Natural Sweetener

[treadlightly]

This is a fascinating discussion. I am very interested in the topic and have experimented with the paleo diet (albeit half heartedly). Now I eat everything but have reduced my intake of carbohydrate, especially wheat-based foods. I agree with Toddy though that suddenly adopting a non-carb diet is a luxury only us pampered modern westerners can afford and probably does not reflect what our pre-agriculture ancestors consumed.

 

[Emdiesse]

I'm no expert at all, (and we have to bear in mind that Toddy has studied this), but I find myself agreeing with Toddy.

UK diet for a period included a lot of 'small beer' instead of straight water, for good reason. We have a high tolerance of alcohol - go to Japan where they don't have this history and they don't process alcohol as easily. Ditto North American natives. I had a friend at uni who couldn't tolerate cows milk but was fine with goat milk; he said that applied to everyone who came from his area of the middle east, no tradition of consuming cow's milk at all, just goats.

I think we adapt a bit faster than the '10 000 years' quoted. Grain consumption has been around in europe for quite a while.

So in theory, in our food abundant society (as Toddy put it) if we eat anything we can get our hands on then we are broadening the range of foods our descendants can eat.... obviously with many generations of people after us also eating anything and everything. I guess then we'll end up with the issue of insufficient food supplies or even more vast destruction caused by humans as we all take to eating literally everything. Goodbye sweet sweet nature, you're just food to me.

 

[pteron]

I have lots of opinions, but I prefer to debate facts!

10000 years is far too short for meaningful evolution: http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPNS%2FPNS65_01%2FS0029665106000012a.pdf&code=d1ea8a35bb164fdc3f42f347c677729f our genome is still essentially that of our hunter gatherer ancestors, who barely ate any grains.

Read the articles from the first page of the following search: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar...+diet&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=&as_vis=1

(this is a search of scholarly articles including sources such as the Mayo clinic in the US)

 

[treadlightly]

Does anyone have any idea how long it takes for us to adapt to new foods?

Agriculture - 10,000 years ago ( much later in this part of the world).

Meat eating - maybe 2-1.5 million years ago to 10,000 years ago

Presumably, before that we gradually began to eat more meat and less fruit/berries/foraged stuff.

But how long does it take us to adapt? Is 2 million years enough or are we really still designed to eat the diet of a chimp - fruit, nuts, leaves and the occasional meat?

 

[Toddy]

It's only three generations that have even been conscious of overpopulation.
It's only within living memory that there are no food shortages in this country.
It's only *our* very wealthy and very worldly western nations that can afford such choice for virtually everyone.

I once heard my Grandpa say that there was damned little that people couldn't eat, they might have to put some thought and effort into it mind you, but they'd probably make a meal of it, eventually
Doesn't mean we need to like it though.

Food is such a cultural thing; not just nourishment, not simply pleasure either. It's a huge manufacturing, delivery and commercial logistical behemoth.

Ever notice ? the country could be three feet deep in snow, flooded and sodden, trains not running, airports closed, yet the supermarkets still manage to get supplies and staff to work to sell them
HWMBLT reckons we should let their managers take over the country in emergencies since they obviously manage to get things organised efficiently
Food is *big* business and we are incredibly fortunate to be in a position to not only buy it, but have enormous choice.

I suspect that humans change what they can and cannot digest much more quickly through the generations than we expect.
I can't prove that though; but I can't drink milk without being incredibly nauseous and full of sore wind, my Grandmother couldn't either, yet her children could and so can mine......maybe it's a throw back redundancy thing

I like the seasonality of real food, the *gather it, eat it now or don't have it this year* of it all, but admit I'm partial to the fruits that we import, like grapes and tangerines, at this time of year.
Even the almonds I use for milk don't grow here easily, so I'm as dependant as anyone else for much of the variety of my diet on imported foods.

There's another point to the food story though; humanity apparantly craves two things, fat and sugars and at times a real notion for salt.

It's only when those are consumed in constant quantity that they become *bad* foods
It's not the food that's bad, it's our consumption to the exclusion of other foods that's bad.

HWMBLT has just brought in more jelly ears and about 2kgs of oyster fungus.
I'm hoping the stuff freezes If anyone living near me wants a share, pick up the phone

cheers,
M

 

[Emdiesse]

I have lots of opinions, but I prefer to debate facts!

10000 years is far too short for meaningful evolution: http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPNS%2FPNS65_01%2FS0029665106000012a.pdf&code=d1ea8a35bb164fdc3f42f347c677729f our genome is still essentially that of our hunter gatherer ancestors, who barely ate any grains.

Read the articles from the first page of the following search: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar...+diet&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=&as_vis=1

(this is a search of scholarly articles including sources such as the Mayo clinic in the US)

Unfortunately, I cannot open your first link. Understandably, yes, you cannot deny the fact that the dietary habits of our ancestors does contribute to our genetic make up. What I am suggesting is: Based on this information does this not lead to the fact that our our descendants genetic make up will forever be a combination of their ancestors, which includes us. So millions of years from now, and knowing these fact presented to us, continuing to eat what is available and to not restrict our diets based on the knowledge of what our ancestors ate will we not continue to influence our descendants genome.

Rather than making the decision to help ourselves, can we not balance the decision to also help our descendants? The human body as demonstrated by many sources has a remarkable ability to adapt, so why not continue to adapt?

My opinions are not based on loose ground, my opinions have been built up based on a multitude of facts, and I am forever open to hearing many other facts and opinions (based on facts) to help continue to evolve my own opinions (based on facts). I just don't frankly have the time to dig up old sources and cite them as my reference.

Thank you for your input, I'm not here to debate. I am happy to hear more about this issue, as I say I like to evolve my own understanding of these things and I hope that perhaps sometime my opinions can be seen as educated and perhaps in a way that may help mold others opinions as they mold mine.


However, really, I prefer to take everything with a pinch of salt. I mean, not long ago it was fully believed to be a fact that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. With this in mind, it's probably far better to chill out and enjoy the life we're given. Cheers

 

[Toddy]

Good point

There are as many supporters as there are detractors of the primal diet, and Patrick Holford's input.
for instance.....
http://holfordwatch.info/2008/05/13/the-curse-of-the-paleolithic-diet-when-studies-go-bad/

Humanity thrives because it is adaptable, and what we can't change naturally we'll find a way to do it ourselves

Grain isn't just for bread and such like though, it's the clean water that folks in this country drank for certainly hundreds of years, and probably for pleasure for a very great deal longer.
The earliest farmers graves we have in this country have pots in them and laboratory analysis of the remains shows fermented liquor.......beer, and in some instances mead.
Is this where the European tolerance of alcohol originates ? If so, that tolerance is less than 10,000 years, 'cos 10,000 years ago we were still under ice here and over much of Europe was frozen still.

Lactose intolerance isn't that uncommon, yet milk is so fundamental to our society and it's foodstuffs that it was given free every day to children in school, and most adults in our society consume it quite happily with no ill effects...........and we haven't been farming cows for over 10,000 years so that screws up the suggested paleo timeline of genetic change.

Just discussing........

cheers,
M

 

[mrcharly]

Grain isn't just for bread and such like though, it's the clean water that folks in this country drank for certainly hundreds of years, and probably for pleasure for a very great deal longer.
The earliest farmers graves we have in this country have pots in them and laboratory analysis of the remains shows fermented liquor.......beer, and in some instances mead.
Is this where the European tolerance of alcohol originates ? If so, that tolerance is less than 10,000 years, 'cos 10,000 years ago we were still under ice here and over much of Europe was frozen still.

I have no basis for having made this suggestion other than my own random wandering speculation.

 

[Emdiesse]

I did look at the paleo diet with rose tinted glasses when I first heard about it and considered adopting it for a short while out of interest... However the more I read the more I realised that the facts it presents, although probably very true in a lot of cases take a narrow view on what this means for us (humans). From these articles, they appear only to take into account the present moment. What's good for us, and now as opposed to what is good for us (now) and our future (humanities future).

I'm sure our sedentary lifestyles also contributes to many forms of illness as well, however I don't think I could afford to give up work and chase my food around in the forest (No matter how much I really want that).... unfortunately

Thanks for the link Toddy, I am sure there are as many (qualified) detractors of the paleo diet as there are (qualified) supporters.

 

[treadlightly]

I did look at the paleo diet with rose tinted glasses when I first heard about it and considered adopting it for a short while out of interest... However the more I read the more I realised that the facts it presents, although probably very true in a lot of cases take a narrow view on what this means for us (humans). From these articles, they appear only to take into account the present moment. What's good for us, and now as opposed to what is good for us (now) and our future (humanities future).

I'm sure our sedentary lifestyles also contributes to many forms of illness as well, however I don't think I could afford to give up work and chase my food around in the forest (No matter how much I really want that).... unfortunately

Maybe that's the answer. The paleo diet should include compulsory chasing around the woods in search of fresh meat!!
That would certainly lead to weight loss.

 

[Emdiesse]

Maybe that's the answer. The paleo diet should include compulsory chasing around the woods in search of fresh meat!!
That would certainly lead to weight loss.

Cor, we'll have them listening to John Zerzan next