Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are we really genetically similar to the paleo men and women?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Are we really genetically similar to the paleo men and women?

    10,000 years ago agriculture was invented and we started ingesting grains that we had never had before. From 10,000 years to now we have ingested a lot of novel foods in comparison to 120,000 years ago.

    Surely in that time the body has produced proteins and enzymes (which means altered genes as they are responsible for producing the proteins) to deal with the new foods.

    Therefore we are not identical to the paleo people. This seems obvious but mark sisson and other paleo advocates gloss over this point and tell us we are absolutely identical to paleo men and women when we really are not.

    Thoughts?

  • #2
    Sure, there is some adaptations.

    1) Small amounts of unprocessed grains do not cause negative reaction in most people. However, processed grains, aka bread and pastas have an immediate and profound impact on the appetite because of the components added to it in the last 100 years (a far cry from 100,000 years ago). We are absolutely not adapted to deal with that.

    2) Consuming unprocessed starch from grains and/or tubers leads to fast and significant weight gain when it is combined with fat

    3) Grains contribute little to the palate and nutritional profile.

    --> If you are trying to gain weight, consuming unprocessed grains is your choice. If that's not the case, dropping grains is a single easiest thing to do to control the weight and reduce it to the average weight range.
    My Journal: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread57916.html
    When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by paul900 View Post
      Surely in that time the body has produced proteins and enzymes (which means altered genes as they are responsible for producing the proteins) to deal with the new foods.
      Surely you need to provide researched based evidence to back these claims up, why don't you read through all the references in the Primal Blueprint, do your own reseach to see if there is any evidence we have mutated to be able to digest grains better (note: that the presence of an emzyne that digest starch is not evidence that we should be eating half a pound of bread and pasta a day) then present a decent case.

      I mean surely the ability to use a keyboard and log on to a forum dosn't mean you have to be an idiot
      You know all those pictures of Adam and Eve where they have belly button? Think about it..................... take as long as you need........................

      Comment


      • #4
        Whether I am the same as a paleo person is really not affecting the dietary choices I make. How I feel is. In other words, not eating grains, not eating beans, not eating overly processed foods, avoiding most dairy (yogurt, butter and some cheeses don't bother me), all have done wonders for my IBS, arthritis, and bursitis.
        Female, age 51, 5' 9"
        SW - 183 (Jan 22, 2012), CW - 159, GW - healthy.

        Met my 2012 goals by losing 24 pounds.
        2013 goals are to get fit and strong!

        Comment


        • #5
          I have been a fan of the site for a while, but have never joined in the forum. This topic left me unable to resist replying. I have a PhD in cell biology, so this is right up my alley.

          Natural selection will only select changes that increase reproductive success (more children). The likely reason that humans have not evolved any mechanism to deal with the harmful effects of grains is that these effects take their greatest toll on people's health later in life. If all of the downsides of eating grains happen after reproductive age (which most paleolithic people did not even make it past due to infectious disease and violent death), there would be no reason (selection pressure) to favor genes/alleles that alleviate the problems grains pose. They are high in calories, and in the short term, people would have experienced a huge benefit (reproductively) from eating grains just to get more calories and not starve. This is the same reason that humans have not evolved defenses against most cancers of neurodegenerative diseases – natural selection does not care if you die after you are too old to reproduce.

          Changes that have made their way into our genome in the last 10,000 years are a different story. For example, the lactose dehydrogenase (LDH) gene, which processes lactose in milk, was selected for expression into adulthood because people in their reproductive years clearly benefited from being able to get more calories from milk they collected from domesticated animals.

          So, we are not identical to paleolithic people, but the changes that have taken place in our genome are due to the need to compete with other people for reproductive success in the short term, and have nothing to do with health and longevity past normal reproductive age. I hope this helps to answer your question.

          Comment


          • #6
            ^^^What that clever chap said^^^

            Hovever, my understanding was that plenty of paleothic people live to a ripe old age, but the average age was low due to infant mortality, fighting tigers and other dumb stuff and disease, but if you made it past these hurdles you could be a right old codger and look after the young-un while the rest of the tribe are off fighting tigers for buffalo meat.

            I'm not really qualified to explain it, but my understanding is there is a great differance in selecting for an exisiting variation (like being able to digest diary into adulthood) which can change a population quite quicky, compared to a new mutation occuring that inferes some benifit to this mutation being passed on and become a normal trait, which can take a veeeeerrry long time.
            You know all those pictures of Adam and Eve where they have belly button? Think about it..................... take as long as you need........................

            Comment


            • #7
              The math on this is tricky. It is not necessarily that "plenty of paleolithic people live to a ripe old age". What we know is that once you subtract out external causes of death, like infection and trauma, people live to a ripe old age on average. The problem here is that most people did die from external causes before they got very old.

              As far as selecting for old age because you can assist in rearing children/grandchildren – that is one hypothesis. On the flip side, you could say that having an old person around used up food and other resources that could have been given to children. The question is: in a paleolithic setting, at what age do you start becoming more of a burden than a help to your offspring (as far as their reproductive success goes)? I think it is obvious that staying alive until your children are into adolescence is a big deal, but what about beyond that? This is all speculation, and don't let anyone tell you they know the answer, because there is no way to prove it one way or the other.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by The Scientist View Post
                I have been a fan of the site for a while, but have never joined in the forum. This topic left me unable to resist replying. I have a PhD in cell biology, so this is right up my alley.

                Natural selection will only select changes that increase reproductive success (more children). The likely reason that humans have not evolved any mechanism to deal with the harmful effects of grains is that these effects take their greatest toll on people's health later in life. If all of the downsides of eating grains happen after reproductive age (which most paleolithic people did not even make it past due to infectious disease and violent death), there would be no reason (selection pressure) to favor genes/alleles that alleviate the problems grains pose. They are high in calories, and in the short term, people would have experienced a huge benefit (reproductively) from eating grains just to get more calories and not starve. This is the same reason that humans have not evolved defenses against most cancers of neurodegenerative diseases – natural selection does not care if you die after you are too old to reproduce.

                Changes that have made their way into our genome in the last 10,000 years are a different story. For example, the lactose dehydrogenase (LDH) gene, which processes lactose in milk, was selected for expression into adulthood because people in their reproductive years clearly benefited from being able to get more calories from milk they collected from domesticated animals.

                So, we are not identical to paleolithic people, but the changes that have taken place in our genome are due to the need to compete with other people for reproductive success in the short term, and have nothing to do with health and longevity past normal reproductive age. I hope this helps to answer your question.

                This makes sense. The negative effect of grains is not seen until later in life, as disease takes hold. And you rightly make the comparison with cancer, which is the same thing. Humans obviously developed mechanisms to prevent cancer taking place (by and large) until we have aged quite a bit.

                However, the difference is that these grains have been introduced and the body has had to deal with them for 10,000 years. As such, you would expect the body to have developed novel proteins in order to be able to deal with them, (so that they don't cause harm until we reach reproductive age and beyond). So lets take a case study of a child born today. The child will eat grains from Day 1 and probably live to the age of 70 when he or she will die of health related issues (we can't say for sure these are grain related health issues but I would concede that dietary choices most likely lead to the death of the person). So essentially the body has coped with daily consumption of grains for 70 years. Could paleolithic people have done that? WELL THEY ACTUALLY DID! Neanderthals ate grains. But we are very different to the paleolithic man.

                As an aside, the paleolithic man was all over the world so his diet depended on the environment. Paleo asians ate differently to paleo africans and paleo europeans and paleo americans etc. So do we look at our genetic heritage to look at what our particular paleo ancestors ate and then replicate that?

                And another thing about dairy, do you really think paleo people didn't drink milk? I mean seriously, of course they drank milk. This is another con that the paleo gurus try to pull.

                The fact of the matter is, NEANDERTHALS ATE GRAINS, THIS IS A FACT

                So people should think for themselves about paleo and have some common sense.

                Comment


                • #9
                  So I am actually wrong about grains being introduced in the last 10,000 years. It seems we have been eating grains for 40,000 years

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I think the age thing was touched upon a little bit in the book Born to Run. It appears that when it comes to marathon running, a man at age 64 is every bit as capable as a youth at 17. In other words, there is a steep rise in ability after 17 that then tapers off very slowly, returning to the same capacity by age 64. So the idea that being old means you are shriveled and incapable is more an artifact of our modern degenerative disease conditions than our actual innate capability. An older person in paleolithic times would have been fully capable of providing value to his or her group for a very long time.
                    Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by paul900 View Post
                      NEANDERTHALS ATE GRAINS, THIS IS A FACT
                      Font size 5. Well, now we know you are another wacko with an agenda. Thanks for stopping by.
                      Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I don't have an agenda at all I am just pointing out a fact. This is a known fact my dear

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Lets see what Mr. PhD has to say now....

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Actually, paleolithic peoples eating grains has never been documented, and many trusted sources disagree. (See: Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel, as well as Spencer Wells' Pandora's Seed)

                            The evidence is also pretty clear that 10,000 years is not nearly enough time for any significant genetic adaptations to occur. We are, in fact, essentially identical to our paleolithic ancestors. The only thing I've seen that contradicts paleo/primal is the 12 year study of paleolithic nutrition, which estimates the paleolithic macro intake and explains that we likely consumed legumes as part of the diet: http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v...f/1600389a.pdf
                            this great blue world of ours seems a house of leaves, moments before the wind

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              You made three claims here, and I'll try to respond to each:

                              1. "The child will eat grains from Day 1 and probably live to the age of 70 when he or she will die of health related issues (we can't say for sure these are grain related health issues but I would concede that dietary choices most likely lead to the death of the person). So essentially the body has coped with daily consumption of grains for 70 years. Could paleolithic people have done that? hardly. Therefore we are very different to the paleolithic man."

                              You are making the mistake of directly comparing the two environments. We live in a world where grains (and sugar, and nearly everything else) is freely available year round. A paleolithic community would have had chronic food shortages, making it impossible to over-eat consistently. They also would have been much more active than we are. I think that the downsides of grains are most pronounced when they are over-consumed and combined with a sedentary existence. The paleolithic people we are talking about would not have had the option to over-eat. In fact, archeological evidence clearly shows that when a population of people transitions from a hunter/gatherer strategy to agriculture, their health (evidenced by shorter stature and smaller bones) declines. Grains allowed populations to explode in number because total calories increased, but this just spread more calories among more people, leaving each individual short on food and especially short on nutrients because of grain consumption instead of animal/plant food. So, you are right in one way – we are very different from paleolithic man in our environment. We are not significantly different genetically for the vast majority of our genome.

                              2. "As an aside, the paleolithic man was all over the world so his diet depended on the environment. Paleo asians ate differently to paleo africans and paleo europeans and paleo americans etc. So do we look at our genetic heritage to look at what our particular paleo ancestors ate and then replicate that? "

                              This is true. Individual components varied. What they had in common was a diet filled with meat, seafood, nuts and vegetables and fruits (native fruit, not the artificially selected bags of sugar we call fruit)

                              3. "And another thing about dairy, do you really think paleo people didn't drink milk? I mean seriously, of course they drank milk. This is another con that the paleo gurus try to pull."

                              I hate to be harsh, but this clearly shows that you don't understand what you are talking about. The paleolithic period is defined as the time prior to the advent of agriculture and domestication of animals. Given that there were no domesticated animals at the time, you must be suggesting that these people captured a female mammal that had recently given birth, tied her down, and milked her before going in for the kill and enjoying the meat.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X