Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42

Thread: More support for my theory... page 2

  1. #11
    Asturian's Avatar
    Asturian is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Lurking in the land of the uncensored.
    Posts
    282
    Shop Now
    Quote Originally Posted by FDgreen View Post
    My theory: Most people on this site are not representative of the human population as a whole, and are instead much more sensitive and/or allergic to gluten, dairy, etc.

    People on here always claim that evolution requires "10,000 years" and use that as a justification why grains, even gluten free grains, and dairy, nightshades, etc. are "bad" for people -- because we haven't evolved to eat them.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/sc...me&ref=general


    Oops, looks like evolution happens a lot faster than 10,000 years. There goes that idea. Looks like "Primal CW" to me.
    Well I'm not a statistician but I do have some basic understanding of statitics and I see nothing to support your theory that "Most people on this site are not representative of the human population as a whole, and are instead much more sensitive and/or allergic to gluten, dairy, etc.".

    There is no data on the NY Times link that in any way shape or form provides information about the population distribution of the members of this forum. I don't even think Mark's administrators have that information unless they had a mandatory poll upon registering to become a member, a poll I must have missed.

    Now your hyothesis may or may not have merit but again I see nothing to support that. We seem to have members from all over the world. Granted that the member population may appear to be biased towards European based ethnicities, I still see no correlation betwenn that appearance and the NY times article.

    The NY Times article suggests that humans continue to evolve and I agree with that premise. In fact, leading human geneticist and anthropologist Spencer Wells also suggests that human evolution continues today and perhaps at a faster rate than in previous history due to exploding population and travel technology that allows us to increase the variability of the human gene pool at an ever faster rate.

    Yes people are different and some have more tolerance to certain things than others but I also don't think the article implies "Primal CW".
    “It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creeds into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics.”
    —Robert A. Heinlein

  2. #12
    PJT13's Avatar
    PJT13 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    13
    Good point, but it's not 'people on here who always claim' there is a large body of evidence to support the theory especially that collated by Loren Cordain in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition - 'Origins and evolution of the Western diet: health implications for the 21st century'. Which points out that it is not just about evolving genes, but about the over refining of the foodstuffs too. That would include fattening cattle with grains which produces larger, fatter animals faster with meat which is nutritionally different to that which Paleolithic man ate, as well as grains theselves, which are highly refined. Industry and technology have combined to make some of our foods into practical poison such as the innocent sunflower seed, the extracted oil (only since @1910) of which when blown with Hydrogen in the manufacture of margarine produces transfatty acids which cause cell mutation and other ills. Good article in the NYT but has to be read in cintext and, as the article itself says, 'there is widespread disagreement amongst scientists...' oh, And I don't suffer from allergies, just like to eat what my body needs for optimum health. Have a read of The Sacharinne Disease by Surgeon Captain T.L. Cleave regarding refined carbohydrates and sunflower oil - fascinating.
    Last edited by PJT13; 07-21-2010 at 09:02 AM.

  3. #13
    iniQuity's Avatar
    iniQuity is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Northern NJ
    Posts
    5,683
    Quote Originally Posted by cillakat View Post
    we discussed this in another thread. it's irrelevant. there just aren't selective pressures for grain consumption because we can reproduce before the long term effects of grain conumption become apparent.

    http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum...ion#post163918

    <<Yes, as has been said, there is no selection pressure promoting grain tolerance, as it has no effect on reproductive potential. So no, we won't evolve towards grain tolerance.

    Unfortunately, barring some unforeseen catastrophic selection pressure, we're pretty much done evolving towards any specific goal (like improved grain tolerance) since now in modern society most everyone outlives their reproductive period. Population genetics may continue to shift over time (random mutation, genetic drift, etc.), but we're pretty much done evolving by natural selection. Actually, it's possible that our species will become less rational beings with worse judgment, as the genes of those who continue to reproduce in great numbers in spite of scarce resources (i.e. poor decision making) will make an increasingly greater proportion of our species' genome. To the extent that this type of behavior and decision making process is genetically influenced, these types of behaviors will be selected for. So yeah, this may be the pinnacle for us hominids >>
    I love your brains.

  4. #14
    MalPaz's Avatar
    MalPaz is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    2,790
    Quote Originally Posted by say_rahhh View Post
    I claim no such thing. I eat what makes me feel better; I don't eat foods that don't make me feel good. This is a solitary venture for me. I say again: FOR ME.

    perfectly put

  5. #15
    Stabby's Avatar
    Stabby is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Stabsville
    Posts
    2,462
    So your reasoning is humans adapt to stuff therefore grains aren't unhealthy? Are you mentally disabled? There is tons of evidence to suggest that humans have not adapted sufficiently to grains enough to make them a healthy food. That humans adapt does not entail that humans have adapted full to grains, they are still harmful. Nobody is just taking it on faith that "humans have only been eating grains for a little while therefore they are BAD". We tend to feel the need to test these things empirically.

    Loren Cordain, 2010
    Currently there’s an epidemic of type 2 diabetes (T2D) worldwide, especially in Westernized countries. T2D is characterized by persistent elevated glucose levels due to disrupted insulin action or an alteration in pancreatic insulin production1.
    It was estimated that 171 million people were suffering from T2D in 2001, with a total overall population prevalence of 6%. More alarming is the fact that in Caucasian adolescents 4% suffer from T2D and 25% are glucose intolerant1. However, T2D prevalence in hunter-gatherer societies is low2-6, and even nonexistent in the island of Kitava in Trobiand Islands in Papua New Guinea3.
    Genetics does not seem to explain the difference, because when these populations are Westernized they suffer even more from diseases of civilization such as T2D, obesity, myocardial infarction and stroke among others7-10 than original Western populations. Furthermore, there’s evidence showing that hunter-gatherer populations can reverse T2D when they are resettled in their ancient habitat8, a fact that has been demonstrated in two recent clinical trials conducted on Western populations11, 12.
    Insulin resistance seems to be one of the factors involved in T2D which is caused, by low-grade chronic inflammation13-15 among other factors. Interestingly, low-grade chronic inflammation is a hallmark16-19 in T2D patients.
    Considering these factors, it seems plausible that the nutrition introduced with the agricultural revolution 10,000 years ago played an important role in the current diabetes epidemic in Westernized populations. Western foods are overload with antinutrients, namely lectins, saponins and gliadin, which may explain the great disparity between paleolithic and modern Western food when it comes to metabolic syndrome (a combination of medical disorders that increase the risk of developing cardiovascular disease and diabetes). There is evidence showing that antinutrients act as endocrine disrupting substances, promoting metabolic syndrome20. On the other hand, antinutrients may elicit their negative health effects through increased intestinal permeability21. However, scant evidence exists regarding the role of antinutrients in the aetiology of Western diseases.
    Gliadin and increased intestinal permeability
    One of the most studied foods in the recent years is wheat, which contains a protein called gliadin, and is part of the gluten protein family22. Gliadin increases gut permeability by means of Zonulin production (a protein that regulates in tight junctions between cells in the wall of the digestive tract) in the gut enterocytes (epithelial cells found in the small intestines and colon). Zonulin binds the CXCR3 chemokine receptor leading to intracellular signalling cascades, mediated by protein kinase C (PKC), which ultimately causes disruption of the tight junction proteins which maintain the gut barrier function, and lead to increased gut permeability23, 24.
    In addition, when intestinal permeability is increased, gliadin - which is resistant to heat and digestive enzymes - is able to interact with gut associated lymphoid tissue (GALT) stimulating the innate immune system, leading to low-grade chronic inflammation22, 24. Several studies have demonstrated that gliadin induces the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines (a small protein released by cells that has a specific effect on the interactions between cells, communications between cells or the behavior of cells), independent of one’s genetic predisposition to celiac disease – which is virtually everyone23, 25, 26.
    Lectins and increased gut permeability
    Lectins are a family of glycoproteins (a complex protein containing a carbohydrate combined with a simple protein) found in the plant kingdom, including grains, legumes and solanacous plants (tomatoes, potatoes, eggplants and peppers)21, 27. Lectins also have the ability to bind sugar containing molecules. They were first studied for their ability to agglutinate (cause to adhere) red blood cells by binding to their cell membranes. Many lectins present in other foods are harmless, but some lectins found in grains, legumes and solanaceous plants have been shown to be harmful to human physiology28. Lectins are resistant to heat (unless cooked by pressure cooking)29 and digestive enzymes38, and therefore arrive intact when they reach the intestinal epithelium, passing through the intestinal barrier into peripheral circulation. Lectins are able to bind peripheral tissues, producing many deleterious health effects21. Furthermore, lectins disrupt intestinal barrier and immunological function when they bind surface glycans (a carbohydrate polymer containing simple sugars) on gut epithelial cells, causing cellular disruption and increasing gut permeability. Lectins also facilitate the growth of certain bacteria strains, stimulate T-cell proliferation, increase intercellular adhesion molecules (ICAM), stimulate production of pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-1, TNF-alpha, etc.), and amplify HLA class II molecules expression, among other effects21.
    Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

    Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

  6. #16
    Stabby's Avatar
    Stabby is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Stabsville
    Posts
    2,462
    continued

    Saponins and increased gut permeability
    Saponins are glycoalkaloids (a family of poisons commonly found in the plant species Solanum dulcamara - nightshades) produced by plants, technically known as steroid glycosides or triterpenoids, are formed by a sugar compound (glucuronic acid, glucose or galactose, among others) and aglycone (non-sugar molecule) portion30-32. The aglycone portion binds the cholesterol molecule on gut cell membranes. When certain amounts of saponins bind cell membrane cholesterol molecules of the intestinal epithelial cells at a 1:1 ratio, the sugar portion of the saponins bind together, resulting in a complex molecule consisting of cholesterol and saponins. This new molecule disrupts the gut barrier and increases intestinal permeability. This has been shown in humans who consume a diet rich in alpha-solanine and alpha-chaconine - two of the saponins found in potatoes31.
    On the other hand, saponins have adjuvant-like activity, which means that they are able to affect the immune system leading to pro-inflammatory cytokine production33, 34, ultimately inducing insulin resistance.
    Intestinal permeability and endotoxemia
    Intestinal epithelia act as a physical barrier between the outside and the inside of the body, meaning that the intestinal lumen is technically outside the organism. When the intestinal barrier is disrupted, it allows increased passage of gut luminal antigens derived from food, bacteria and viruses into the organism21. In case of bacteria derived antigens, lipopolysaccharide (LPS) is the most commonly studied and utilized antigen to induce acute immune stimulation, this is known as endotoxemia (the presence of endotoxins - a toxin that forms an integral part of the cell wall of certain bacteria - in the blood which may cause hemorrhages, necrosis of the kidneys, and shock)35. In addition, endotoxemia is associated with low-grade chronic inflammation, insulin resistance and T2D13, 18, 36. In a recent human study it was demonstrated that LPS induced low-grade chronic inflammation in adipose tissue in T2D36 humans.
    LPS-TLR4 interaction and low-grade chronic inflammation
    The innate immune system is localised in the GALT. When luminal antigens pass through the intestinal barrier, they are phagocited (consumed) by dendritic cells or macrophagues, key components of the innate immune system. Dendritic cells or macrophagues recognize antigens through a family of receptors known as Toll-like receptors (TLR). The best studied and known antigens from gram negative bacteria are LPS which interact with toll-like receptors-4 (TLR4), inducing the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines and ultimately insulin resistance and T2D35. Interestingly, a recently published study demonstrated increased TLR4 expression in T2D humans, contributing to an increased inflammatory state37.
    In summary, antinutrients introduced with the agricultural revolution 10,000 years ago may be one of the causal factors in the epidemic of obesity, (as well as T2D) in Western countries. Lectins, saponins and gliadin increase intestinal permeability and allow increased passage of gut bacteria from intestinal lumen to peripheral circulation. LPS - an antigen found in gram-negative bacteria cell membranes - interacts with TLR-4, leading to inflammatory cytokine production and low-grade chronic inflammation, which is at the root of insulin resistance. Insulin resistance is recognised to induce the metabolic syndrome, including T2D. Endotoxemia-induced insulin resistance in T2D patients may be exacerbated, in part, by antinutrients.
    References:
    So there are people who eat grains and it doesn't kill them, that means nothing. Humans should be a lot healthier and more vital than they are and it starts with eating good food. These "healthy" grain-eating cultures are only ostensibly healthy in comparison to french fries and fried chicken loving westerners. Neither is particularly impressive.
    Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

    Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

  7. #17
    xendaddy's Avatar
    xendaddy is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Front Range of Colorado
    Posts
    63
    I think what is represented in this forum are those whose ancestors are not as well adapted to the modern diet as other groups. My ancestors were Scottish, French Canadian, Iroquois and German. That means I have a lot of Viking in me. Vikings ate mostly fish, particularly dried cod. The Scots also ate a lot of fish (herring and cod) and organ meats. The Scots also ate lots of oats. My French Canadian ancestors were trappers. They lived off the land from the 1600s to the middle of the 19th century. Some grains, but not a ton. And the Iroquois definitely did not have refined grains or dairy in their diet.

    Is it any wonder that I got so big so fast eating processed grains, dairy and sugars? As I was gaining weight, I wasn't sitting on the couch stuffing my face with Cheetos. I was active and busy. I have three kids, so I never sit for long. However, my body was not processing food as it should. It was storing all the "healthy" stuff as fat, no matter what I did. My body was over-sensitive insulin, and as a result, I got really fat.

    It was when I realized that obesity is a disease of too much insulin, not too many calories, that I finally started to see results. I saw how sensitive I, and almost all the members of my family going back two or three generations, were to insulin. I eliminated insulin-generating foods and lost tons of weight. My dad did the same thing, as well as my mother. My sister and brother are seeing results, too. We share the same ancestry, and we see the same results.

    So, yes, ancestry has a lot to do with how diet affects a person. Selective pressures have a huge affect. A large portion of my ancestors didn't have ready access to cereals and dairy, so they didn't adapt as well as others. As a result, I haven't adapted. I'm sure that's the case for many people in this forum.

    We in this forum have figured out the key to our diets by looking at our ancestors, and now we are getting healthy as a result.

  8. #18
    Kev's Avatar
    Kev
    Kev is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,164
    Quote Originally Posted by FDgreen View Post
    My theory: Most people on this site are not representative of the human population as a whole, and are instead much more sensitive and/or allergic to gluten, dairy, etc.

    People on here always claim that evolution requires "10,000 years" and use that as a justification why grains, even gluten free grains, and dairy, nightshades, etc. are "bad" for people -- because we haven't evolved to eat them.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/sc...me&ref=general


    Oops, looks like evolution happens a lot faster than 10,000 years. There goes that idea. Looks like "Primal CW" to me.
    OK, so if it is not grains, and dairy, vegetable oils, factory farmed meats and all the other things we talk about around here could you please explain why homo sapiens as a whole are getting fatter and fatter each year?

    What is your explanation of the Obesity epidemic? http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactiv...ts/obesity/en/
    What is the environmental factor that is making obesity so common, and what is the evolutionary advantage to obesity?

    The Primal Blueprint may not have all the answers, I for one would be really interested in reading more about your insights.
    Strive for healthy today.

    Satisfaction is the death of desire.

  9. #19
    myles456's Avatar
    myles456 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Hendersonville, NC
    Posts
    15
    One thing many people around here seem to forget or misunderstand, is that evolution doesn't necessarily have to involve the least adapted organisms dying. Many in this community think evolution has stopped because the weakest members of our Western civilization don't die anymore. But the truth is that although the weak do often die in most species, the "direction" the species takes evolutionarily depends on the best-adapted of a population. For example, trees aren't tall because the shortest ones die, they're tall because the tallest ones survive better than average by having better access to sunlight (energy).

    To apply this to humans, we are probably evolving to handle grains, dairy, etc. and have been doing so since starting to consume such things. Just because they don't kill us, doesn't mean we can't adapt to utilize them as a food source.

    If evolution was as you claim, how can birds, rodents, insects and other natural grain eaters do so well on grains? Every species that eats grains has not always eaten them. Plants in the family Poaceae only evolved between 65 and 55 million years ago. This includes all grasses, bamboo, grains, and reeds. These animals have adapted (quite well in the case of birds) to a diet at least including some grains, with no ill effects. In fact, they are healthier than most domesticated animals and humans.

    Now, I am not trying to say that we are birds or mice, but the same logic applies to us. 5 million years ago, we were entirely vegetarian. Since some time around 2 million years ago, we have added more and more meat to our diet. Now, as we can tell (especially us primals) we are very well-adapted to eating meat. Keep in mind that this is much longer than the 10000 years since agriculture began, but it is still an extremely small period of geological time. There is NO reason to say that humans have "stopped evolving". I am quite certain that if you were to give us a few million years, we could possibly eat SAD and be much healthier than we are now.

    I am not saying that I am going to eat grains for the good of the species, and I don't advise that to anyone else. It is true that the primal diet is the one we are currently best adapted for. But it is ridiculous to say that humans have stopped being naturally selected, to say nothing of other forms of evolution. Evolution is not driven by death of the unfittest, but survival of the fittest. No one has to die of eating grains before reaching reproductive age in order for us to adapt to them. It only takes someone with an adaptive mutation that helps them survive on grains better than the rest of us. That is what drives evolution. Keep in mind that aforementioned mutation will likely be minuscule and unnoticeable, even after decades of such mutations accumulating. But even the smallest benefit from a mutation will be selected for, and with almost 7 billion people in our gene pool, evolution is likely to be quicker than it has been historically, both in terms of a "positive direction" driven by natural selection, and random genetic drift.

  10. #20
    john_e_turner_ii's Avatar
    john_e_turner_ii is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Flower Mound, Texas
    Posts
    2,085
    All I know is that squirrels have a long way to go before they evolve with enough intelligence to not get hit by cars. You would think that at least one of them would survive and spread the word to look both ways first. Craziness!

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •