3 ms·

Yeah, grains are a tough one. We have to love grains as they basically helped humans take over the world! I firmly believe that without grains we wouldn't have

Yeah, grains are a tough one. We have to love grains as they basically helped humans take over the world! I firmly believe that without grains we wouldn't have 6 billion people today. That being said, I don't think eating grains is optimal for our bodies. Most of what is coming out of science today shows that we still haven't evolved to eat grains and use them very efficiently in our body. We use them, but they cause an inflammatory response and that is obviously suboptimal for overall health and nutrition. We get some nutrition out of them (nothing that we couldn't get from veggies or meat), but it also damages at the same time...catch-22. I think of it this way: at the zoo, you see the handlers feed tigers raw meat and pandas bamboo because that is what they evolved to eat. What did we evolve to eat? Answer that question and believe you will achieve optimal health. Personally I believe what I wrote earlier is what we evolved to eat and I believe most of the science supports that.

sliverstorm 16y ago
What did we evolve to eat? In my opinion? Whatever we can manage to digest. We are omnivores, after all.
- dhimes 16y ago
  Yes, and we are enjoying the longest lifespan ever. We didn't evolve to automatically stent our arteries, but when folks with heart disease do just that they live longer. "Eat what we evolved to eat" is a romantically appealing argument but it is not logically sound. It's better than, "if you want your brains to grow properly, eat brains; after all, they have exactly the nutritionaly makeup you need," but it's still flawed in proving that a diet that was available to early humans was optimal for longevity. I admit, however, that a logically flawed argument sometimes proves to give the right answer after all, but for my money (and life!) I'm going with Western science and nutrition for the most part.
roadnottaken 16y ago
"What did we evolve to eat? Answer that question and believe you will achieve optimal health." I hate this sort of blind naturalism. We evolved to be susceptible to polio, tuberculosis, and plague and to live to ~30. Just because it's natural doesn't mean it's optimal -- science and technology can, when judiciously applied, add a lot to the quality (and length) of life. Additionally (and importantly) evolution is only a factor up until age ~30-35 (child bearing/rearing age). Evolution plays no role in protecting us from most modern afflictions (obesity, alzheimer's, cancer, etc). You can have your "evolutinoarily optimal" paleolithic diet; I'll take my chances with modernity.
- fingerprinter 16y ago
  It's called a framework for making an educated decision. Perhaps I should have said 'on your way to optimal health' as one of the largest and most controllable things in our lives is what we eat. As for 'modernism', I fail to see how knowing exactly what our body is adapted and designed to process is not useful information. Knowing this, which is the basis for knowing exactly what is optimal, you can then make a decision if that whey protein powder is good or bad for you...if creatine powder is good or bad for you...if sugar is good or bad for you... Also, I don't think ANYONE would argue that diet is the only thing that plays into health issues. Modern medicine is fantastic and has done wonderful things for our lives, but it has failed in the past 20 or so years to provide us the optimal food paradigm. Just an FYI, I eat this way, my family eats this way...my wife is a doctor..I have gotten PRP (platelet rich plasma) on my achilles (modern medicine...actually, pretty bleeding edge medicine) and we used modern methods for child birth (decreased mortality rate in child birth). Eating as we are intended to eat, and more importantly, knowing what we are intended to eat, in no way eschews modern medicine...please don't create a false dichotomy.
- tmorton 16y ago
  You've got a point, but you're going way overboard. Blind naturalism is a good first approximation for health advice, though it's obviously not an end point. Men can conceive children into their 70s, so evolution does favor long life in some cases. We still have "modern afflictions" because evolution isn't perfect, and it isn't finished, and because there are tradeoffs in the biological design. For example, resistance to malaria comes with a propensity for sickle-cell disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease)
- rue 16y ago
  > […] and to live to ~30. People used to die younger because of injuries, illnesses and poor nutrition, not because the body is only "supposed" to live for 30 years. > Additionally (and importantly) evolution is only a factor up until age ~30-35 (child bearing/rearing age). Evolution plays no role in protecting us from most modern afflictions (obesity, alzheimer's, cancer, etc). That's absolutely not true. It seems likely that older people have played an important role in society throughout, helping take care of children while the more able work, sources of wisdom &c. While evolution hasn't eliminated all diseases of the old age (because it doesn't work actively like that) longer-lived genes have provided some survival advantage.

sliverstorm 16y ago

What did we evolve to eat? In my opinion? Whatever we can manage to digest. We are omnivores, after all.

dhimes 16y ago
Yes, and we are enjoying the longest lifespan ever. We didn't evolve to automatically stent our arteries, but when folks with heart disease do just that they live longer. "Eat what we evolved to eat" is a romantically appealing argument but it is not logically sound. It's better than, "if you want your brains to grow properly, eat brains; after all, they have exactly the nutritionaly makeup you need," but it's still flawed in proving that a diet that was available to early humans was optimal for longevity. I admit, however, that a logically flawed argument sometimes proves to give the right answer after all, but for my money (and life!) I'm going with Western science and nutrition for the most part.

roadnottaken 16y ago

"What did we evolve to eat? Answer that question and believe you will achieve optimal health." I hate this sort of blind naturalism. We evolved to be susceptible to polio, tuberculosis, and plague and to live to ~30. Just because it's natural doesn't mean it's optimal -- science and technology can, when judiciously applied, add a lot to the quality (and length) of life. Additionally (and importantly) evolution is only a factor up until age ~30-35 (child bearing/rearing age). Evolution plays no role in protecting us from most modern afflictions (obesity, alzheimer's, cancer, etc). You can have your "evolutinoarily optimal" paleolithic diet; I'll take my chances with modernity.

fingerprinter 16y ago
It's called a framework for making an educated decision. Perhaps I should have said 'on your way to optimal health' as one of the largest and most controllable things in our lives is what we eat. As for 'modernism', I fail to see how knowing exactly what our body is adapted and designed to process is not useful information. Knowing this, which is the basis for knowing exactly what is optimal, you can then make a decision if that whey protein powder is good or bad for you...if creatine powder is good or bad for you...if sugar is good or bad for you... Also, I don't think ANYONE would argue that diet is the only thing that plays into health issues. Modern medicine is fantastic and has done wonderful things for our lives, but it has failed in the past 20 or so years to provide us the optimal food paradigm. Just an FYI, I eat this way, my family eats this way...my wife is a doctor..I have gotten PRP (platelet rich plasma) on my achilles (modern medicine...actually, pretty bleeding edge medicine) and we used modern methods for child birth (decreased mortality rate in child birth). Eating as we are intended to eat, and more importantly, knowing what we are intended to eat, in no way eschews modern medicine...please don't create a false dichotomy.
tmorton 16y ago
You've got a point, but you're going way overboard. Blind naturalism is a good first approximation for health advice, though it's obviously not an end point. Men can conceive children into their 70s, so evolution does favor long life in some cases. We still have "modern afflictions" because evolution isn't perfect, and it isn't finished, and because there are tradeoffs in the biological design. For example, resistance to malaria comes with a propensity for sickle-cell disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease)
rue 16y ago
> […] and to live to ~30. People used to die younger because of injuries, illnesses and poor nutrition, not because the body is only "supposed" to live for 30 years. > Additionally (and importantly) evolution is only a factor up until age ~30-35 (child bearing/rearing age). Evolution plays no role in protecting us from most modern afflictions (obesity, alzheimer's, cancer, etc). That's absolutely not true. It seems likely that older people have played an important role in society throughout, helping take care of children while the more able work, sources of wisdom &c. While evolution hasn't eliminated all diseases of the old age (because it doesn't work actively like that) longer-lived genes have provided some survival advantage.