tubers and available calorie density went through the roof. Try eating a raw sweet potato.
    Big brains require sugar to fuel them. The primary source of energy in the human brain is Glucose. Sugar burns cleaner and much more efficiently than any other fuel source
    I never said it didn't. I did say however it requires protein to grow them in the first place. Protein we would never have been able to exploit without fire and cooking.
    Correct. The only thing our canine teeth are good for is tearing through the cellophane wrap on the chicken breasts hunted down in the local supermarket! :D:D
    True. :D
    So what you're saying is that we're faux carnivores?
    Nope. We're actual carnivores(omnivores) with external adaptations to achieve this status. And have been for over a million years.
    Yes, because hunting an animal is not time consuming at all
    Actually it's not when one views the ratio of calorie gain over time. Another common misconception about hunter gatherers. They spend less time collecting calories and have a wider range of foods than the farmers that replaced them. You can even tell archaeologically if a grave is a hunter or an early farmer. The farmers tend to be shorter, weaker and younger when they die.
    Man was often the hunted and not the hunter in those days.
    Nope. Not unless you're going way back. From late erectus, defo with Neanderthals and moderns, we were the apex predator. Any area we show up in the megafauna took a big hit in numbers, including the predators. Sure the odd dire wolf or sabre toothed cat got lucky, but the odds were so much more with us.
    Last time I checked you didn't have to sneak up on a strawberry. :D
    True :), but they're seasonal, often spread out and require more effort to collect them. Also require more expertise in one way, because you have to know which ones you can eat and how fresh they are. Women usually did most of the gathering. It's one theory why women have a better sense of colour and smell and taste than men. Hunters didn't have to know how fresh the food article was, it was fresh as fresh can be until they shot it.
    Because it's not part of our biological diet so therefore we have to season it, spice it, cook it, cover it in sauces and eat it with vegetables in order to disguise the taste
    This is quite simply incorrect. Scientifically and historically incorrect. We are and always have been(as modern humans) omnivores where a wide range of animal foods made up a goodly part of our diet. Not burgers, no, but animal products. This is a fact. Anything else is a personal preference or ideology(which is fine BTW). OK look at allergies. In very basic terms an over reaction of our immune systems to foreign mostly proteins. The majority of common food allergies are to plant based proteins. The exceptions being lactose and seafood allergies. Very few allergic responses to red meat. Meat chock full of protein. I mean actual medical allergies, not some gimp charlatan holding a vial over your head and diagnosing an "intolerance" with a crystal.
    Tradition. Like a lot of things.
    No, basic biology and biochemistry. Most fish(and shellfish) is easier to consume and digest than most raw meats from land animals(though can be more prone to toxins and parasites).
    Why do the Massai have such short life spans? Could it perhaps be the result of an unatural diet?
    Nope, more down to the result of a crap incredibly monotonous diet. Their diet is as "natural" as eating TV dinners all the time(may even get more good from the latter). They're not that old a culture. Late to the game lifestock farmers. They're not hunter gatherers as a group.
    You still didn't answer my question. How much sugar is too much?
    Nothing in the form of added sugars(though glocose at a push). A restriction in high sugar content fruits and only in season. Ditto(though less so) for berries. An individuals requirement for carbs is too variable to give a one off figure that fits all. One thing is certain however and that is in every study of extreme old age in humans one of the biggest commonalities is the very long liveds ability to regulate insulin. It would make sense to reduce insulin resistance in ones lifestyle choices as much as possible, depending on the individual.
    Calorie restriction is a disordered eating mindset.
    Scientifically it's not a "mindset", it's an experimentally prven fact. In every single animal tested it reduces oxidative stress, manages and improves insulin response and increases longevity. In human trials it has shown many of these effects. In primate studies it really has so humans should be broadly similar. It's the only provable method outside of gene manipulation whereby longevity can be clearly and dramatically increased. I don't do it as it would be very restrictive(no pun) and I'd not recommend it except to those of a strong and stable will, but if they ever get a longevity pill it'll likely mimic it's effects.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Advertisement
  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    Ok, now I'm gonna break my own damn rule, but only cos you write such long dense posts.:p

    Wibbs wrote: »

    You're not really getting this.

    And they never will, been on this merrygoround a few times. Ice is a raw vegan, so you know, a diet that has never supported any human population in history. I don't think the anthropological angle is a match for a dietary religion.
    Wibbs wrote: »
    The increase in brain size only really got going with the taming of fire and cooking. Add in cooking of tubers and available calorie density went through the roof.

    That's Wrangham's hypothesis, but it's built on sparse evidence. The rapid expansion in our brain's along with commensurate gut shrinkage occured 1.8m years ago, but the earliest hearths are from all from less than 250,000 years ago (there's one site in Keyna from 1.6m but that's still very speculative as regards any cooking occurring there). Not saying it's not possible, but the evidence leans more towards the move from plant to calorie dense animal foods, ie the expensive tissue hypothesis. You need a massive boost in DHA to support a big brain, you don't get that from starch.

    But even then we've done a lot of evolving in the past 250,000 years. We're more adapted to cooked foods than raw. And although I think raw food is a worth-while contribution to a diet, the bulk of calories should be cooked unless you like to chew all day long like our more herbivorous cousins.:)
    Wibbs wrote: »
    Women usually did most of the gathering. It's one theory why women have a better sense of colour and smell and taste than men. Hunters didn't have to know how fresh the food article was, it was fresh as fresh can be until they shot it.

    Maybe it's because I'm a woman but the image of man the hunter and woman the leaf and berry gatherer always irks me.:D Women actually gathered a large amount of protein in the form of shellfish, lizards, insects and grubs. According to the latest research, megafaunal extinctions are actually more likely to have been climate related. Humans are efficient scavengers and opportunists, we were never top of the food chain, you can't be when things still eat you! It's a romantic notion that has persisted despite evidence to the contrary.
    Wibbs wrote: »
    OK look at allergies. In very basic terms an over reaction of our immune systems to foreign mostly proteins. The majority of common food allergies are to plant based proteins. The exceptions being lactose and seafood allergies. Very few allergic responses to red meat. Meat chock full of protein. I mean actual medical allergies, not some gimp charlatan holding a vial over your head and diagnosing an "intolerance" with a crystal.

    Although yes, animal protein is of significantly higher bioavailiability, the allergy argument doesn't really prove anything, prevalance of allergies to a protein is no indication of it's suitability in the diet. I used to think so, but the pathology of allergies is more down to an auto-immune response occurring during the presence of an otherwise innocent protein, than anything intrinsically wrong with the food.

    Wibbs wrote: »
    Scientifically it's not a "mindset", it's an experimentally prven fact. In every single animal tested it reduces oxidative stress, manages and improves insulin response and increases longevity. In human trials it has shown many of these effects. In primate studies it really has so humans should be broadly similar. It's the only provable method outside of gene manipulation whereby longevity can be clearly and dramatically increased. I don't do it as it would be very restrictive(no pun) and I'd not recommend it except to those of a strong and stable will, but if they ever get a longevity pill it'll likely mimic it's effects.

    It only seems to increase longevity if the mice are calorie restricted from birth, if you calorie restrict them half way through their life the benefits drop dramatically. Also, human studies have been short term, lots of things that cause markers to improve short term can turn pear shaped in a few years.

    Initial improvement in health = what you take out of your diet
    Long term maintennance of health = what you put in to your diet

    Plus have you seen any long term CRONies? They look like hell:

    http://www.calorierestriction.org/cr4_dvds


Advertisement