Fat Attack: Carb Fate

[restless]

Quote[/b] (Lil Popa Pump @ Jan. 04 2003,1:18)]Re: What early man ate
This is one of my favorite quotes of 2002:
"Cavemen were not pushing their bodies toward the maximum sustainable degree of muscularity they would hold, while simultaneously attempting to take body fat to near physiological starvation levels, thus one should be inclined to question the notion that their diet is ideal for such a situation." Par Deus

Never said it was.

 

[Aaron_F]

Quote[/b] (stevie @ Jan. 04 2003,7:08)]Most dietitians go on about how we require so many carbs, but do we really need them?

Most dietitians go on about high carbs in terms of energy, a 50% carb of 2000cals is only 250g carbs. Most people eat too much in general, so 50% of a 4000kcal diet would be excessive. Anything as a percentage of energy is worthless, because it doesnt take into account energy requirements, yada yada.

Quote[/b] ]Not really. Fruit was seasonal and not available year round. Makind subsisted on the typical hunther gatherer diet, around 65 % animal, the rest veggetable, fruit, nuts, etc.. . Generally low carb, but not necessarily keto

IT hsould also be noted that the 65% animal isnt protien content, thats 65% of their energy intake came from animal sources, which worked out to around 30-35% protein, and the remainder flowing over the fat. That leaves 35% or so on carbohydrate intake. While low compared to modern diets, not too bad considering they would have been hungry 1/3 of the year.

Quote[/b] ]Heart disease didn't increase significantly until the last 100-200 years when meat became cheap and readily available

HEart disease has been around for centuries, but it wasnt until the last 120-150years that people started living long enough, and doing little enough to really bring about the epidemic. Also the epidemic of the mid 20th century can be pinpointed down to one main factor - smoking.

Quote[/b] ]I'm inclined to think that maybe the real baddie is the fatty acid content of our animal and vegetable fat

THe biggest factor of anything is inactivity. Cancer, diabetes, heart disease....smoking and eating too much dont help either.

 

[restless]

Quote[/b] (Aaron_F @ Jan. 04 2003,2:52)]IT should also be noted that the 65% animal isnt protien content, thats 65% of their energy intake came from animal sources, which worked out to around 30-35% protein, and the remainder flowing over the fat. That leaves 35% or so on carbohydrate intake. While low compared to modern diets, not too bad considering they would have been hungry 1/3 of the year.

While I agree with this, and since they ate the whole animals, a large percentage of it was also fat, but the remaining wasn't necessarily all carbs, I believe. Nut's and seeds for example also have a good amount of fat in them. Anyway, there was probably a good deal of variation from place to place.

Quote[/b] ]I've never been comfortable with some of the caveman arguments either. Heart disease didn't increase significantly until the last 100-200 years when meat became cheap and readily available. On the other hand, I can see where the proliferation of grain-based productions, dosed in partially hydrogenated oils, has caused some very nasty effects in the general health.

Interestingly, there is a documented decrease in stature and bone density as soon as animal intake droped around 10 000 years or so ago, time which the agricultural revolution took place in Asia. Of course, like Aaron said, inactivity seems to play the biggest role in everything, though they were still pretty acive, there was a big change in life style at that time.

Quote[/b] ]I'm inclined to think that maybe the real baddie is the fatty acid content of our animal and vegetable fat. Until 200 years ago, any animal we ate had significant levels of omega-3. Until 150 years ago, we didn't have margarine. Until 50 years ago, deep fried food wasn't a staple of the American diet.

This I agree. Trans and hydrogenated fatt acids, omega 3 deprivation along with inactivity are the probable culrpits of most disease. I even wonder how much of the bad rep that was given to saturated fat should have been to these factors.

 

[Aaron_F]

Quote[/b] (restless @ Jan. 04 2003,11:05)]While I agree with this, and since they ate the whole animals, a large percentage of it was also fat, but the remaining wasn't necessarily all carbs, I believe. Nut's and seeds for example also have a good amount of fat in them. Anyway, there was probably a good deal of variation from place to place.

not from what I have seen from cordain and the likes.

Quote[/b] ]Interestingly, there is a documented decrease in stature and bone density as soon as animal intake droped around 10 000 years or so ago, time which the agricultural revolution took place in Asia

Strange, when the europeans first came to polynesia (polys are decended from asains), they thought the polys were giants, becasue the british were so short.
THe natural diet of polynesians was high carbs (and huge fibre intake) fish/shellfish, rat etc.
THe british diet around that time was higher carb, high fat, red meats, with hte nobles eating more garbage than the poor of course. Sugar was also making a big hit around this time.

Quote[/b] ]This I agree. Trans and hydrogenated fatt acids, omega 3 deprivation along with inactivity are the probable culrpits of most disease. I even wonder how much of the bad rep that was given to saturated fat should have been to these factors.

THe main ones that keep comming back up againa and again is saturated fat, fruit/vege intake, maintaining good weight and activity.
here goes one table from a cancer epidemiology paper in Nature