What food is “natural” for humans?

[anonymous-user]

grumbledoak said:

I think you are assuming a lot about the "ages we live to" and "being a burden". The evidence from paleoanthropology and modern hunter gatherers is that - if not killed - they enjoyed good health into old age. All our degenerations of "old age" and our "diseases of civilisation" - hunter gatherers didn't get them. They arrived with agriculture.

You can never know if HG got cancer as well as other diet diseases. You can’t really distil 2 million years of diet into this eden paradise that caused no ill, it is all massive conjecture.

A lot of our current issues our down to a very small gene pool bottleneck, most likely from either an single mass genocide event or low population numbers over a very long time or other cause.

[anonymous-user]

not cancer though.

You have to remember the sample sizes are very small as well.

Been reading this very interesting aerticle about the Evolution of the human lifespan and diseases of aging: Roles of infection, inflammation, and nutrition.'

https://www.pnas.org/content/107/suppl_1/1718

For example the gene the apolipoprotein E (ApoE) alleles, apoE4,

''allele shortens lifespan by several years and accelerates degenerative changes in arteries and brain (2, 99, 100, 103, 104). ApoE4 carriers have modestly higher total blood cholesterol, more oxidized blood lipids, and greater risk of coronary heart disease (ca. 40%) and Alzheimer’s disease (depending on the population, E4/E4 homozygotes have >10-fold excess risk). ApoE4 carriers also have worse outcomes in traumatic brain injury and some neurological conditions''

So for these gene carriers, eating a diet in high in saturated fats would have an adverse effect on the person, they would be better off with a carb diet, high GI. Might lose weight but would be damaging their heath.

This why there is no simple blanket approach to which diets work. As much as certain fad diets are put as the saviour, they may work for some and not for others. We have various gene mutations that favour certain things.

Edited by Thesprucegoose on Wednesday 11th December 21:32

[anonymous-user]

grumbledoak said:

And we did study modern hunter gatherers in North America and in Africa, and we know they don't get arthritis, or alzheimers, or diabetes, or heart disease.

That bks. Take certain types of arthritis for example, it occurs in wild animals and is related to the bodymass. Larger animals exhibit it due to various reasons. Such that 1/4 of bears and great apes get certain types. It is directly related to genetic makeup and bodymass. A diet will have mimimal impact if you have the susceptible genes.

Edited by Thesprucegoose on Wednesday 11th December 22:05

[anonymous-user]

Kenny Powers said:

My position is that a "natural" ancestral human diet is defined by what it doesn't contain more than by what it does.

Do you eat meat with parasites as that is the natural way. Do you eat brains of animals, again that was natural way. Do you eat carrion, that was the natural way. It goes on..

The natural movement is similar to the 1970s version of the wild west, rose tinted glasses.

[anonymous-user]

Kenny Powers said:

As it happens I eat lots of raw beef and lots of raw liver. But what I eat is immaterial to the discussion, really. It’s a conversation, not a competition.

the thing is it is important what you eat is clearly you have decided what is the best option and that is what you champion. Even though we have cooked meat for at least 1 million years you have decided that it is best to eat raw, even though there is the risk of toxocariasis. which cooking takes away.
That is descion based on i guess paleo diet fad. Maybe you feel more energy etc but it makes it no worse or better than any other diet, and going back at least a million years wasn't what cavemen ate,