Re: Enig and early humans (was: High Cholesterol - (Transfats)

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: Francesca Skelton

Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 1:16 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Enig and early humans (was: High Cholesterol - (Transfats)

What our ancestors ate is not necessarily the best for health and longevity.Our ancestors ate whatever they could easily kill and/or find to eat, notbecause it was "good" for them.

------There is a saying- You are what you eat. I think we would be more accurate if we said - You are what your ancestors ate. Our ancestor's bodies developed over millions of years eating available foods that, as you say, they could easily kill or find to eat. These foods included wild game, fish, and nuts that contained omega-3 fatty acids. It is not magic or happenstance that Omega-3 fatty acids are good for us. They are good for us because our ancestors ate them for millions of years. Millions of years allowed us to adapt to the Omega-3s that were in the available foods. If they were not perfect for us in the beginning, we evolved so that omega-3s eventually became "good" for us. Some of these changes certainly occurred prior to our becoming recognizably human. A number of us would like to have a long life, but I doubt that any of us will live long enough for us to adapt to the recently available trans fats.-----

Our goal here is to maximize health and longevity, which is not the same thingas mimicking what our ancestors ate.

--------It is my opinion that mimicking what our ancestors ate is exactly what will maximize health and longevity. What is wrong with eating green leaves-vegetables, fruit-berries, nuts, eggs, and meat-fish. Recent foods that we have not adapted to, include: grains of any sort including whole grains, rice, and corn,- beans,- dairy products,- and sugar. We can adapt to these foods, but it may take a few hundred thousand or possibly a million years to do so. I think it might be a good idea to get the nutrition and (restricted) calories we need by eating the foods to which our bodies have already adapted. Why make eating difficult? One of my favorite lines is-- If a person from 50,000 years ago would not recognize an item as food, don't eat it. ---Robin ---

complete original message below

From: Francesca Skelton

Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 1:16 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Enig and early humans (was: High Cholesterol - (Transfats)

No serious CRONIE eats pastry, french fries or fried foods. At least not onany kind of regular basis.What our ancestors ate is not necessarily the best for health and longevity.Our ancestors ate whatever they could easily kill and/or find to eat, notbecause it was "good" for them. Most of them died very young by today'sstandards, even discounting those that died at the hands of predators. Ourgoal here is to maximize health and longevity, which is not the same thingas mimicking what our ancestors ate. Enig has been mentioned before. And although she might have some validideas, she is not of the stature of Walford, Pritikin, Ornish, Weindrich,etc. and other highly esteemed sources whose integrity can not be calledinto question.on 5/13/2004 11:42 AM, citpeks at citpeks@... wrote:> It may seem so harmless to eat puff pastry, french fries, cookies, or> fried foods prepared with partially hydrogenated oils, but the> abnormally shaped trans-fats will eventually have a cumulative> destructive effect on your cellular structures and they double your> chance of a heart attack. Our bodies have not evolved to metabolize> trans fats.> > It turns out that the natural fats that served our ancestors so well> are still the best for our body. Did you know that the composition> of lard is almost identical to human depot fat? Also, G. Enig,> an expert on fats, has documented that the saturated fats in coconut> oil are not "artery clogging" monsters, but instead may support the> immune system.

[Guest guest]

If you can cite credible sources (not Enig ) such as from mainstream scientists as I've previously mentioned (Walford, etc) or from any credible scientific source that LARD is a health food, I might consider agreeing with you.

Most of the other foods (green leaves-vegetables, fruit-berries, nuts, eggs, and meat-fish) are beneficial. (Meat should be eaten sparingly because of the high calories). But you changed the entire thread. Lard was under discussion, not those other foods.

..

Beans and legumes are extremely healthy and I ask for credible evidence to the contrary. Whole grains have been cited in many studies on this board as adding years to one's life. Our file: " The Benefits of Grains " under CRON SCIENCE includes these posts:

/message/9160

/message/7110

/message/5883

This paper posted by Al Pater discusses the reduced risk of chronic disease when eating whole grains:

/message/5017

This includes some (not all) past posts on the benefits of grains.

on 5/14/2004 12:32 AM, Robin at Robin@... wrote:

> --------It is my opinion that mimicking what our ancestors ate is exactly what

> will maximize health and longevity. What is wrong with eating green

> leaves-vegetables, fruit-berries, nuts, eggs, and meat-fish. Recent foods

> that we have not adapted to, include: grains of any sort including whole

> grains, rice, and corn,- beans,- dairy products,- and sugar

[Guest guest]

>> These foods included wild game, fish, and nuts that contained omega-3 fatty

acids.

1) Most nuts, except for the walnut are not good sources of Omega 3s.

2) yes, the ancestreal diet may teach us alot about what humans may be best

adapted for however, there is a huge difference between what they actually ate

(or could of eaten) and what some people who are promoting that concept today

are telling us to eat. Wild game was extemely low in fat and saturated fat and

have a different faaty acid profile than meat today, even most wild meat. They

also ate most of it, if not all of it, raw. Back than, there were no

extracted oils, butters, margarines, etc. Coconut oil, if available, was rare

and in only certain areas of the world. In nature, nuts are only available on a

limited seasonal basis. Fish was only available to those near the coastal

regions and waters. So, the HG diet was mostly plants with very lean " land "

animal protein. And, there activity level was much higher than a typical

American. So, this emphasis on butter, coconut oil, cooked meat from these

people is not accurate.

>>It is not magic or happenstance that Omega-3 fatty acids are good for us.

They are good for us because our ancestors ate them for millions of years.

They are good for us because we cant make them, hence them name " essential " and

because they are an important part of most all cell membranes, brain tissue, etc

not because we " adapted " to them. They also are needed as they are converted

into EPA and DHA, 2 other longchain fatty acids that are vital to health.

However, the amount that we need, and the amount that was in a typical HG diet,

is not alot. While there is no consensus yet on exactly how much people need,

the ranges are from .5% -6% of calories. On a 1500 calorie diet, that amounts

to about 0.8 -10 grams. Also remember, there are two of them, omega 6 and

omega 3 and the recommended ration is around 2:1 of omega 6: Omega 3. So that

would be the needed Omega 3 amount at .3 - 3.3 grams per day.

1 oz of walnuts is about 1.9 grams of Omega 3s, 1 oz Flax seed is about 5.5

grams of OMega 3s and Green leafy vegetables average about .1-.2 grams of omega

3s per 3.5 oz.

So, the needed amount is not only small, but easy to obtain,

Millions of years allowed us to adapt to the Omega-3s that were in the

available foods. If they were not perfect for us in the beginning, we evolved

so that omega-3s eventually became " good " for us. Some of these changes

certainly occurred prior to our becoming recognizably human. A number of us

would like to have a long life, but I doubt that any of us will live long enough

for us to adapt to the recently available trans fats.

>> Recent foods that we have not adapted to, include: grains of any sort

including whole grains, rice, and corn,- beans,- .... We can adapt to these

foods, but it may take a few hundred thousand or possibly a million years to do

so.

I wonder what those long-lived, healthy and lean, centarians on the island of

Okinawa would think of this comment.

>>>One of my favorite lines is-- If a person from 50,000 years ago would not

recognize an item as food, don't eat it.

They were also scavengers as food was not as abundant nor abundantly available,

and probably resorted to eating lots of things you would find repulsive today.

My cousin likes to say, " you know why HGs didnt eat potato chips? Cause they

werent available, If they were, they would have loved them!! "

jeff

[Guest guest]

Hi Robin,

My immediate reaction is that a person from 50,000 yrs ago or even perhaps even a hundred years ago would not find what he wants in the store. It is known that humans have been eating grains for a very long time, and I think probably longer. It simply doesn't make sense to me that I can know or guess what they evolved from just by examining cut bones. Rotted veggies a million years old do not leave a lot of clues - just my guess. But experts argue whether man ate meat or veggies. I'll bet they ate whatever they could find.

The easiest would be eggs in ground nests, small animals, seeds, fruit, mostly things that don't move too fast. That is in the beginning, when fierce warriors with spears weren't yet developed. So it depends on how far back you go for the analysis.

I envision, the guys going out in the morning to fight some fierce beast only to find at the end of the day nothing to eat. returning to camp finding mama has made supper from scrounged seeds, fruit, nuts, and a rat or two. And I can tell you I've been hunting, and I know that small animals can run very fast and have very sharp teeth. One small tooth from a canine can rip your hand open to the point of stitches immediately. I just don't see ancient man messing with them.

But all that is not the scientific evidence we have today when lifespan has been extended by a large factor. We know things not to eat and we know what amino acids, fatty acids, carbos are in foods. All we have to do is find the optimum. When we find the exact mix to maximize lifespan and resist disease, it may look like stuff we don't want to eat at all.

We're not working the extend life form 30 yrs to 77 yrs anymore. We're trying to extend lifespan from 77 to 120 yrs. I don't think that will be done with "common" foods of our "ancestors".

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Robin

Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 11:32 PM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Enig and early humans (was: High Cholesterol - (Transfats)

--------It is my opinion that mimicking what our ancestors ate is exactly what will maximize health and longevity. What is wrong with eating green leaves-vegetables, fruit-berries, nuts, eggs, and meat-fish. Recent foods that we have not adapted to, include: grains of any sort including whole grains, rice, and corn,- beans,- dairy products,- and sugar. We can adapt to these foods, but it may take a few hundred thousand or possibly a million years to do so. I think it might be a good idea to get the nutrition and (restricted) calories we need by eating the foods to which our bodies have already adapted. Why make eating difficult? One of my favorite lines is-- If a person from 50,000 years ago would not recognize an item as food, don't eat it. ---Robin ---

complete original message below

[Guest guest]

From a CRON point of view, there is a nutrient density issue with

grains and even legumes to a lesser extent relative to fruits and

vegetables. Your first study mentioned in

/message/9160

shows antioxidants per 100 grams. 100 grams of whole wheat flour has

340 calories. 100 grams on berries has 30. 100 grams of beans has

160. For those of us at the lower calorie levels - like my 1100

calories a day - it's not possible to get enough protein and vitamins

if there are too many servings of grains per day. I find that I can

afford only 1 or 2 servings on average and come out okay.

This is something to consider for smaller, sedentary women that are

at the 1200 calorie or less a day level. The protein recommendations

that were discussed many times in the past on the crsociety list were

higher than RDA numbers - there is evidence calorie restriction

raises protein requirements. So, if you are getting 60g of protein -

then 240 calories will be devoted to this. Even 20% calories from

fat - another 240 calories - leaves only 720 calories for carbs. If

you are going to eat fruit at all, you might be able to squeeze in a

serving of grains per meal. I shoot for 75g of protein and 30% fat,

and at 1100 calories, I have a carb budget of 470 calories. That's a

couple of pieces of fruit and 2 servings of grain + unlimited low

starch vegetables. You might suggest that I could cut back on fat,

but I actually rarely add any fat to anything I eat. I eat a wide

variety of protein sources, and the fat tends to come with them -

even lean meats.

I analyze my food intake every single day. A " grainy " day is not a

good nutrition day for me.

>

> > --------It is my opinion that mimicking what our ancestors ate is

exactly what

> > will maximize health and longevity. What is wrong with eating

green

> > leaves-vegetables, fruit-berries, nuts, eggs, and meat-fish.

Recent foods

> > that we have not adapted to, include: grains of any sort

including whole

> > grains, rice, and corn,- beans,- dairy products,- and sugar