[QUOTE=Terry H;1066650][B]A FELLOW SCIENCE MAJOR AND NOTED COMMEN[I]TATER(sorry cd.n't resist-hee hee there I go again stop me before I post ano study I haven't read and/or don't understand)[/I][/B] [B]PEER-VINDICATES OTZI![/B][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CifYWxJXaI]Al Sharpton's Hilarious Teleprompter Flub On MSNBC Show - YouTube[/url][/QUOTE]
Shoulda used this one:
or this one
Nah'. Former more apropos.
"Evelyn, A Modified Dog"
Viewed the quivering fringe of a special doily
Draped across the piano, with some surprise
In the darkened room
Where the chairs dismayed
And the horrible curtains
Muffled the rain
She could hardly believe her eyes
A curious breeze
A garlic breath
Which sounded like a snore
Somewhere near the Steinway (or even from within)
Had caused the doily fringe to waft & tremble in the gloom
Evelyn, a dog, having undergone
Pondered the significance of short-person behavior
In pedal-depressed panchromatic resonance
And other highly ambient domains...
Arf she said
Read more: FRANK ZAPPA - EVELYN, A MODIFIED DOG LYRICS
Here's some very resistant starch...
tHATS WAT YER BOWELS LOOK LIKE WEN U EAT TATERS. YEP.
[QUOTE=otzi;1066649]I think it is possible to live with a sterile gut, evidence from the fact you can kill everything off with antibiotics and still survive. But the truth is, we are supposed to have bacteria in our guts and they do good (or bad) things for us.
Probably the only HG group that didn't have access to year-round starchy tubers would be the Inuit, but they weren't as starch depleted as many say. Seaweed was a big part of the diet, as well as [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_potato]Eskimo potato - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]
It's also possible that there are other things that feed the bacteria just as well as RS from potatoes/starchy plants such as the stomach contents of ruminants, which the Inuit ate, or just plain dirt.
As for me, RS is just another reason to eat potatoes.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. One group of people who traveled to arctic regions like a thousand years ago might have gone most the year without much starch. That is not proof that humans dont need starch or fiber. Pointing the the inuit every time someone talks about anything zero carb related is crazy. They are a tiny exception. There has never been a pure carnivorous society just like there has never been a pure vegan society. Also Inuit are not paleo, so why would anyone claiming to eat paleo or primal try to eat like them?
[QUOTE=Zach;1066645]Ugh, like who? Every hunter gatherer society had access to starch and fiber.[/QUOTE]
Guess I should have said abundant carbs? Not claimig zero carb, but since you ask:
"There are a number of striking things about the data once you sum them up. First of all, diet composition varied widely. Many groups were almost totally carnivorous, with 46 getting over 85% of their calories from hunted foods. However, not a single group out of 229 was vegetarian or vegan."
Note this is Guyenet speaking about data found in "The Ethnographic Atlas" by Dr. George P. Murdock, which holds data on hundreds of HG groups that has been analyzed and used in several studies including those published by Cordain and the like. What you also need to know is that these peoples got 85% from "hunted food" BUT of the 15% "gathered"....small game such as rodents, insects, squirrels, scavenged meat and the like all fall under "gathered" heading.....I'm gonna go ahead and call 25% + of HG's low carb and feel pretty good about the data justifying that claim.
On average for all the groups studied they get 70% of their calories from "hunted" food leaving 30% on average again to gathered insects, small game, fruits, nuts, vegetables, and tubers and the like.
There is a wide variety and this is not a carb bashing session....just a response to is RS necessary, since otzi threw down that particular gauntlet. But hey maybe they are also eating bark or some shit to feed that colon bacteria....that would be very low calorie and tons of fiber for the colony to munch up right?
Thats fine, will agree with some being low carb. But there is edible forms of starch literally everywhere so i dont believe that any one group at 0%.
Otzi, it never occurred to me that you could possibly be advocating eating raw potatoes. Once that realization hit, then of course I must admit that you are correct, raw potatoes do contain significantly large amounts of resistant starch. In fact, the majority of the starch is resistant. This is why, as a rule, raw potatoes do not form a part of any "modern" diet.
I am playing a little bit fast and loose with the concept of modernity that I am applying here, insofar as it reaches back about one million years to some of the earliest recorded use of fire by our human ancestors, and at this point, realize that we're talking about Homo Erectus.
I know you dislike my dissertations, so I'm just going give you the ESPN highlight reel. For anyone interested I'll post some followup more "dissertation-like" explanations.
[LIST=1][*]Humans have been cooking their food since Homo Erectus appeared on the scene. To not cook represents an aberration. Not cooking potatoes would therefore represent deviant behavior.[*]Cooking increases bioavailability of nutrients ( roughly doubles it for starches ). To actively seek less nutrients is only a mania of image obsessed modern man. Primitive man was concerned with immediate survival and therefore maximizing nutritional returns.[*]Increased bioavailability of nutrients reflects itself as morphological changes in digestive organs ( i.e. since you've outsourced digestion, you no longer need as much in the way of innate digestive capacity so your digestive organs shrink ). Modern humans reflect this relative to other higher primates indicating our habitual reliance on cooking. [*]Higher primates prefer cooked potatoes to raw. They lack the knowledge of how to transform them to their preferred state, but proto-hominids did not, so would have eaten potatoes cooked.[*]Any primate that possesses the ability to manipulate fire to cook its food but willingly chooses not to do so is an evolutionary failure since it must expend more effort for the same caloric payoff. This organism will be selected against in favor of those primates that preferentially consume the denser calories of cooked foods. [*]Feeding resistant starch to organisms results in morphological / physiological adaptations specific to fermentation, namely, they get larger colons to host larger colonies of fermentation bacteria. In other words, they increasingly start to look like hind gut fermenters ( gorillas ). If an organism does not possess the physiology of a hind gut fermenter, that's because it isn't one. Humans do not exhibit these morphological changes, in fact, we have the opposite changes suggesting we did not habitually consume resistant starches.[*]Salivary amylase.[*]You are not the intended evolutionary beneficiary of underground food storage organs (UFSOs).[/LIST]
For these reasons, it is highly likely that mankind only ever ate raw potatoes under extreme periods of duress where other foods were unavailable [B]and[/B] cooking the potatoes was not possible. Consequently, the RS content of the uncooked version of potatoes is moot, so we're back to there not being a heck of a lot of RS in a cooked potato.
This is an interesting resource backing up PK's points above.
[url=http://www.amazon.com/Catching-Fire-Cooking-Made-Human/dp/0465020410]Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human: Richard Wrangham: 9780465020416: Amazon.com: Books[/url]
Besides, raw potato? Blech!
PKLOPP - good sumation in last post. You are correct, not a lot of RS in a cooked potato. That's why, since I eat potatoes anyway, I'm sure to eat a few slices of raw potato when I'm cutting potatoes, I cook and eat some hot potatoes, and I also eat some cooked and cooled potatoes. I like to eat them all three ways, so it works for me. If there's some RS in there and it does me good, hot damn! If it's a waste of time, I still got to eat some tasty spuds.
I guess we will have to invoke former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in saying about RS: "There are no "knowns." There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know. So when we do the best we can and we pull all this information together, and we then say well that's basically what we see as the situation, that is really only the known knowns and the known unknowns. And each year, we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns."