There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Porridge is bad for you
-
24-06-2011 10:24amI 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.2
Comments
-
Moved from AH.0
-
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.0 -
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!0
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,174 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 59102
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.
0 -
We had another thread around here (now deleted I believe), entitled "Poridge is fattening!!!1". Draw your own conclusions.0
-
Advertisement
-
if you're worried about anti nutrient content of the grain, why not ferment them overnight to make them less bad???0
-
"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.0 -
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:
0 -
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 victimized0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,174 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 59102
When you think about it anything that needs to be processed is not a natural food for Humans.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.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.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.look at this quick vid for example. This girl eats 97% fruit:
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.
0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,174 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 59102
Cavemen lived on average to their 20's, 30's max.
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.
0 -
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.0 -
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 are0 -
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.0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,174 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 59102
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.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.
0 -
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.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.0 -
Still better than coco pops, ricicles, special k, lucky charms, wheetos, ........0
-
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.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
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.0 -
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.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.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.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.Even then gorillas often eat their own poop to fire it through the digestor again. :eek::D
As do quite a number of raw paleosStill 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?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.0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,174 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 59102
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.
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.No. Meat is cooked to make it more palatable. Anything else is a side effect.What qualifies as too much sugar?That may be acceptable to you but I don't want moderate health, I want excellent health.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.
0 -
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.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.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.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!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?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.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.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.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?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.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. 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?Then high value superfoods(including some cooked) with calorie restriction is the way to go.
Calorie restriction is a disordered eating mindset.0 -
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)0 -
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.0 -
The multi-quoting, my eyes!
It's making the thread impossible to read.0 -
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.
(You must have one hell of an oven!)0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,174 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 59102
El_Dangeroso wrote: »The multi-quoting, my eyes!
It's making the thread impossible to read.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.Not quite. It was the availability of a dense source of calories that made the difference.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 sourceCorrect. 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!So what you're saying is that we're faux carnivores?Yes, because hunting an animal is not time consuming at allMan 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.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 tasteTradition. Like a lot of things.Why do the Massai have such short life spans? Could it perhaps be the result of an unatural diet?You still didn't answer my question. How much sugar is too much?Calorie restriction is a disordered eating mindset.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.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Ok, now I'm gonna break my own damn rule, but only cos you write such long dense posts.:p
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.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.:)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.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.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_dvds0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,174 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 59102
El_Dangeroso wrote: »Ok, now I'm gonna break my own damn rule, but only cos you write such long dense posts.:pAnd 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.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.:)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 grubsAccording 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.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.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
fasting in humans and found an overall positive response regardless of the age of the individal. Which would make sense given our history. Being hungry the odd time is likely good for you kinda thing.
I swear I'll not multi quote again :oRejoice 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.
0 -
Do you have a link to anything about isotope ratios showing significant starch consumption from c.1.8m years ago? I always thought this kind of evidence was debatable unless it's something with a unique carbon signature like corn? I wish I had more time to read up on this stuff, but I settle for frequenting anthropology forums and having my ass handed to me in debates.
I don't doubt raw veganism in the short-term causes people to improve their health. But then again so does any variety of extreme diet, including zero carb, which is almost the exactly the opposite in terms of content.
I'd attribute this to the elimination of the most potentially problematic foods. So the success of a LFRV diet is no more attributable to the lack of animal foods as the zero carb is to the lack of plants.
Another factor is intermittent protein restriction causes favourable improvements on health, long term protein restriction comes with it's own set of issues in my own experience, notably a drastic drop in mood and loss of muscle.
Longer term, 5 years later maybe less, problems happen. Teeth fall out, weight starts to be regained, depression and other issues creep in. Either way the inevitable deficiencies of either approach become apparent. At this point the belief that this is The Best Way To Eat (TM) is so ingrained that the person has an almost Stockholm-syndrome like dedication to continuing the diet and that the reason it's not working is that it's not strict enough.
Overall the most depressing thing is that we have yet to discover the diet that allows for consistent and permanent weight loss. Until we're stuck with evangelists (like myself lol!) trying to convert people round to our way of thinking.0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,174 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 59102
El_Dangeroso wrote: »Do you have a link to anything about isotope ratios showing significant starch consumption from c.1.8m years ago?I don't doubt raw veganism in the short-term causes people to improve their health. But then again so does any variety of extreme diet, including zero carb, which is almost the exactly the opposite in terms of content.
I'd attribute this to the elimination of the most potentially problematic foods. So the success of a LFRV diet is no more attributable to the lack of animal foods as the zero carb is to the lack of plants.
Another factor is intermittent protein restriction causes favourable improvements on health, long term protein restriction comes with it's own set of issues in my own experience, notably a drastic drop in mood and loss of muscle.
Longer term, 5 years later maybe less, problems happen. Teeth fall out, weight starts to be regained, depression and other issues creep in. Either way the inevitable deficiencies of either approach become apparent. At this point the belief that this is The Best Way To Eat (TM) is so ingrained that the person has an almost Stockholm-syndrome like dedication to continuing the diet and that the reason it's not working is that it's not strict enough.Overall the most depressing thing is that we have yet to discover the diet that allows for consistent and permanent weight loss. Until we're stuck with evangelists (like myself lol!) trying to convert people round to our way of thinking.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.
0 -
@ Wibbs & El_Dangeroso:
Just a quick note of thanks to you both for an excellent debate, this is exactly the sort of thing that makes Boards.ie so great.
Carry on...0 -
-
Advertisement
-
El_Dangeroso wrote: »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.
Studies have suggested early Europeans were the highest level predators around
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16034.full0 -
I reckon we have, just it requires consistent and permanent application. I would also personally believe that any "perfect diet" can't be applied worldwide to all populations. I ain't talking about blood group diets (completely daft IMHO). I'm talking about deep and shallow genetic heritage that might come into it. What may be tip top as a dietary component for one population may play havoc with another. EG Soya for Asians OK, may not be so good for Europeans and Africans and others though. Gluten and lactose would be other obvious ones with local adaptations. Applying a one size fits all probably won't work worldwide.
Absolutely, there's some evidence coming out that this is modulated in part by our gut bacteria, really cool study recently coming out about how Japanese people have different bacteria that make them uniquely suited to their diet.
In my own experience I eat rice, but if rice is my main starch I start to get blood sugar issues. But if I replace it with an equal amount of potato my blood sugar is rock steady.
But to be honest I'd just love to see people going back to using traditional fats, there's no human on the planet adapted to the amount of veg oil we in the west eat. Those of African descent seem particularly vunerable, it seems to make them far more susceptible to diabetes.0 -
--Kaiser-- wrote: »Studies have suggested early Europeans were the highest level predators around
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16034.full
We got our fair share of protein for sure, but we would have still been predated upon, I dunno if that precludes you from being an apex predator or not.0 -
El_Dangeroso wrote: »We got our fair share of protein for sure, but we would have still been predated upon, I dunno if that precludes you from being an apex predator or not.
As Wibbs states above, wolves are not unknown to eat other wolves. Not only did we kill and eat more animals than wolves, we domesticated them!0 -
--Kaiser-- wrote: »As Wibbs states above, wolves are not unknown to eat other wolves. Not only did we kill and eat more animals than wolves, we domesticated them!
Or they domesticated us.:)0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,174 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 59102
El_Dangeroso wrote: »Absolutely, there's some evidence coming out that this is modulated in part by our gut bacteria, really cool study recently coming out about how Japanese people have different bacteria that make them uniquely suited to their diet.In my own experience I eat rice, but if rice is my main starch I start to get blood sugar issues. But if I replace it with an equal amount of potato my blood sugar is rock steadyBut to be honest I'd just love to see people going back to using traditional fats, there's no human on the planet adapted to the amount of veg oil we in the west eat. Those of African descent seem particularly vunerable, it seems to make them far more susceptible to diabetes.
Aside People are avoiding the sun more and more, yet are happy to chug down vit C(with added sorbitol) for its apparently good effects in the body, yet ignore Vit D which IIRC is involved in more gene expression than any other micro nutrient /Aside.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.
0 -
Aside People are avoiding the sun more and more, yet are happy to chug down vit C(with added sorbitol) for its apparently good effects in the body, yet ignore Vit D which IIRC is involved in more gene expression than any other micro nutrient /Aside.
Interesting thing on vitamin d, African people seem to not be as affected by D deficiency as caucasians, at least where stroke and heart disease and stroke are concerned.
Africans who move north do have much higher rates of autism though.
I think C is important, but probably not for the reasons we think, it does bugger all against viruses, but it's really important for skin and teeth.
Vitamin D is the nutrient du jour alright, I wouldn't go supplementing without adequate A, K2 and magnesium though. That's the problem with most trials in this area, they don't acknowledge that nutrients work in concert.0 -
-
OP, I tried raw for a couple or years and did not work for me. It's an awful lot of hassle to gather and eat the amount of fruit that you need to keep you going calorie-wise and then you're hungry again very quickly as a result of the sugar highs and lows. Like for a raw-foodist you have to sit down in the morning and eat from half a kilo to a kilo of fruit in one sitting! That's a lot of chewing and a lot of time and also i was going to the shop every second day cos I was going through fruit and veg so quickly and it is highly perisable. There is also all the drawbacks that the others have mention and personally I do not think raw-food is healthy long-term. An one more thing, that girl in the video looks fairly anorexic in quite a few of the images.0
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,174 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 59102
El_Dangeroso wrote: »Interesting thing on vitamin d, African people seem to not be as affected by D deficiency as caucasians, at least where stroke and heart disease and stroke are concerned.+1OP, I tried raw for a couple or years and did not work for me. It's an awful lot of hassle to gather and eat the amount of fruit that you need to keep you going calorie-wise and then you're hungry again very quickly as a result of the sugar highs and lows. Like for a raw-foodist you have to sit down in the morning and eat from half a kilo to a kilo of fruit in one sitting! That's a lot of chewing and a lot of time and also i was going to the shop every second day cos I was going through fruit and veg so quickly and it is highly perisable. There is also all the drawbacks that the others have mention and personally I do not think raw-food is healthy long-term.
That said one of our differences is that we have the brains to collect a huge range of plant foods today and in the past. High value plant foods with it and as well we can extract the most bang for our buck out of them(EG cooking tubers and roasting nuts). Plus most of all we have incredible levels of dietary adaptability built in. We're like bipedal primate rats. You could have twins where one is a dyed in the wool vegan and the other is more a meat, fish and eggs person and so long as both were varied and high in quality, both would be healthy.
However I do think raw food diets as a palative and a treatment for some of the illnesses of the chronically well in the west are likely fruitful(no pun). Temporary raw food diets do seem to make good changes in the overweight, and cardiovascularly* compromised. As short bursts of pure protein with very low carbs may reset the sugar/insulin mechanism to healthy baseline. Ditto for short supervised fasts(the odd day I mean).
Prolly isn't but should be a word.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.
0 -
Wibbs, you'd love this book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1597260916/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=trevresa-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399349&creativeASIN=1597260916
It's hints at how humans and plants co-evolved and how different ethnicities developed different tolerances to plant toxins.
Corn is a cool example of this, it experienced a genetic mutation that would be catastrophic but for the fact that it made it far more attractive to cultivate by humans, Omnivore's Dilemma goes into this at length.0 -
El_Dangeroso wrote: »Interesting thing on vitamin d, African people seem to not be as affected by D deficiency as caucasians, at least where stroke and heart disease and stroke are concerned.
Africans who move north do have much higher rates of autism though.
Very interesting. I often wondered why peopel of South Asian ethnicity in Britain are regularly linked with rickets but blacks(who you would initially suspect would have it worse as they have much darker skin) not as much. Thought it was down to conservative Muslim/Hindu style clothing0 -
-
The human body is amazing. It has a way of getting what it needs even from restrictive diets.
I remember reading this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1465244/Boy-thrives-on-jam-sandwich-diet.html
Never eat anything but jam sandwiches and crap and had correct protein and nutrition. Not suggesting it is the way to go
Still its interesting and proves that you could thrive on a fruit and veg diet.0 -
Advertisement