longest living cultures + optimal diet discussion

[avalon]

Oscar,
Quote:
I guess because it's quite difficult to base it on the archeological findings.

Avalon:
I don't think this is so. It seems clear to me that there have and continue to be ample studys on Man's Paleo beginings. Such as examing ancient bones and teeth usining chemical and sophisticated microscopic tests.

Well, post some undeniable proof about Homo Erectus diet findings then. Smile

A question I must ask is do you mean only Homo erectus? Or could this include H.hibilis also?

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1514032.htm

according to this article H. erectus was more likely a meat and tuber eater.

[Oscar]

From the Discovery page (hardly scientific):

"Both of the species [H. Erectus and H. Habilis] would probably have focused on high energy-yield, easy-to-consume foods, such as soft fruits when they could get them,"

There is still a lot of guesswork going on of course, and the results (from the scientific article abstract) don't show more than:

...but that H. erectus [...] ate, at least occasionally, more brittle or tough items than other fossil hominins studied.

Let's also not forget that Homo Erectus has been around for about 600 thousand years...plus they lived all over Africa. A lot of possibilities...

...even if we try to live true to our natural heritage/potential- that it won't be easy or even possible because the food source has been altered.

I think that for a possible optimal diet we have to look in the present. We can base it on history, but we have to use the foods which are available to us now. (I wouldn't want to start eating insects... )

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

I would think everything we could possibly consider to eat raw, so all of the above, except maybe green beans (not sure if they could be eaten raw or not).

[avalon]

Green "string" beans can be eaten raw...and partially digested.

[Oscar]

Let me redefine "plants", to make it more general: plants are multicellular land plants, or embryophytes. They get their energy from photosynthesis, and have cells with cell walls composed of cellulose. These incluse trees, ferns, flowers, mosses, and others.

I found this about raw beans:

Before they are eaten, the raw bean seeds should be boiled for at least ten minutes to degrade a toxic compound - the lectin phytohaemagglutinin - found in the bean which would otherwise cause severe gastric upset.

Can't really imagine our ancestors ate raw beans, if they had fruits to eat. Even if we dutch have a saying: hunger makes raw beans sweet...

[avalon]

Oscar,

avalon wrote:

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

I would think everything we could possibly consider to eat raw, so all of the above, except maybe green beans (not sure if they could be eaten raw or not).

This does not apply to 'string' beans as there is very little toxin. More likely, lima beans, butter beans and others.

Can't really imagine our ancestors ate raw beans, if they had fruits to eat. Even if we dutch have a saying: hunger makes raw beans sweet...

Please! Our ancestors where ever they were, weren't spoiled like us having food at our finger tips 24/7. And by this I mean the fortunate who aren't starving around the world. Do you really think there were fruit trees every ten or 50ft? Take away our supermarkets and you better start walking. Fruit must be eaten, seeds carried/blown by wind or carried by rain/flooding- even pooped...then the tree must grow and bear fruit all of which takes, time.

Who tried the first Green Bean? Who killed and ate the first Seal? Who looked at mushrooms and said "I wonder if we can eat those, white, space 'alien' thingys?" and then did. And Asparagus!

I agree, we can't digest a tree

[Oscar]

Our ancestors where ever they were, weren't spoiled like us having food at our finger tips 24/7.

LOL - glad you're here to tell us how the world looked like a million years ago. Seriously though, I think they ate whatever was in season, and yes, fruits might well have been there in abundance. My parents have only one plum tree, but when it yields its fruits, there's lots of them.

Who tried the first Green Bean? Who killed and ate the first Seal? Who looked at mushrooms and said "I wonder if we can eat those, white, space 'alien' thingys?" and then did. And Asparagus!

Who tried to eat deadly Nightshade, and died? Anyway, I'm sure they tried, and figured out what was good to eat and what not. Being close to nature, they'd probably trust their bodies to let them know. And pass it on to their children.
As far as I know, there weren't any seals in Africa...

[avalon]

There were too seals in Africa!

[johndela1]

But what is your point, John? Since we know what fruits nowadays contain, we can take that into account.

I mean if you have to eat more sugar (calories) to get the same vitamins you will have exess calories in your diet. I think we agree if you eat more calories than you burn you get fat.

[Wintran]

This is an interesting discussion!

I mean if you have to eat more sugar (calories) to get the same vitamins you will have exess calories in your diet.

I don't think we need to overeat on fruit to get the necessary vitamins. I think we get more than enough if we just eat the right combinations of fruits and fruit juices, and listen to our bodies' energy demands.

I think we agree if you eat more calories than you burn you get fat.

I totally agree, but don't we see the same effect if we overeat on protein-rich food, as redundant protein is converted to calories as well?

[Oscar]

I second that.

[johndela1]

This is an interesting discussion!

I mean if you have to eat more sugar (calories) to get the same vitamins you will have exess calories in your diet.

I don't think we need to overeat on fruit to get the necessary vitamins. I think we get more than enough if we just eat the right combinations of fruits and fruit juices, and listen to our bodies' energy demands.

So you guys are saying that you agree that fruit (lets also consider all food in general) today might have less nutrition. Do we agree on this? If so, (I'm repeating myself...) wouldn't we need to eat more that at one time when it had more nutrition? If so, there would be extra calories, right?

I think we agree if you eat more calories than you burn you get fat.

I totally agree, but don't we see the same effect if we overeat on protein-rich food, as redundant protein is converted to calories as well?

I agree, I never said otherwise.

[avalon]

You are right, but they'll find a way to trick you... look, they're there... watching your every move... and the little dog too!

[Wintran]

So you guys are saying that you agree that fruit (lets also consider all food in general) today might have less nutrition. Do we agree on this? If so, (I'm repeating myself...) wouldn't we need to eat more that at one time when it had more nutrition? If so, there would be extra calories, right?

Ah, I see what you mean. I don't know anything about the evolution of fruits so you may be totally right there. If that's the case, you're right that we have to eat more fruits today to get the same vitamin (and mineral?) contents as before. If we still decide to avoid eating more fruits than we feel for, as that will probably cause overeating and excessive calorie intake, the big question is: "Would we still get enough nutrition to survive?". According to Wai, combining various fruits with egg yolks and raw fish, you get more than enough of these. She also believes (if I remember correctly) that today's official vitamin and mineral recommendations are way too high, as they don't take into account our individual differences and that our bodies are capable of producing most vitamins on its own.

Anyway, it's an interesting discussion if raw protein could replace carbohydrates as a more stable source of energy. I believe Oscar is right in that digesting protein and converting it to sugar is a much more energy-demanding proccess than converting carbohydrates, and that it may be more ineffective, but I'll have to think some more about this...

[Oscar]

So you guys are saying that you agree that fruit (lets also consider all food in general) today might have less nutrition. Do we agree on this? If so, (I'm repeating myself...) wouldn't we need to eat more that at one time when it had more nutrition? If so, there would be extra calories, right?

- I agree that today's food might be less nutricious than in the past.
- we do have regularly updated databases which state the exact contents of today's foods
- the nutrient calculator on this site is based on such databases

So if you calorie-wise eat what you body needs, then enter that into the calculator, you can check if you get enough nutrients or not.

This is aside from the question whether the recommended daily intake is correct or not.

[johndela1]

She also believes (if I remember correctly) that today's official vitamin and mineral recommendations are way too high, as they don't take into account our individual differences and that our bodies are capable of producing most vitamins on its own.

It doesn't matter what the charts say. I wasn't refering to meeting our needs based on what the charts say. I mean if what ever our needs really our are not met by eating over sugared foods than we would need to eat extra calories to get what we really need.

Anyway, it's an interesting discussion if raw protein could replace carbohydrates as a more stable source of energy. I believe Oscar is right in that digesting protein and converting it to sugar is a much more energy-demanding proccess than converting carbohydrates, and that it may be more ineffective, but I'll have to think some more about this...

I dont' think many people suggest that protein is should replace carbs. I think if you lower your carbs you should make up for it by raising fat not protein. Fat is a better fuel than protein. many people think that a low carb diet means high protein. It doesn't have to be that way. I am leaning toward a diet of low carb, high fat. I seem to feel better eating this way.


I don't know of any natural diets (for humans) that are high protein. In fact there is a thing called rabit starvation. From what I have read, if you have too much protein and not enough fat you can't digeset the protein or something like that.
You can read more about it here if you want: http://www.medbio.info/Horn/Time%201-2/ ... nsson1.htm