No announcement yet.

The healthiest people on Earth eat bread

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The healthiest people on Earth eat bread

    I am not bashing the primal diet or anything, I am on it myself but I found this very interesting
    these people are the healthiest in the world yet they encompass wine, dairy and grains as daily foods, and have a daily carbohydrate intake around 350 grams.
    these people enjoy a vigorous life up to the average ages of 100-120 and having kids at 80-90 is not to uncommon.
    check it out, here:

    (bread parts at the end)

    Kind of makes you rethink this whole primal thing eh?
    It did for me.
    Perhaps the key isn't so much what we eat but instead how fresh it is.

  • #2
    Fresh, soaked grains aren't completely awful for you like the rancid, high phytase, freakishly high gluten grains we're used to, they're just still not ideal. Grass-fed dairy is fine for most people. Glucose isn't the issue outside the context of a broken metabolism.

    Also, there's no freaking way they're having kids at 80. The actual Hunza life expectancy is about 53 with an admittedly large standard deviation.
    Give me liberty. Exploration of other options will be vigorously discouraged.

    Wondering something sciencey? Ask me in my Ask a Biochemist Thread


    • #3
      hey, I am just relying on this article,


      • #4
        I know of people practicing macro-biotics who have beaten cancer. Cancer that allopaths had labeled incurable and given short terms of life to the patients. Macro-biotics is many things but it seems to be mainly whole grains and legumes, with fresh, in season and locally grown, vegetables and fruits. These people look good, feel good, and are happy.

        I know of vegetarians who have completely overcome hypertension and type II diabetes. Also, thriving folks.

        This primal, paleo, whatever system also works.

        I do believe that there are many paths up the mountain. I will not decry any viable system. Exercise, fresh air and sunshine, and good, clean, fresh, wholesome foods work, regardless of the system.
        Tayatha om bekandze

        Bekandze maha bekandze

        Randza samu gate soha


        • #5
          I am pretty sure you can look to ANY untouched domesticated traditional diet and see health. They worked with what they had. They were healthy because through thousands of generations they ate the same things, their bodies adjusted. Traditional tribes, for the most part all of them, range in ratios A LOT. They went with the available food and figured out how to work it. Some of these tribes included bread/cheese/blood/blubber the list goes on and on. I wouldn’t try to “mock” the diet of a particular tribe because they “get to have grains” and be healthy too. “they” are not us. Put “them” on MDA and you might see their health decline.
          Take that article with a grain of salt. You can argue the kitavans had high carbs and are healthy as well. But do you want to live off sweet potatoes, root veggies and lard? They didn’t gorge on huge roasts and beef. They had carbs accessible in their natural form, so they ate them. The Eskimos, the other extreme, had access to the stomach contents of sea animals, seaweed, and blubber…would knowing this make you question MDA as well?
          Get on my Level


          • #6
            Different cultures in the world survive on different eating patterns Mr.PK. The most important detail would be to eat how your ancestors ate, not how fresh it was. The quetchus in south America strive on a carbohydrate diet, while the Eskimo from Alaska survive on a nearly all fat/protein diet. Eating is individualized; it just so happens that many people do well on primal because they are from backgrounds that strived on higher fat/protein.

            No tribe survived on a vegetarian diet, or one that relied on processed grains and dairy or food in general.
            In Pursuit of Healthiness, Only to Achieve Happiness!:


            • #7
              Premise of evolution: Populations adapt to their environment. Microevolution and variation.
              Observation: Food source is an environmental factor
              Logical conclusion: Populations adapt to food sources.

              They have adapted to their diet like EGY has said.

              I am not an indigenous person eating the diet my ancestors ate for tens of thousands of years. In fact, I'm a combination of at least 6 different ethnic backgrounds. I choose to eat food that is solidly entrenched in the common genetics of every human. Also, in the primal spirit, I make use of every single thing I can that will be health promoting. A lot of these cultures are heavy on the highly health-promoting plant substances. They mentioned apricot kernels, perhaps there is something to that. There is increasing evidence that many of these these phytonutrient-rich plant substances that are used throughout the world are supremely health-promoting and can counteract disease and degeneration. There are definitely a few well-advised neolithic additions to a healthful diet. Primal is not dogmatic, we can expand upon this premise of eating only what made us human with that which has been with us since before we were human.

              The "healthiest" group does not necessarily equal the healthiest way of eating. We will know sooner or later whether or not we have stumbled upon the best formula. Nutritional science is only beginning to take off but much evidence is there already. Calling primal "the healthiest" would be speaking before the fact but I have a hunch that the very best way is a combination of all of the good stuff from all over the world used in the context of one's own personal physiology. That would mean that these native peoples have the latter part correct, but also the paleo approach fits this mold for everyone, and perhaps better. Adaptation for 10000 years doesn't seem like it would be able to undermine evolution for millions of years. The adaptation only seems ideal when compared to our egregious society.
              Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

              Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!


              • #8
                Bear in mind, Stabby, that grains and legumes have not been part of the human diet for long enough for meaningful adaptation to occur. Starches in general, on the other hand have been available for quite some time, and some adaptation to them is conceivable.
                Give me liberty. Exploration of other options will be vigorously discouraged.

                Wondering something sciencey? Ask me in my Ask a Biochemist Thread


                • #9
                  Ah yeah I don't see any meaningful lectin adaptation. But from reading more of that article it doesn't look like they chow down on wheat bread (and like you said certainly not our abomination of wheat), most of their grains are sprouted and properly prepared. Which isn't ideal and I wouldn't eat it, but it's not death in a kernel. There's at least some degree of gluten adaptation but I agree that in 10000 years these kinds of things couldn't be enough time for it to become an ideal food. They would be better off without any bread at all. It's just not enough to undermine the good points. And I don't think that any society on earth eats an ideal diet.
                  Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

                  Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!


                  • #10
                    Most of the longest lived people (to date) have all smoked. That doesn't mean you smoking will make you live a long time ...
                    The "Seven Deadly Sins"

                    Grains (wheat/rice/oats etc) . . . . . Dairy (milk/yogurt/butter/cheese etc) . . . . . Nightshades (peppers/tomato/eggplant etc)
                    Tubers (potato/arrowroot etc) . . . Modernly palatable (cashews/olives etc) . . . Refined foods (salt/sugars etc )
                    Legumes (soy/beans/peas etc)


                    • #11
                      Ooer fun with logic!

                      Lifestyle x produced one of the healthiest cultures on earth therefore lifestyle x is the ideal or even desirable? Not so fast. It could be the case that no culture eats an ideal diet or lives an ideal lifestyle.
                      Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

                      Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!


                      • #12
                        If you take a look at Andorras eating habits who have the second most high life expetency, you will find that they consume a lot of meat.

                        But the meat that they consume is grass fed.


                        • #13
                          I tried macrobiotic eating for a few months a long time ago. It gave me an eternal period and many signs of protein starvation, probably because I thought soy would be an adequate protein source.

                          When my dad was dying of cancer, someone gave him a book by an M.D. who used a macrobiotic regimen (far more sensible and varied than mine) to get over testicular cancer. I've thought since about why this worked for him, at least for awhile. I do remember at one point he got mad at the Japanese macrobiotic types who were directing the diet, and he went out and ordered a big steak dinner with a rich dessert -- and got sick as a dog afterwards. Sort of reminiscent of people who get off the Primal wagon momentarily ...

                          All of this is new to me. This is the first time I have thought that maybe moderate (but very good!) protein might aid repairs to muscles, tendons, etc., better than high protein at every opportunity. Time for a series of short experiments, being extremely glad that I don't need to do them in dead earnest to fight a cancer.

                          I've been reading Nora Gedgaudas's book "Primal Body, Primal Mind". Toward the end of "Primal Body" she explains why she thinks almost everyone should eat only about 45-55 grams of protein a day, but of the highest and most complete quality, aided by high nutrient eating. She talks about a new pathway (TOR) which keeps track of protein levels, and makes a choice about which way someone will go:

                          (1) Lots of everything we need, fat and meat and carbs: HAVE BABIES AND DIE


                          (2) lean times, not enough protein there, better protect the organism till there's more protein and carbs, enough to make babies. Therefore, route everything to "repair and maintenance" and disable the aging genes, because there are no babies yet, nor likely to be any for awhile. Can't let this critter die childless just because she was silly enough to end up in a semi-famine.

                          The "have babies" mode is proliferative, and so is cancer. For that matter, the proliferative mode thickens the artery walls and worsens heart disease. By going low protein, but with reasonably good general nutrition, the M.D. who wrote the book probably kicked over to the "repair and maintenance" mode, and his cancer shrank and disappeared. Cancers in experimental animals tend to shrink when they are underfed.

                          Cachexis (the wasting of someone in the last throes of cancer) would make sense in this scenario as a last-ditch effort to stop feeding the cancer and engage the repair genes instead. If that's the case, the last thing which should be done would be trying to get more and more nourishment into someone like that.


                          • #14
                            I mostly agree with the TOR argument, but I think there's something to be said for cycling protein intake and fasting instead of obsessively concerning oneself with protein intake. There are lots of goodies in meat that you can't get elsewhere in the diet.
                            Give me liberty. Exploration of other options will be vigorously discouraged.

                            Wondering something sciencey? Ask me in my Ask a Biochemist Thread


                            • #15
                              Hi, Molecular Grokologist!

                              Thanks for showing up!

                              This was such a new theory to me, I've been trying to get my head around it ever since reading it last week for the first time.

                              I haven't forgotten what you said about my plan to partial fast twice a month, using coconut oil, ghee, and the occasional bowl of blueberries.

                              The improvement (maybe about 15%) in muscle aches from that weekend on such a protein-free partial fast has continued pretty well since, which I find mightily encouraging. I'm planning to get past two important concerts, and start the next bout around April 18.

                              Is an occasional (very occasional) overfeed of meat and cheese also a good idea? Would the insulinogenic nature of the cheese help push some of the protein into one's muscles?

                              the pianer lady ...